The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1994 09 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REG~ MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, loc Scott, Nancy Mancino and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Serf Farmak~ STAFF PRES~: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director;, Shnrrnin Al-laff, Planner 1I; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer (Nancy Mancino removed herself from the Planning Commi.~ion for the first two it~ns on the agenda due to conffict of in~) REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED R_R~ RURAl. Ri~qmE_NTI~I~ TQ RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII.y~ PRI~.I,IM1NARY PLAT TQ S~BDIVIT~E 97,99- ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMII,Y LOTS AND A WETI,AND AI.TI~_.RATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GAI,PIN BOULF. VARI~ AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION~ 6730 GAI.PIN BOUI._F. VARI)~ ED AND MARY RYAN~ SHAMROCK RIDGE; Public Present: Name Addre~___ David SU'uyk David Stockdale Martin Gustafson Lynn Rothberger Chuck Plowe Frank Kelly Sam & Nancy Mancino Charles IL Stinson Clarke Nickolson Eric M. Rivkin Mark Williams Peter A. Davis Debbi & Neal Wunderlick Serome Carlson 1941 Cres~w Circle 7210 Galpin Blvd. ' 6691 Galpin Blvd. 6681 Oalpin Blvd. 2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park 351 2nd Street, Excelsior 6620 Galpin Blvd. Arc~ Minnetonlra 20510'e.~tview Drive 1695 8teller Court 1655 Lake Lucy Road ?011 Oalpin Blvd. 6950 Galpin Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on thi, item. Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Questions for staff. Ledvina: Bob, what led you to change your opinion as it related to the Lake Lucy ali~t? What now makes this an acceptable proposal in terms of the alignment? Generous: It's the best we can get. Since they're not willing W go along with, the preferred development pattern would be to outlot that pwpa~ but you cannot force them to do that provided they provide us with a feasible alternative. Thi.~ way they at least leave in some of the topography whereas if they §o in and have the southern alignment, they're going to...so they can put their housing pads in and then we'll either have large retaining walls on that side or a steep slope there. Aanenson: ff I could just expand upon that. The intent was always to the. serve the natural topography as much as possible and our first choice would be to...propetty to the north....so this way we felt, at least we're getting preservation of that area by swin~ng the road to the south. Whatever you need to maintain the 3:1 sl~ that would give you the preservation area along the northern boundary...So if they would be wi~ing to wait until that did change, that would be the best way to do that but we can't force the issue. Generous: And we couldn't persuade them. Ledvina: Okay, thank you. Scott: I'm just taking a look at some of the prelimina~ grading plan and my big concern is we just had sent on a bluff protection ordinance and from visiting the site and from viewing this, it appears to me that there are some steep grades that fall within our bluff ordinance here and that's, I didn't go out and meaisurc them but I'm going to need sometx~y to tell me that they have been meamn~ and they don't, the bluff ordinance does not apply to the nartherly section of this property. Gene~us: I did a cursory review. I did not measure all of it and at least the places where I...it didn't meet the...It has the elevation change but not the sl~. Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Would the at~plic, mt or their representative wish to make some comments? If yes, please identify yourself and give us your name and your Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and I'm the owner-developer of the pr~ert~. And my wife Mary. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. I had an accident on my property which I'm recovering from now and that's why I missed the last meeting so I apologize for that. Mary Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 and I have taken great care in developing our ~. I mean we've been in C~maha~en for many years. We appreciate our property very much. And in working with ~aff and suggestions from our neighbors, during this whole process we've been focusing on a number of issues when we put our plans together, which have been revised many times~ Tree preservation has always been a concern of our's, especially up along the north line. We have, from the original proposal that we had a few weeks ago, we have ~ the road ~ificant to the south to accommodate those grades and the sloping of the road. We've also in our proposal have tried to preserve the wetlands to the south~ That whole wetland in there is a natu~ wetland and by having the road to the north we don't do any distur~ of that roadway during the building process or the grs_tting process so wo felt that was i~t. We have large lot sizes and we tried to t~serve the rolling topography of our property. It's a beautiful piece. Mr. Chair, I think you've seen it. It's very pretty, roiling type farm acreage. It has significant lxees to the north and it has trees, si..~ni~icant concentration of trees in front of our property which we have ~ecL We've also Ixied to take into account how Laim Lucy current is. This is going to be an extension of Lake Lucy and if you drive Lake Lucy from Powers to Galpin, you'll notice how that road curves and winds sort of gently and ~. it roils with the topography. It's not flat. It's not straight. That lcinrl of roadway would be I think a disturbance to the neighborhood so I think this plan accommodates that. As the staff has outlined, they would recommend approval of our plat, which would include the northern alignment if we would agree to all their recommendations. Chuck, our engineer, will be addressing some of those issues after I speak and we have met those or in the process of meeting all of those conditions. Still though we find that there is I think some general confusion regarding this whole city original feasibility study. And I think through the process that we've gone through, we ~ that the original feasi~ty study that was addressed, it ta]ms on a different light. The study was pv~ared by Bill F~ngelhardt, as you know, and he's an independent consultant. An engineer that was asked to design a roadway from TH 41 to the touchdown spot where Lake Lucy is now. That's what he was asked to do. Now Bill was not charged with developing a developable plan for the weslm~ ~ or for our property. He wasn't asked to do that. He was asked to find a way to connect these two. And he did so, and he did a fine job. However, as the ~ plat developed, this alignment changed and the reason it changed is because ownership changed with that weslm~ section. And so the road had to be configured. Had to be changed. There were some modifications there. The original feasibility study was reviewed by the City Council on Sune 13th. And at that meeting the sole southern alignment proposed for the property was changed to include the northern alignment. This was called the suppl~~ feasibility study. That's what was approved by the City Council At the Council meeting the city approved the study. Not the original feasibility study which showed a n~d~'m route and a southern route. And it outlotted the eastern section of the weslm'n development so that, in theft words, this will give maximum flexibility to the Ryans when their property would come to be platUxt. This is the hi.~tory of that feasibility study. I'm sure Bill did a fine job but he did not have a Planning Commission Meeting - September ?, 1994 developrnent in mind. He couldn't have. And we have. And with that development we've taken input from staff and our neighbors and other input to try to nccommodate and make it a please, able plat and a nice development. Chuck, our en~neer will share with you why the northern ali~t is preferred. We feel it's prefeared. And let me turn the podium over to him. Scott: Okay, thank you. Chuck Plow~: Mr. Chair, f~llow ngmlgrs of tig Commission, my name is Chuck Plowe and I'm the project engineer for Shamrock here representing Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Do you want this just out front? Scott: I think you put that fight in front of the podium or over to the side. Chuck Plowe: Allow me ~o hand out something that I jotted down in writing in regards to the reasons for the alignment that we prefer. Anyone else that wants copies, you're welcome to grab one. I think most of this has been covered in some fashion or another in this report but let me just reiterate a little bit, and basically I've put down something in writing that I believe I've stated...That southerly alignment we feel is not the appr~ location for the following reasons...Filling of the wetland will occur. The trees along the north, on the north property line will not be preserved. The final lot con~guration, as you see these red lines on this particular plan here, which show Lake Lucy Road to the south, is less pleasing for the residential development within the community of Chanhassen. The reddents would not enjoy the view of their backynnis abutting the. .. weflands, and I think that's irrsportant. For the community I think it's important. The proposed northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road, which is underlined here, will preserve the trees along the north and also will not hnpact the wetland in any way. And we've met all the staff conditions for their approval of the northerly route with the exception of a couple things Bob has mentioned that we need to look at a couple items as he has indicated tonight. But let me fln'ther go into this item with Lalm Lucy Road to the south. I've drawn a line, you can see here. I call it Section DD. What I've done is along that line I'm showing on another drawing the existing ground line and the final ground line after development with the elevation of Lake Lucy Road being approximately like what staff had indicated in their report that it would be if it were along the southerly mute. Existing ground line is the blue line. And proposed ground line is the, I call it the orange line. The botwm of the hill, being wetland area down here. Top of the hill being the treed area up here. Generally what happens here is we do encroach into the wetland with the roadway. But to consm~ a roadway with Lak~ Lucy Road being there, there's definitely going to be some t511 into the wetland. In fact I shot/eh the boulevard up to 10 feet and there's still fill inW the wetland. With 3:1 dope, which is... At the other end where we come up the hill with the lots, I've tried to show you, again to kind of give you a Phnning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 physical feel for where things are. This is the center of the cul-de-sac street. The curb would be about here and then the fight-of-way, front yard lot line and then the approximate location of the house pad. And then the back yard with the 3:1 slope. As you can see, it extends up into the trees and it probably would be much worse than what I've even shown because I haven't really given that...back yards at all It just immed_ i~tely starts going up to the Irees. So this is, I'm trying to demonswate to you in a more physical view, other than us just talking about it, how this fits. Sco~ Can I ask you a question? On the, you see where the tree line is. And the existing, it appears to me that you're planning on grading into the trees on the north side of the property. Is that, or am I reading that inc~y? Chuck Plowe: Here? Chuck Plowe: That would be ~ In order to avoid that we would have to raise this street up, fill into the wetland further. Some things would have to give someplace. Because we're using our maximum slopes at both ends. Thi~ is going to probably require retaining · walls to even do this. So I'm looking at a combination of retaining walls and going into the trees with the grading because we're probably going across the property lines into the property, although I haven't shown the property line on here. It's appwxima~ly right there. I guess that's about it. This is the lree line that I'm trying to show you there. The property line's not §oing to...and it continues to rise. Any more questions on this7 Scott: No. Chuck Plowe: This is the northerly aligmr~nt which is the plan that I changed or resubmitted just before the last week. And we did do some curvature of the sueet to try and align it better with the future road that would connect it down here. As Bob indicated, it needs to be curved a little more than what we've shown it and I've discussed it with Dave. There is flexibility to do that. We didn't do a detailed study of exactly how everything hooked together but we did start curving it where before it was suaight. This lot is large enough where we can do this. When I compare it to the one we just looked at, I've drawn a line through the cul-de-sac again. Generally falling the san~ location. Showing existing ground lines and proposed. Again the wetland is at the bottom of the hill. Trees up here. We are able to extend a cul-de-sac here. Lake Lucy Road up on the hill_, We are able to maintain actually from the curb...to where we begin our 3:1 slope, we're 110 feet so we do have a pretty nice lot and we do not encroach into the wetland with the bottom of the slope. We don't impact the wetland with any fill. And again on this end we're not encroaching into the Planning Commission M~cing - Sq~'ml~r 7, 1994 trees as well. Now as Bob indicated, there was a problem with _this that didn't quite fit. As I undersland you were saying there was still some problems here. Can I ask what those are? I guess what maybe you're getting at was that the boulevard wasn't the full 20 feet or 21 feet here. Okay. And that's true. I have about a 12 foot boulevard which allows...a trail if it has to be on that side. But this street will meet Staie Aid slandard~ I did discuss with Dave the possibility of having the trail on the other side and that was a possibility and I think it would, appropriate decisions do that because when we're dealing with this_ kind of lenain and this kind of design, why not put it where there's less resistance. Why not go with the flow but in trying to put it up here would certainly be mare difficult than putting it on the other side. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when we compared the two, the north to the south, this is the environmentally favorable plan. I guess I can say it all I want but I was hoping I could show you. I don't know whether there's any real need to go into the items that Bob mentioned but we do have two pipes discharging into _this pond here as we indicated and staff, we can combine those into one discharge pipe. That's not a problem. A 4:1 slope getting from the cul-de-sac down to the access there, would simply be a matter of adjusting a couple...here so there's plenty of lining up from top to bottom to achieve a 4:1 slope and that's not a problem either. We've had, as you can see, gone along with a private drive in lieu of the lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that...and the lots are not going to be impacted doing it that way. As a matter of fact, Lot 14 is better than it was before as far as the grading's concerned. We eliminated some retaining walls which were difficult to fit a pad on that lot...because it was a driveway coming off of Lake Lucy Road in the back yard...and difficult to work with. We've now eliminaied the retaining wall so it's much better in that respect so Lot 14 actually become a more viable lot. That was my comments unless someone else had a question. Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chair. Under staff recommendations related to eliminating veways onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess how were we going in do that for Lots 4, 15 and 6 that you rehbeled on, what block is that? Oh, just that area that you were talking about. Where does the private drive come from? Chuck Plowe: We are now extending, rather than having a od-de-sac in here, we've been asked to extend the street for the future exten~on to the north. So we've done that and that actually made it a little easier for us to do what staff is asking us to look at. And so what we are proposing is to weave the driveway through the 130 feet of lots. Whatever that is. Led~: Oh, that didn't show up very well on my plan. Chuck Howe: It is hard to see. Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: Yes. Chuck Plowe: That, in most cases, is not fixed by any _nwans. It would be...minimum mount of trees...That's what would happen there. This is only a conozpt. Ledvina: But that represents about the only altrmative for accessing those 3 lots then, is that ri~t? Chuck Howe: In lieu of going onto Lake Lucy Road. That was felt that that was a better option... Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments? Excuse me sir, are you a member of the applicant t~-n? Frank Kelly: Yes. Cmod evening. My name is Frank Kelly. I'm the attorney for the devcl~. First of all I wish to thank the/mmbers of your planning stuff for working with .. us in trying to find solutions for thc problems with this development. This is very compl~ and there's many problems connected with it and we appreciate thc efforts that they have given us. We feel that we are ready to accept, and will accept all the suggestions and recommendations as set out by the Planning Department as shown on page 4 as well as the additional ones that were called to our attention, at our last meeting. And by accepting those recommendations, the planner indicates that...conditions would ma~ the applicant's proposal acceptable. Now we're not asking for any variallces ol' changes or special privileges in platting the property. .. of the city ordinance and in so doing, the plat, as far as ~ planner is concerned, would be acceptable to the plat. And if there are any required changes which the Planning Deparm~nt deems necessary during the course of devel~t of the plat, we certainly will be working with thern...to meet those and will meet those, whatever... However, we do ask that you consider this plat and make your recommendation on the plat to the Council favorably. There's nothing more that we can do than meet the requirements as recommended by the Planning Deparm~nt, and we have done that. We only ask that you approve it subject to those recomnvmdations. Without any reservation whatsoever. Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the app~t? This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public heaFin~ Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opemd. Planning Commission Meeting - September '7, 1994 Scott: Can I see a show of hands for people who have come to speak at this particular public hearing7 Okay, great. Step up. Identify yourself. Name and address and we'd like to hear your comments. Sam Man~o: Sam Mancino, 6620 Oalpin BlvcL We are the neighbors immediately to the north. I'd like to make a couple of comments...whichever way the plan is finally recommended. The first point has to do with the fact that with the gradin§ here there are only a very few numi~ of Irees being preserved the way it's presently situation. There is a recommeodation for a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the north property line. I want to just clarify that that is to be a 30 foot from the northern property line extending south for the full width, east to west, on that property line. The request that we would have is that any private drive that is intended to service the other lots, does not encroach on that...whether that is...right-of-way for that private drive. Second point I'd like to raise is that we've been advised by a consulting en~neer that a utility hook-up will be necess~ to service our property if we ever choose to develop it, which we don't at this pm'ticu~ time. The easterly portion that will be shown as a right-of-way and utility hook-up will serve the eastern portion of our property as well but our western edge there is a requLrement for another utility hook-up to avoid trenching the center of the ravine that goes through our property. We're told there are other ways to be able to do that but we haven't had a formaL.survey but we're requesting that. Perhaps Dave, you could help clarify whether that would be feasible. Hempel: The plan before you this evening show a street and utility extension over the eastern portion of the Mancino parcel with the extension of Jennifer Way. The Mancino parcel does have a high point at right about Lot 6 there's a high mound. Then it starts to gradually break off thcre...westerly boundary of the development. The existing ravine takes storm water drainage across thc north, right to the west of _this development. Actually...development and that area there is thc low point of the neighborhood. And we envision seeing extension of storm sewer along the ravine area and possibly sanitary sewer to service the adjacent parcel to the north. The Mancino parcel also will be serviced from the future sewer and water line provided in the suMivim'on before you here tonight called Brendon Ponds, which is the westerly portion of this site. We're providing at this time 2 out of the 3, what we believe are utility service connection points. Ledvina: Dave, with this development then, are we providing that western utility stub? I don't see it here. Hempel: No we are not. We're providing an easterly connection. At this point we believe the appropriate time and place would be with the future development of the outlot that you'll see on the next subdivision called Brendon Ponds. At that time that parcel develops, that would be extended northerly. Plmming Oommission M~ing - $~tmml~a- ?, 1994 Ledvina: So when that develops, that should provide adequate utility service that's needed here for this portion of the Mancino property7 Hempel: That's correct Sam Mancino: The issue, again we're not engineers but whether you trench through the middle of a wetland...or whether you tak~ it off of another area that wouldn't viohtte that ravine quite so badly...The third technical point that we'd ~ to question is that the future potential for mad connection, which will also serve to be our utility hook-up, which I believe comes in through Jennifer Way, will termln_n_te_, at the edge of their private drive and will not be paved completely up to the edge. ds that correct at this point7 Hempel: That's our intent as long as we extend the street service from the edge of that 30 foot easement at this point and leave the option open. Whether to extend that su'eet in the future...or connect a street to service that. Jot and private driveway. Provide both options. Sam Mancino: A couple of other poinm One, moving the road 60 feet-south from where it. was originally intended. 60 feet from the 30 foot tree easement. We understand but don't beli~e it will hold 3:1 slopes and be able to do what was originally intended, which is to provide the wad bed, the right-of-way and a trail system. And I guess the question of the trail system is that as this area develops, more kids are there. Their natural route would be to the north to the school and to put that roadway to the south would probably require to cross a major collector mad. So that's a point that we would like to have considered because it bears on the grading and the setbacks...There was a request by staff for some phmting of sumac nad geoding of the graded prope~. I gueg8 in addition to that we would request, because I'm not sure how effective this seeding would be or how quickly that will take root. The sumac will be a very good idea but we'd ~ to request some spruce and other conifers near the top of the slope to hold the soil. Also to be able to, there's a sound and visual buffer...Those are really the technical points I think that we'd ~ to mention at this time. I think there are some broader questions that we have. The thing that seems to be driving this development is the density. The need to get ns many lots ns possible and more density seems to get more grading and we don't believe th~ the intent of the comprehensive plan probably took into account average situations. Didn't pnrticu~ly take into account this topographical simation- I don't believe that this has the creativity applied to it to develop it to the sensitivity of the rest of the land. Another global, broader point is that we'd like to see Planning Commission recommend to City Council, in light of the devel~t that we're going to see in this area, particularly with this development, with the Gestach-Paulson, a noise and construction activity limitation that limits it to weekdays so that there would be no noise generated weelam~. That could either the form of an ordinance or ns a development contract because that would be good for all of the neighbors. I think that I'd ~ to invite our archit~--t to help us do Planning Commission Meeting - Sepmm~ 7, 1994 some thinking about this. Charles Stinson to address some of the things that we've seen at this presentation by their engine~r. Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Chiles Stinson. I'm the architect working with the Mancino's. I specialize in custom homes on unique property and I get involved with some land planning on certain properties that, in which we're trying to save the trees and respond to the topography. I wonder if I could use the, your demonstration board for a minute. Sust to clariS. I _think Sam commented, covered ev~thing about techni~y prel~ well as far as the trying to keep the 30 foot preservation zone from the top and in doing so, and what~wer we have on private drives here skate off of that zone because right now as private drives, if they went over it, would wipe out ail the trees in that area, which would ~ that this ~ would have to come down bis last lot. I guess Lot 1. I guess the other thing, just trying to clarify, and this is aside from that projecc This being a guy that tries ~o save the natural topography whenever I can. Just to clarify the study that wes shown as the bad alternative here I think the, what the city was actually recomme~ling or the staff wes that I think the southerly drive came up just a little bit higher so it wouldn't be quite as steep as this. And I think in showing this process here, I think ff the road was a little bit over here, as they proposed, the grs_ding wouldn't be quite so steep going down to the ~ There would be some fill here but I think this whole cut is just based on if there's a cul-de-sac going up there. If you're u3ring to put a road out there, then you're digging out the whole site but I think there's perhaps a whole nother option there that if we could save all that, save that and do some filling where the roadwozk is here, then I'm just curious if the owners, dcvelotx~ and the engineer considered the fact that the possibility, ff a road went on the southern area and you left all the wetlands the way we have and then at that point we perhaps this cul-de-sac came over this way to service the homes around here and then the private drives just went to the remainder of the out parcel and then leaving the natural topography and the views without g~g into anything, was that one of the studies7 Ed Ryan(7): Not that I'm aware of. Chuck Plowe: Let me, I couldn't see exactly what you were just. Charles Stinson: Okay. Well, and maybe I'll go to thc, some of the concern, on the plan that's proposed fight now, there is a cut here which is substan~ and pretty substan~ going up to the trees. Does this show your property line or is this the property line? Chuck Plowe: This is thc property line here. Charles Stinson: Okay. So you're saving the first 30 feet and then dropping down from there? lO Planning Commission Meeting - Sept~nber 7, 1994 Chuck Plowc: Yes. Charles Stinson: So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The fill that we're talking about is tmrhaps 8 feet high~ than the g~iling. About 20 feet of that would occur here? Chuck Plowe: At thc maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the wetland...11 feet which is about where the road grade is when you... Charles Stinson: So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about 20 feeL.. I guess the thought I had was, and I'm not ~g for the Mancino's but I'm just on my own here. Thinking about the environment If the mad went to the south, kind of curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, wonld it be possible to take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of fill at this point but just m~ng this cul-de-sac over, feeding the lots h~re, ~ h~re and here and then just have a private drive go ia to more homes over lm~. Wouldn't that give you preay close to your density or if this perha~ rnak~ a few more valuable because th~ such views? Chuck Plowe: Well I think we avoid private drives as much as posaible...and that's a totally different concept than what we're Ioolcing at. If we did go along with private drives and eliminate the frontage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a matter of fact, we went throu~ them with stuff. We showed how they wouldn't work. Taking the road up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just didn't work out. Charles Stinson: Okay that, again I guess most of the developmeam I get I end up doing private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many communities are getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography. More of the natural grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low, there would be very little gro_ding going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and the cul-de-sac coming here and private drives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private drives and I'm not sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite stu~essfully and ff anybody's interested, I guess...there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetollka that I did with Streeter and Associates and it has worked out quite well And that's it. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Eric Rivkin: Hi. My name is Eric Rividn~ 609~ Sl~ler Court. I'm about, I don't know, 1,000 yards east of the property and I look out onto it into the sunset. Beautiful sunset. It sets over the bills that they want to mice down 80 feet or whal~.,ver. And I also am not opposed to the development but I think that it could, the Ryans could have maybe hired this wonderful arc~ here as an adjunct to their ~ this planning lr~un because I don't think it has enough regard for the natural landforms and I'm opposed to the massive earth moving. I like you to favor the alignment for the road to the south. I think it should, I agree with them completely that the road could meander up a little ways so it isn't so slraight but I don't think the plan has got, I don't think the plan's compatible with the surrounding developments. Lake Lucy Commons and these other large esta~ which have gone to great ~ in the community to rnainutin natural landforms and preserve f~ areas, open spaces and wetlands. I think this is a butchering of the land, just plain and simple and I think much more sensitivity needs to be applied here. If they have to go back to the drawing board, I think maybe they should employ on their lr~am an environmental designer because we have city codes that in my opinion, and I think maybe your opinion, would require them to meet these philosophies and I was one of the people that helped develop the comprehensive plan 5 years ago to try and get laws that would prese~e, prevent this kind of thing from happening. The area between TH 41 and Galpin is a recognized natural resource corridor for wildlife who regularly lravel in all seasons of the year between two great naturally preserved areas. Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. And we all enjoy that in this northern part of Chanhassen and we want to see that preserved. I represent, as a Co-~ of the Lak~ Lucy Homeowners Association and we enjoy wi~Olice. We have osprey. We have bald eagles. We have great blue herons. All kinds of wildlife. Fox and even an occasional, the DNR said a cougar. But anyway there's no naunal corridor between these planned in this development and it will be too greatly disturlx~ and devastating. I don't think any authorization should be given to this development that destroys the natural features of land, be it corridor, wetlands, wildlife habitat or vegetation lowland form. I thlnir the developer should be required to propose and concept to a plan which meets the city codes and protection of environmental features and relates to the sit~'s natural resource~ And above all gets respect as to the existing development ~ set in the community. I favor those...lot sizes. I think that their, the access allm'native from the north or this long private drive, I think it's a good alternative to con~id__er to preserve that hillside, the top. I don't think it nee~ to be destroyed... I was at the top of that hill last night. I wsliced the sit~ with the Mancino's and I don't think that there is any economical hardship in doing that. I would result in a lot less grading problems and if you look at Fox Hollow, there's plenty of examples of tuck under houses on top of hills that sell for a haft a million dollars that have spectacular views of the Lotus Lake area. Here you can see 2 miles from the top of that hill: It's one of the highest points in Chanhassen...and it's absolutely magnificent and I don't think they'll have any problem with maybe even cutting down the lot density up there just to preserve that and get their money of the property. The trail system. I paid $660.00 for a trail 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 s~ which I don't have and I expec~ with the Lak~ Lucy ~on to have a really nice m~il, a real trail. Not a sidewalk on a street and not a sidewalk, but a real trail through natural area like they have in Minn~wnka. Anderson Lakes and in $onathan where people will walk in peace and harmony with nature. Enjoy the wilrlllf-e and everything. It's much more an amenity ~o the community and will inamse the lot values I think considerably if they do that approach rather than just blow it off as an ~ought- I think that by aligning the Lake Lucy Road to winding around the southern portion gives it more oppatmnity to connect with the property to the west Also for this conidor to, the trail syslem connect up with Lake Minnewashta would be perfect. So you could have spots to enjoy the wi!aliCe areas which would be given to the public as conservation easements and sell this thing with the natural corridors and sell this thing with the trail system that people want and I think it would satis~ the community and needs and wants and ~ for this that we've been having for years...at this podium many times complaining about. Let's see. Trees. I don't know what kind of tree planting program they have but I think it's pretty clear in the code that we should have a restoration that should have native species only that is native to this area. I don't mean Douglas fir or Colorado spruce and things that are not suitable for the soil and...conditions. If there are, and I don't mean ~ army landscaping where you've got just rows and rows of sumac but take the groves of trees and replant them and restore these to the Iree cover. One question that I have for the developer, and the en,~neer. Is there any drainage intended to go east of Lake Lucy Road from there? Either under the road or over the road. Or excuse me, Galpin. Chuck Howe: Yes, to the Lake Lucy warn'shed... Eric Rivkin: Is there the surface area of water area, is there estimn__te.s of how much surface wal~' there ~..to the Lake Lucy warn'shed? Is it exis g? Plans for existing or go beyond Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. The applicant's original design...the city is in the process of adopting the Surface Water Management Program which will provide city wide comprehensive storm drainage which has water quality...to preserve wetland areas as a comprehensive plan. We're trying to implement that plan with this ponding. This is the first year that we're implemen~g this program and this development is providing swrm water quality basins to treat storm water runoff and will ~ discharge the water underneath County Road 117 to Galpin Blvd to drain towards Lake Lucy basin area, The volume of water will increase the velocity of water but will not restrict the impact to the culvert underneath Galpin Blvd, Potentially the~ will be a trunk storm sewer system from Galpin down to Lake Lucy with the remaining pnrt-,, 13 Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~ 7, 1994 Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'd like. to propose, I have a map that shows the walm'shed to Lake Lucy, okay. Can I put that up? Scott: Sure, go ah~acL Eric Rivkin: ...I want to show the en~ncer first This shows the Lake Lucy wa~ area. This is Galpin Road fight here, CR 117. This is all the... Aanenson: I really think the questions are best direct~l to our en~neer. Eric Rividn: Okay, this is Lake Harrison- There's Galpin Blvd here. You could pass this map around while I'm talking. The point I'm trying to make here is that, the western part of Lake Lucy Highlands development runs into wetlands which are on my ~ and Prince's ~ and Class A wetlands and they're very sensitive. They've got rare plants in there. There's already a sedinmntation problem now where the culvert is overflowing with sedim~ts from the existing driveways and s~x~-~rs, whatever, sand you know from salting and sm/T, and I want, as a representative of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, we would like to have a condition that prevents any additional water runoff from this development inW the Lake Lucy watershed. You have plenty of mitigation area planned for this development and I think every bit of this water is going to can'y pollutants from fertilizers from lawns and the nutrient runoff from development which is §oin§ to pollute the wetlands like you wouldn't believe. It's already over loaded. The culvert every spring, which is always full and has not been cleaned out by the city as it should have been and...s~ water management program and the conditions of the development, the S~ller Court development which was passed in 1986. There's not supposed to be an increase more than 2 tons of sexiiment corning out of that culvert and I'm going to make sure that that is upheld. I don't think that engineering wise it's §oing to work by having any additional runoff, other than what is naturally ocomiug right now. And what is going off right now, even though there's feriiliT~rs fi'om the farms that are farming now, it is filtered by din and plants and vegetative mare/al. If you're adding street runoff and we all know that that stuff is highly polluting s_nd I do not want to see any more water coming from this development inw the Lake Lucy Watershed. We've already got enough stress as it is. The Walker Ponds over at W'fllow Ridge do not work because you do not have natural vegetative areas surrounding the wetlands. Tine storm waim' just ran through the holding pond and then overflowed right into that big pond by Lake Lucy Road. And then into the Lake Lucy through an outlet through a mass/ve 10 acre wetland and still caused algae growth. That's how much pollution there was from the devel~t and it's still going on today. So I _think it needs to be taken from a preventive stance and I reconunend that no water or all the water in that development stay there and be dealt with and conclusively. Another thing about the wetlands, the ms__t~_'s_l...man made wetlands must be sure to make up for the ones that you're replacing. I noticed the mitigation areas with this 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 plan. Is that correct7 Okay. I think whatever standara there are to help make sure that they are completely natural in development of...thank you. Scott: Thank you. Woul,q anyone else like to speak at the public hearing7 Yes sir. ~erorr~ Carlson: My mune is 3erome Carlson. I live at 6950 Oalpin Blvd or Road, depending upon which post office you talk to. In following the proposal to date, I'm struck over and over again by the feeling that there is nature and the development are not in sync. As I look around at development that's going around that area, Lundgren Bros as you know purchased the Song property and this is 100 plus acres...and I believe the density that th~ achieved on that very interesting piece of ~, which I think is fairly well known to this commission, was about 1.1 houses per acre. We have 25 acres bordering TH 41, part of which the new Lake Lucy Road would come through, which is the old Westside Baptist parcel. And in reviewing that with a few different developers we have again arrived in terms of preserving the natuminess of the land, which is one of the perquisites frankly before I'm going to sell that property to anybody. You end up with about 1.1 houses per acre in the final analysis. You look at the Gest~h and Paulson, all this Ire'rain is the same. It's different but it's the same. It's very hilly and it's very in~g and it's very beautiful The Geam~h and Paulson, which is right on the north side, so I've talk~ about the south, the west and now the north side of where we live. They have 25.85 acres with 3 ouflots. They're looking at 21 single family lots. So you throw in the 3 ouflots and maybe that will bring it up to about 1.1 houses per acre in the final analysis. It feels like there is almost some agreement that exists somewhere that dicta~ x number of lots snd on and on and I submit to the Ryans and to this commission that there does not need to be an economic hardship concern in my view at all I think that the property, if developed in a manner which fights nature less and leaves the natural beauty present, for a potential h~neowner in fact increases the value of that property enormously for someone who ~ that kind of a setting for a family home. And therefore I would really suggest that this comrni~sion take a look at what has been transpiring and what is transpiring, ff you will right around that area as far as the type of land, the topography and how that has ended up equating to aclual lots in the final analysis and I think you'll find that 1.1 is probably a fairly accurate number and the reason is because of the topography. And I submit that these other folks have worked hard at protecting it. I can ~ you that the Lundgren Bros have to the south of us because I've been a big part of that process with the Song's. I don't really want to llve right next door to, having spent the money and the time and the effort to protect the environment with our home site area there, which is substantial. We've promcuxt it I think as well as anyone cam And then have the adjacent field leveled off and fill with houses is destroying the flow and the rthym of that parfioflar area. I just, I don't ~inic it's ne~ssary. I don't think there's an economic hardship question at stake at all That there are buyers out there who will enjoy and will pay the price for that natural beauty. And there are other areas that simply don't have that kind of tm'rain 15 Planning Commission Meeting - S~'mber 7, 1994 to that cxt~mt. Severity that exists in that area. So I would ask that the _commission give that some thought and consid~ the ratio that has be~n working for other people in tl~ immediate area as a maximum. And I don't know that that ~ even, I don't know what the ratio should be on this particular piece. 1.1 there may not be absolu~y accura~ I haven't sat down and figured it out because it's not...Relative to the views from our property looking north. Until there is more of a plan that exists and this commission and others perhaps are seriously interesl~xi in approving, I don't think I need to spend your time lalking about whether or not some sort of tree barrier or some sort of screening is necessary or not from my point of view. But I don't know that that's been discussed at all up to this point and I would simply like to be on record as saying that may or may not be an issue...spillg down into sorn~hing ~c. Thank you. Scorn Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public heating? Yes sir. Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to reiterate several of the points that have been raised by Sam Mandno and some of the others who spoke here tonight. I'm representing myself as well as several neighbors who weren't able to make it to the hearing wnight who ail have a deep concern over the original concept or design of this proposed subdivision. No one has an intnr~ in standing in the way of the development because we all know it's corning. But it seems like in the case of some_ of the sections of the City Code, particularly when I call out Section 1860, which specifi~y says, it talks about the lots should be placed. .. to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. I believe thc intent of that, and I really kind of look at the intent as being lots should be placed. Not we'll lake some land and we'll put as many lots on it. And I wanted to reiterate a deep concern that this seems to be driven from the standpoint of trying to ~ the density for the number of homes rather than really trying to preserve that land and all of the other constituencies that represent an ecosystem or the wildlife as well as the aesthetics of the area that this...represents. That was really the extent of my comment. Was to reitem~ the one section of the code as it related to sort of are lots and topography and coming in which order...subdivisiom Sc, om Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Yes dr. Many Oustafson: Good evening. My name is Mart), C. mstafson. I live at 6691 Oalpin, which is right on the northeast comer of Lake Lucy and Galpin Blvd. I'd just like to restate what the previous speakers have said. That the beauty of the land that the Ryan's own is in the rolling topography. And to go in and bulldoze that and just kind of level it all off, to me is just like raping the land. If you look at the development south. I can't recall the name of it but south of Prince's pwperty, that land was pretty much fiat to begin with and it just, it's not unpleasant but it's just boring. You know you've got a difference in elevation of 20 or 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 30 feet probably in the whole development and everybody can look out their front window into their neighbor's front window and fight on down the sueet. And it just, to me is boring. And most every night I can watch the deer walk through the Ryan's ~ and it's just the roll is just beaufiftfl to watch the sunset through the trees and I would hate to see that get leveled. My other concern is drainage. If the wetlands are filled in, where's that water going to go? I imagine it's either going to go through my property or through Mezzenga'& Both of us abut Lake Lucy Road. Is there going to be massive trenching or digging? ?,n_a ff it is, it's all going down into Lake Lucy. You know that swamp is filling up fast. The lake is filling up fast just because of all the vegetation. You can watch it from year to year. And pretty soon that's, there isn't going to be any water showing at all So I would like to see whatever drainage is required stays on the property and not get drained off and crea~ problerns for someone else. Thank you very much. Scott: Would anybody else like to make any commits? Yes sir. Lynn Rothberger: Lynn Rotherberger. I'm at 6681 Galpin and really only had just one comment to make. I've heard a lot of the speakers tonight speak of the stu'ro~g properties. Lake Lucy Highlands, etc and matching the topo~phy that is there. It seems to me that there is minimum acreage requirenvmt on that land of ~g about 2 1/2 aczes and the plans that I've seen, I don't see any attempts at all to be a match of that in the proposed development and I just would have a concern about the density or the amount of density and population of housing that's going to come into that ~. I too very much enjoy the wildlife and the sunsets and the topography itself and I guess I have to agree with all the rest of the speakers that you're going to have to pretty well tatum that out to put housing in there and that concerns me. Scott: And your co~t, part of the matter in front of us is the rezoning of the ~ from RR to RSF, which means Rural Reafidential which is big lots. RSF is 15,000 square foot minimums so that's part of the process. Good, thank you. Any other cornmen_ ts? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? bedvina moved, Nutting seconded to d(~e the public hearing, Ail voted in favor and the motion carrtetL The public hearing was d(~l. Conrad: I think it's, I don't want to get into details tonight. I think there are a lot of details here. Staff has covered them. The applicant has covered them. There are a lot of _things that can be tweaked with lots. A lot of things that can be tweaflmd based on staff report and I guess I'm not going to spend my time going through item by item because that wo-l,4 take quite a while. I think when you note what the property looks like, you know what a real natural asset it is out there, and I don't see this plan really taking advantage of the natural 17 Planning Commission Meeting - Septe~nber 7, 1994 assets so you know really botWm line, I have to turn it down. I'm not getting into the details in terms of the individual plan tonight. They preserve very few tree~ There's massive grading. They did not fit with the surrounding nelghbol~ And you know, those three things just all by itseff Mr. Chairman make this, I don't think this is an appropri~e subdivision at this time. The other thing that I'm concerned with, and I want to mak~ it a natmaI amenity. The area is just so beau~ I want to make sure that when it does develop, that our trail system is taken advantage of that throughout. That's real i .mportaut so I think we not only have, the devel~mr has an opportunity to not only make the money and not only do it well fitting with the natural environment, but also to give the community something in the process. And again, a lot of us have been out there. It is just a terrific are~ It is one of those unique spots in Chanhassen and I don't think we, this plan meets any of our base criteria for a subdivision fitting with the natural surroundings so Mr. Chairman I'm going to be as hrie~ as I can and say this subdivision should be turned down. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Thank you. I have some questions far staff. Last time we met we discussed the feasi~ty study and I heard the applicant talk about a supplement feasibility study and preferred northerly mute. Dave, could you give us a little more bac~und and what was the actual feasibility recommendation. I don't want w get inw it in real detail but I just want to understand exactly what was the prefen~ alternative. Hempel: The feasibility study looked at two alternatives for ~§ Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard through what was called the Westside Baptist Church site which is on the far west side immediat~y adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. That was the particular parcel that was, the two ali~ments were discussed. The southerly ali~t and northerly alignment. The southerly alignmen_ t was closer to Mr. Cgrlson's property and had a base and a slope and significant trees to the south of it. There was also a graded wetland that was... The northerly allot throu~ that parcel with the existing driveway access on the site, it tended to meander the road a little bit more. The only alignment that I'm aware of through the Ryan parcel is a southerly alignment but potential far the northerly aligmnmt was also given through this ouflot of this Ge, stach-Paulson development, Brendon Pond to leave the flexibility for Lake Lucy Road to be extended through the Ryan parcel somewhere in this area. It wasn't officially mapped but the consulting engineer reviewed it and the proposal for the feadbility study showed the southerly allot for the Ryan paxceL The two alignments that were reviewed by the City Council was the northerly and southerly alignment across and into the Westside Baptist site and the C-estach-Paulson site. It's leaving the opportunity open as you continue to the east. 18 Planning Commination Meeting - Septemb~ 7, 1994 Ledvina: So there really wasn't two aligmm~ts that were mapped out for this property, is that correct? There was only this southerly alignment? Hempel: As far as I'm aware... Ledvina: Okay. And then as it relat~ to the aligmnent, the app~t has suggested that that would amount to a wetland filling. Was that also identified in the feasibili~ study? Hempel: My understanding, based on the conversations with Bill Engelhardt that there was no intention of ~illing the wetland with the southerly. Ledvina: Okay. So in other words, it would be relatively easy to realign that roadway slightly to the north, whatever it takes, 10 or 15 feet or 20 feet, to avoid that wetland filling. So we're really not talking about trading off wetland filling in choosing lhat ali~t, is that ~? Hempel: That's correct Ledvina: Okay. Now I want to understand the conservation easemenL You've got quite a long description here Bob and. does it cover, does it indeed describe the northerly 30 feet of the plan? ~en~rous: Yes. Ledvina: It does, okay. That's really all I need to know. Okay. Because it talks about a lot of different chunks here and that's the legalese of describing which lot that covers I'm sure. Your recommendation number 16, it says plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an outlot. Are you talking about, now I know this relates to the western portion of Outlot 6 as they've hand drawn it here. Now you're saying put a ~ line ~nd msl~e that long narrow chunk an ouflot, is that c~? Generous: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. I think overall, I'm leaning wwarcls some of the core issue as it relates to the development of the rite as proposed. I would agree with the commentors from the public. Also Ladd's comments. I feel that as we discussed and recommended the applicant Imrsue last tin~, we all agreed that the lake Lucy Road ali~rncnt provide the most sensitive course for this wad through this parcel of this site. We suggested that the applicant go ahead and look at alternative ways of ~g that hill in that we. stem portion of the property. And I do like the idea of going in 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 with a street off of Jennifer Way with potentially some private drives. That way I think that could provide access to that area and again preserve that. I don't know proced~y how I would propose to do this. If we would add conditions and send it along or that in such a condition that we'd want to see it tabled or I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit on proced~y how ii, is might be handled. But I think overall we need to have some work done on this plat before it can really be viewed as an acceptable environmentally sen~tive proposal. Sc. om What would you like to see? What would you suggest for the atrplicant? Ledvina: Well I don't, I'm suggesting that we table this and see a rework of the design for this western portion and we've made that suggestion previously and I don't know where the applicant is at with that but I'd be willing to look at it one more time. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Some of Matt's questions ~ some of mine. I think there are a lot of details. I think the plan we're looking at is, I think counsel for the appficant has indicated that you know we're being asked to approve what staff has recommended and I don't think staff has recorded this as their first choice. They've done a second choice because there was not a willinglles$ to look at the preferred southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Having been to the site and looking at it and from our recommeaxiations last meeting, the southerly aligfllIg~t seems to make the most ge~e 1D me. With that in mind_; and I gue~ I coho Ladd'$ comments and I think that of a lot of the citizens here. I don't think this development does the best job of dealing with the existing topography or the surronnding developments so whether it's a tabling issue or a chance to rework or that we deny it, I think that's maybe a procedural question that I'd put to my other members but I'm not ready to go forward with this plan. I am open to seeing a rework of the plato Scott: And what sort of direction would you give? Nutting: Well, I can't develop it for them. I'm not a developer but what I see is not consistent with surro~g developments and topography. There have been some suggestions put forth but that's really for the developer and their advisors to look at. If it's an extension of James Court into the westerly portion of the land, I can't say for sure and I can't sit here and try to visualize it and say do this and all will be well So I guess the main concern is just that it dcesn't make sense with the land and the sm'rounding developn~t. Scott: So you're thinking primarily make bettrr use of the existing topography? Is that one that you're getting? Planning Commission Meeting - Sept~nbex 7, 1994 Nutting: Absolutely. Scot~ Okay. Nutting: Which will impact density. There's a lot of issues there. Scott: Okay. Just a question. Kate, when was this preliminary plat and rezoning, when was that presented to staff because I know we've got a, we have two different time~ that we Aanenson: The ordinance stairs that you have 45 days to makr a reco~tion to the City CounciL.and I believe that da~ was August 17th. So accordingly...you have one more chance to review which is Sep~ 21st.. Scott: Okay. I'm not going to echo any conunents. I'd ~ to have a motion please. Unless you want to discuss. Obviously tabling we'd get it back. We may see the ssme~ thing all over again. Denying it automatically sends it to the City Council with our comments on why we're denying it so. Nutting: I would be ~ to tabling it. I thinir the property is going to be developed. I mean it's not an issue of developing it or not. It's a question of getting sorrowing that makro Scott: Okay. You're thinking tabling? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, why don't you ask the developer what his choice is. Ed Ryan: Do you want me to step up In the poclium7 Scott: No, that won't be necessary. Ed Ryan: I guess I would prefer you approve it obviously but ff you're not willing to approve it, I guess I'd prefer you deny and then we have the opportunity to go forward and that's what we want Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: We do have a rezonin8. I'll make thc motion to dcny thc prclimina~ plat but do we need to discuss the rezonlng issue? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Yeah, we could not, this prelimiam~ plat would not fit RR zoning so. Aanenson: If you don't approve the plat, then the Council wouldn't have. If the Counc/l chooses to approve it, you haven't recomm_end_ed on the rezoning... Conrad: Why should I recommend approval on th~ rezon|ng if I don't ~ what's going to go on it7 Aanen~n: You can make a different motion to...whether you choose to approve or deny the Council's still going to make their own decision so in principal, if you want to go on record and make some recommendations...but not to make any recommendation. Conrad: I'm not sure what signal I'm _sending when. I not saying that this ahouldn't be rezoned. It's just that _this parti~ plat is not what I want to see so that's always been confusing to mc. You know it's like what signal am I sending. Scott: Usually it's more consistent if both are acted upon the same way. Ledvina: Well if you look at as a package, I guess. Is that how you would prefer it? Aanenson: Yes. If you don't...no m~_~t~'_ what motion you state, whether you apffwve or deny the rezoning, Council still has the right to... Conrad: Well we'll just administratively go through _this. I ~ a motion that we deny the rezoning of Case ~)4-3 rezoning 37.92 acxes from RR, Rural ~tial to RSF, Single Family Residential. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the rezoning. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commia~on reconunend that the City Council deny Rezoning 894-3 rearming 37.92 acres from RR to RSF. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Sc, om Can I have another please? Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Conrad: Yes, I make a reco~on the Planning Commission denies approval of Pre~nina~ Plat ~-7 bossed on our ~ous ~mm~ts in t~'ms of th~ plat's lack of sensitivity to the surrounding, which includes the mass grading. It's lack of sensitivity to the neighboring community and it's non, and the fact that it didn't inc, orpomtc our primary location for Lake Lucy Road. Score Okay. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Comml ~mton recommend that the City Council deny Preliminary Plat #94-7 based on the previous conmmn~ regarding the plat's lack of sensitivity to the surroun~ area, mass grading and the location of Lake Lucy Road. All voted in hvor and the motion carried. Scott: Councilman Mason, thank you for miring notes. Just a. C~enerous: There's a WAP, wetland alteration ~t. Scott: Don't use that acronym in that way again.. Ledvina: I move that we deny, or we reconmaend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Section 20407. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Nutting: Second. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commimion recommmd that the City Coundl deny Wetland Alternation Permit 4~t-3. All voted in hvor and the motion carried. Scott: Bdimfial comment. The reason why we're denying thia and pa~ing this on is that we did not believe that we're going to get anything better back from the applicant so we're basically dumping it on our colleagues in the City Council and I would encourage any of you to follow the issue because the f:mal decision is not made here. It's made at the Council level and I'd like to thank you all for coming for _this issue. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Public Present: Name Addre~ Lee Paulson Dennis Clark David Stockdale David Gestach Brian Klingelhutz Sam Mancino Peter Davis St. Bonifacius 6651 Hs~ltine Blvd. 7210 Galpin Blvd. 6640 Galpin Blvd. Sharmin AI.Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or' comments? Conrad: Maybe I have one of Dave. I've got to talk about Lake Lucy. It's deemed a collector street. Did we do a trn~c count? When it was reviewed, do we know what it has w, what the future traffic's going to be on it Dave? Hempel: A few years back there was a Bastea'n Carver County Tmtmportafion Study predicting the traffic flows and counts eventually throughout the city providing ear/west connections. North/south streets and designating..~ kind of collector street. This area has been designated as a collector type of road. I don't know off the top of my head what the u'affie projections are. Conrad: There's no waffle to the west that is really going to search this out. I can't, there's just no traffic that's going to seek this road out so it really is servicing only this area that we are now looking for development. The C. arlson's may be another development but really this is a roadway that's just going to serve the neighborhood basically. Hempel: Well it does provide for the east/west continuity bemeen Galpin to Powers Blvd versus going all the way up to Highway 7 or going to Chaska Road. This is ac0.mlly a vital P/anning Commission Meeting - Septcmb~ 7, 1994 connection, e. as~ connection. Anoth~ east/west connection through is being provided to the south through the Carlson/$ong/Lundgren development where it was pan of the... approximately 2 miles south of this location. Conrad: Okay, it's an east/west connection. So whim you say that to me does that mean you're saying it's serving mom than th~ n~ighborhoods? With that 40 houses, this street will service 100 houses in this developing valley. Hemal: That's correct And additional city wide traf~. Conrad: Going where7 Herrgel: Going to another connection from the northwest part of town to get to the downtown v~rsus going down Tnmk Highway 41 and (3alpin to Trunk Highway 5. It's not making any shortcut I wouldn't think but it does provide a viable east/west travel rout~. Conrad: Have we made any compwmises by terming this a collector? Have we, are we forcing a major mad in when a major road is not necessary? Hempel:. The roadway section that we're proposing.to build here is not much larger than the standard street right-of-way. Our standard street for a residential neighborhood is 31 feet wide. This street is proposed to be built at 32 feet wide. There is additional right-of-way though that's being required with this to provide when the uaiVsidewalk, the 8 foot wide trail/sidewalk will give us larger boulevard areas for planting... Conrad: Okay. That's all. Scott: Any other conunents7 If the applicant would like to make a presentation, please do so. It's not a requirement. If you'd like w, please go ahead. Dave Cres~h: Dave C-estach, 8001 Acorn Lane, C~mhassen. I guess basically we just...~ we hope that you do approve it so we can go to Council. Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing, lust a show of hands. How many people are here to speak at the public hearing for this particular project. Okay. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Conrad second~ to open the public hearinlb All voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Dennis Clark: My name is Dennis CLark. I live at 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard. I was wondering, 8harmin could we use that overhead again and possibly enlarge that. Enlarge it a Al-laff: I don't think we can do that. Dennis Clark: Okay. Actually I'm kind of Johnny come lately on this project. For some reason I was not served notice on this development. I received my first notice last Friday. I've been out of wwn since Friday. Caune back in town Sunday. Had Tuesday to even prepare for this. Staff has been giving me a crash course on _this and I definitely have some cone, ems just because probably I have gone over staff notes and gone through everything but I kind of made a wish list here of what are some of the concerns I have. I think I'm just going to mark on there where my house lies on the 8 acres that I have. Scott: Yeah, that would help. None of us see our home from that vantage point very often SO. Dennis Clark: You only see my house in the winter time. I've been pretty much aware that this has been tabled before or presented before but frankly I was a little shoclaxt that this was going through this fast. From August 17th up until today so obviously there's been quite a bit of preparation by staff on this and maybe this thing is a done deal But I guess a couple of the specific issues that I have which concern my lot are the northwem development of the property that we're talking about which seems to be somewhat ignored in the notes that I've seen. I see very little addressing to the northwest lots in regards to the tre~. I had an oppommity to talk with a few people and what type of homes are going in he~. I'm hearing anywhere from $250,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes. I question, I'm not a realtor but I have been here for 2 1/2 years. I was in the marker I question who's going to spend that kind of money on Lot 13 and 14 next to probably a 100 feet from a Minnetonka basketl~ll court So there's some issues that I'm questioning, plus the fact that according to the way the plat is here and the way the foliage is or the way the excavating is, it can't be done without taking a lot more trees that don't even show up on this plat. A lot more trees. Very mature trees and I'm specifically talking about Lot 12. I'm camcemed about Lot 1 l, which if you look at the contour line of Lot 11, and maybe you've never had a chance to be back there. Lot 1 l, where the house is, is a gravel pit. It's probably 20 to 30 foot drop so when I look at the notes and see where you're talking about signifi_cant grading, I think that's a pretty lame word. We're latking about very s/gnificant grading and I guess I don't understand how it's going to hy in the conwur of the land the way it is unless that's being filled or I don't know. I haven't had enough time to get these questions answered. The tr~ inventory. I thinlr that even as of today, I don't know what the tree inventory h. I don't have the updated notes, if there is some. I don't know if it's been presented but I think there's considerable mom trees 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, l~ than what are shown on the map and I guess from where my standpoint is, the front and back of my house. Now when I come W my driveway, from what I understand, I'm going to be looking at, there's quite a bit of elevation_ I'm going to be looking at the backs, or the backyards of 3 homes, These people will be k/nd of hovering over me. So be it but am I also going to be looking at 3 Menards pole sheds corning into my yard7 Is it going to look like Milacs Lake or what, I don't know. I'm very concerned about thaL I think for the acreage that I have, just specifically in getting to some of the points, I'm going to be looking for some concessions and some buffer trees and I think this should be definitely an issue before we continue with this. Not well we'll take cate of you. I want to know that Fm looking for some year round buffer trees that are bordering my pwpeny if this is a done deal I think I deserve that and I'm thinking evergreen type trees, l0 to 12 feet tall This is going to give me some of the privacy that I deserve with that size of a lot. This will devaluate my lot if this does happen. I cannot develop this lot that I have. This acreage is, it's a done deal. You can see it's kind of laid out a little goofy there and it is a nice lot. I've kind of been in this movie before. I just came from probably one of Shorewood's most embanas~ing developments, I lived adjacent to one that took 7 years, 4 townhomes. Chrisurms Lake Woods. And there was a lot of promises on trees and trees that weren't going to be removed and in the final, it didn't happen. And the saws were going until 10:00 at night, on Sattwdays and Sundays and the townhonw~s were $170,000.00. Way over priced l0 years when they started the thing. The market fell 14% and the project sat. So again I'm not a financial wizard on this stuff but I question, to me this looks like a trailer park layout and from Highway 41, the way these homes are going to get stnclaxi across he~, again I need to know a little bit more about the project. Maybe I'm coming in here late and I don't even know what my legal rights are as far as getting my notices and what have you. I wo~ld recommemt to the city that these things be sent cerfifiexL Jerome Carlson, who just recently purchased this plat over here, his name is on the plat but the person I pttrchased the plat from 2 1/2 years ago, still his name is on this plat. So I don't know where things are slipping through the cracks there. The trees in question on the south side, in Lots 1. Or I'm sorry, 13, 12, 11 again was a gravel pit. I'm talking about probably 100 trees that are fairly mn_~-e. Anywhere from 12 to 30 feet tall Evergreens again. In other words, they hold quite a bit of cover. I've done some ~uring today. Took the day off and went out and measured this stuff. Working with the conWurs and that. A lot of trees got to be taken out. The next thing that I'd like to point out is, there's already quite a bit of forestation on _this property this summer. This thing was clear cut in a day. The whole 25 acres of popals that have grown up over the years. So you can see fight away where I have some question about, I don't know if I'm going to use the word trust but I think we would have been further off and maybe what we had here for foliage. These were anywhere from 7 to 12 foot, even taller popal trees. Maybe they're worthless, I don't know but didn't like it. Just put it that way. There's been no conun~nicafion from the developers on this project I think that's rude when they're going to go in and if you can't even talk to the people that you're getting up against. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - Scptcmt~ 7, 1994 Maybe from a developer's standpoint, don't talk to the nelghbar~ I don't know. Just my opinion. I'm kind of on a lowland. I'm below this, you can see all this drainage here where it does go back out on the lake again but I'm kind of what I would consider a lowland. When you start taking this square footage on house roofs here, right next to my ~ line is my drywall systetm I had an opinion done on that today. When you've got water comic§ down these hills and you've got natural vegetation, I've got a sump pump. in my house that runs continuously when it rains. You know what's going on there. I've always wondered how my drywall was doing. Now I'm even going to have more concerns about the dxywell when you start taking this type of square footage and even sending that much more water down, particularly on my lot. A couple other questions that I've got is, I'm trying to get the Minuetonka School system to quite using fertilizer on their lawns up there. They've got the most beautiful lawns in the world. No dandelions, nothing. All that water comes right down that drainage ditch into that pond. That pond is getting worse and worse every year and I think we've got, we're making some headway there and this pond is turning in to be a green ~ ball. It does hold fish. I do feed it minnows. I spend about $300.00 a year throwing spawn...minnows in there for crappies and what have you. And when I look at _this ~ around the lake, this l0 foot buffer. I mean I don't know what the regulations are and where we're headed on this sm_ff but this pond's going to be ruined. Just plain and simple. When you start putting lawns in there, you've got a problem, l0 foot buffer means nothing. We've got problems coming from Minnetonka so again _this is just another point that I have concerns about. I don't know if it's been addressed or what the s/marion is. Is there going to be docks on this pond? How is this pond going to be preserved? Cam_put a dock on this thing? Can he fish off it? What's this going to look like from the road? You actually do have a public access from the road. You can fish from shore. From the highway side so I don't know what this is going to bring. This feeder road. My kids get on the school bus on this road and we've had near accidents with a stopping red flashing light. When cars come over that hill going north, trucks, 70 mph easy. 80 coming over. When this road goes in here, you're going to have some problems. I'll go on record on that. You're going to have problems with that road. The wad's in, that's great but unless there's going to be some lights there, people coming in and out of there, there's going to be accidents ther~ Just they can't help it. It's a blind spot. So when you're corning over that road and...70 rnph is not even, they go faster than that coming over. I would like to see that whole thing, with the park in there and with the school. When you get down by Chaska s~nd that school system and that's all 40 mph. This is still 55. And so I think you should look at flowing that uaffic down on TH 41. I don't know what powers you've got in that. So I guess my main concern is, getting back to my own personsl problem, is I am defini~y looking for something that is going to assist my view of what once was fairly...woods and nice woods and a meadow to buffer that all and I'll leave it at that for now. And I again, like I said, I'm kind of looking to see an update on this tree survey because this isn't close. It's not even close. And I would say you're more than welcome to walk some of the. Jot. It's not on there so I've got 28 Commission Meeting - Sepiember 7, 1994 a problem with staff saying we're ready to approve. All you've got to do is work a few things out. I'm not ready and I've had 24 hours to do it. Basically a bad night's sleep also because I think this is going pretty fast. Maybe someone has some other comments. Thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Just a couple of comm~_ ts. One question I think since we're talking about presa~afion... I think it's entirely appwpfia~ to consider a 30 foot preservation area along the westerly sides of Lots 11, 12 and 13. If there's si~it%ant vegelafion there, there's no reason why that can't be continued around. Dave, drainage. My understanding is that the drainage from this development will be conveyed down a sWnn sewer running down whatever slreet that is into the holding ponds down below so conceivably there could be some drainage going off the back but that'd be through lawns or something like thai so you don't have a concern about Mr. Clark's propa~ as to drainage. Okay. And 10 foot buffer around the pond, that seems not to be in keepin§ with our wetland plato Is it actually 10 feet? Is it more than flint? Or is it ~ of the nature of the wetland. Aanenson: No, it's the buffer setback into the .wetland. Building setback. What you're talking about is...winimum landscaping. Scott: Yeah. So from the actual property we could be looking at 60-70 feet..50 feet. Okay. · .. And then speed limits on state highways.-The State, that says it aH I guess. Stare of Minnesota. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Any other comments on this particu~ issue? Yes sir. Peru- Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard. Pan of the, this Brendon Pond development includes a recommendation of some pazk dedication land that would tie the street to provide an access into the Minnetonka school. I was hoping to get more recognition made to the fact that when the Lake Lucy extension goes in, that this is §oin§ to be a fairly active path and I was hoping to see more recognition to the trail system as pan of the ouflots that would be placed on the north side which would provide for a very naunal path for a lot of people ex~§ east all the way to the other trail syslmm because you can go out through the top of the school where there's already an extension into other parts luther north of Chanhassen. I was hoping to see more language in the recommendation that would provide from where that road alignment of the trail systcm...pedestri~ standpoint, make more of a route. Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Peter Davis: Right now what's going to happen is there's only language that lalks about an access point up in here to the school In terms of when Lake Lucy gets developed in this direction to thc Ryan property, I was hoping to see more language built that would pull thc 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 system to the north so you'll have more of a naturaL.. Aanenson: That's the plan. That's the plan for Lak~ Lucy that there's a trail system along the northern side~ That's what the Ryau's cn~necr was saying, they would prefer to have it on the south side but it was always planned to have it on the north side because that's where... Peter Davis: Okay, I didn't see that. Aanenson: That's where we believe most of the tm/T~ will be going. To get up to the junior high. Peter Davis: Right. Okay. Hempel: There's also a sidewalk being proposed along the west side of the street to connect from the trail from Lake Lucy Road north. Peter Davis: That was my question- It ~y wasn't clear how that was going to tie back in. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comm_ents? Sam Mancino: Yes, Sam Mancino, 6620 Oalpin Boulevard. Over the course of the last few months we have been pleased to be able to work out most of the issues between ourselves and Ges~h-~~n people with thc help of staff on this and I think that we've got the right contingencies for future potential development if we ever chose to do that. The one issue that I'd like to raise here, you are considering platting, as it is properly laid out here. There's a portion called Outlot B which will be con~_dered at a later da~ The reason for Outlot B is to allow future aliglunent pen_ding detenninafion of the way that Lak~ Lucy Road extends to the east, which is the Ryan property. If in the course of that derision the road rakes the northerly route, what will probably happen is that it will have to cross that finger of wetland and trees which can do a fair amount of damage there. The question before us I guess is, would that lot by itself allow enough room for mitigating the damage done there or would that have to be taken into account now. A question. Aan~n: Arc you talking about wetland mitigation? Sam Mancino: Yes. Because you will be going through, if thc road takes the northerly ali.~onrnent, would it require some wetland mitigation that this lot would not be large enough to accommodate or wouldn't be appropriate to accommodate here? And does that then argue Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 for thc southerly alignment of that road to avoid that problem? Hempel: I guess first of all it'd have to be classified as a wetland. From our guidelines from our Water Resource Coo~, the ~..would have to review the site to d~ermine if it qualifies for a wetland status. It would be, if we're hnpacting it with...assume that we would have to miti§ate for our impact. Sam Mancino: I guess this was an issue that if the road takm a southerly ali~t, it's probably a minimal concern. Aanenson: ...it would have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act but that doesn't mean it has to be done...I think your point's well takm and that goes back to our...trying to ptese~e wetlands on the site. Sam Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to maim a comment? Sir. Brian Klingelhutz: My name is Brian Klingelhutz and I was involved with Dave and Lee. We bought the property about 10 years ago. We've been working on developing it since then. You know off and on. Not constantly but when we bought the property it was all, Mr. Brendon made his living off of farming all that land so it was just all fields and there were trees around the borders but where they have the 30 foot section there protecting those trees, that is protecting all the trees that are mature. So there is a lot more trees there but there's just little scrub trees that you can't even walk through so. I want to point out that we've worked with Mr. Carison~ We've wcuked with Mancino's. Maybe we didn't address Mr. Clark enough. He wanted to buy some property from us. We never moa_e that deal I don't know if he's upset about that or you know, but you can't please everybody you know. I pulled in his driveway _this afternoon to ~ to him.. I was in his driveway looking over towards our property. The property that's going to be developed and you couldn't even see that property from his house. You know there's so many trees between his house and the property right now so, I rrwm~ it wouldu't do any good to plant any more trees there because you'd wipe out some of the trees that are really there. So I'm just saying that we've done ev~g we could. I hope you, you know we have nothing against Ryan's development but we've been working on our's for a couple years and so I just don't want you to tie our two together. We've put a lot of planning into our's, lust because you tabled their's, because we're right next to each other but we've been woriring. As you can see that it's 25 acres and we only have 19 lots in there which...so I just hope you pass it. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public heating? Seeing 31 Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~ 7, 1994 none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Nutting moved, lauivina seconded to close the public hearin~ Ali voted in hvor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sco~ Ron. Nutting: Well I guess I was pleased to see that the property owners and the Mancino's and staff were able to address the issue of the ouflot and the private drive and to get that resolved. I'm not tying this project wgether with the Ryan project They are connected by the Lake Lucy Road but I think what we, the consensus from staff and the people up here is that the southerly alignment made more sense and that's the alignment that we're talking about with this plan. Short of some new concern ar issues that were raised tonight, I think I am in a position to go forward but I guess I have a little bit of confusion on thc tree inventory ~ exactly what's there. We've taken great pains to address that issue on the easterly side ~g the Mancino's property. I don't know if staff has any input to this but I'd like to just understand a little bit more about the impact that we're going to have on the ~ owner to the west because we've been careful in this development to address the needs of everybody and I just need to, I'm not saying I'm not ready to go forward with it but I just don't know enough. A1-Jaff: We can work with the applicant to make sure that all the trees that are on the site right now be reflecuxi on a tree survey and then we will...would have to be replaced according to our ordinance at a ra~ of 1.2. But I think that this is an issue that we can wark OuL Nutting: Okay. That you, with the developer and the property owner to the west, okay. Okay. I have no further comments. Sco~ Matt. Ledvina: In regard to the tree inventory. Is that accurate and I guess what is the level of accuracy in terms of the size of mm and have you reviewed that7 Sharmin AI-Jaff's answer was not picked up on the tape. Ledvina: Based on the connrm~ts that have been made here, you said you've been out to the site to look at that? Okay. Al-$aff: There were some uees, spruces located to the west of the site that are not shown on 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 this and we will...that they be shown between now and the Coundl meeting. Any lxees that will be removed would have to be replaced at... Lcdvina: Arc those spruc~ ~ withlrl the grading limits, do you believe or arc they outside? AI-Jaff: Some of them are. Two of them are within the gr,_fling limits because... Ledvina: Okay. The adjacent homeowner had a comment about pole sheds or whalever and I just would want him to know that of course the city has ordinances as it relates to a construction of buildinEs and out buildings are, you know have to be done by permit and size limitations, etc so, and in a residential, high quality residential neigh~o~ you will not see that scenario, I don't believe. I think the request for additional buffer Irees, if they're necessary, would seem to make sense. Have you had an opportunity to assess that need at this time? Al-Jaff: There's going to be over 100 trees that will need to be planted on the subdivision. So I'm sure that there will be some trees that we could add there if there is need for it. Ledvina: Okay. Maybe we could add a recordation to that effect directing the app~t to intensify year round plantings in that area. I think that might be approlaiaie. I don't want to be real specific but again, I want to make sure that thai screen_ lng does occur if needed. And just a follow up on drainage. Again, the adjacent homeowner is ~ There will be increase impe~ons area there, and it seems to me that if I look at the plat and the topography for Lots 10-13, Block 1, it would appear that a drainage swale along the back of those lots would be very easily done. You know within the grading limits there and provide or prevent I should say nm on onw his parcel and potential problems that may occur. Dave, did you have any thoughts on that'/ Do you think that's a reasonable thing or do you see any concerns with that? Hempel: I actually believe that thc amount of runoff going to the west of this developmeat will actually be lower than thc natural conditions that axe out there today. The front yant area, the front half of the house will be directed towards the street which will be conveyed then through storm sewcrs to a sediment basin. It will only be the back yard grass areas essentially that will continue to drain to the west. The westerly edge of the cul-de-sac appears to be about the high point of the natural terrain out there right now. It's probably actually reducing the amount of runoff running west. Ledvina: Okay. Even with the construction of the houses in that area? Hempel: That's correct. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Well maybe perhaps we can direct the applicant to evaluate that condition to make sum that we're not causing a run on type of situation to the neighboring property. I wouldn't want tn sec that occur. The issue as it relates to buffer around the wetland area or the pond area. Now how do we classify ~is pond? Is this llke an ag urban? Al-Jarl': It is an ag urban...buffer that wraps around the wetland. Ledvina: Okay. Is that by d_e~nition or is there some leeway in establi~hlng that buffer zone? Aanenson: They're at 20. The average. Ledvina: Okay, but it can range 0 to 20, is that what you're saying? Okay. Would there be any down side in in~g that buffer area to 20 feet in that area? It appears to me that that's a conservation, much of that area is a conservation zone. Scott: Tree preservation. Ledvina: Or m~e preservation and also there doesn't appear to be grs~dlng in that area so it appears that that buffer strip could be increased to 20 feet. Aanenson: ...in the conservation easement, you can't... Ledvina: Well from what L you know there is the entire area here and I don't know if that conservation, tree conservation easement encompasses the entire shore area of that pond so. Aanenson: That's what we would look to evaluate...go back and evaluate that... Ledvina: Is it reasonable at this time to recommend 20 foot buffer or are you saying you need a little more time to evaluate that7 Hempel: The only areas that I see a concern with that would be on Lots, for ~ Lots 1, and 6 where thc grading essentially was within 10 feet of a... Hempel: Potentially that area would be left to grow natural af~ the grade is in. Aanenson: And we establish vegetation. Ledvina: I guess I don't want to see any, and I agree with the homeowner here, is people 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 mowing all the way to within 10 feet of the wetland area and if we can bump that back, that would seem to make sense. Aancnson: I think you can ruak~...conservafion easement from thc wctland buffer. I think if you...just add on as far as screening...the trees closer to the h_omc, so I think we'd like maybe some time to evaluate that more closely and get your concerns. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Overall I feel that the developer has been fairly responsive to our comments and believe that the adjustments that have been made have benefi~ the plat. I think with a few more conditions, I think the concerns of the neighboring homeo~ can be ~ddressed and it can be a good situation for bot~ the developer and adjacent lot owners I should say. One question I did have and I forgot to bring this up. For Outlot B, is there a conservation easement along the nc~h boundary of that lot? Al-Jaff: At this point we did. not... Ledvina: Okay. Do we want to do anything there at this time or do we have to see this lot back again if it's developed so we don't necessarily need that at this time? · '- Aanenson: I think you'd like to wait and sec how Lake Lucy aligns~ Ledvina: Okay. That seems reasonable to me. That's the exlm~t of my commits. Scott: Thank you, Ladd. Conrad: I have nothing new to add. I agree with most of Matt's comments. Sco~ Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: We've got two things he~. We've got a rezoning. Okay, start with the rezoning. I move that the Planning Commission recornm~_ d approval of Rezoning//94-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans damt August 30, 1994. Do we need to modify that? No, that's it. August 30th, 1994 subject to the following conditions as outlined in the staff report. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is them any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commi _m_ ion reeonunend approval 35 Planning Commission Meeting - Septern~ 7, 1994 of Rezoning 094-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: le The applicant shall enter into a development contract con~ all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guaran~ The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 9.. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivis/on ~10. Afl voted in favor and me motion carried. Scott: Can I have another motion please. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning C.x)mmission recomm~_ d approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision ~94-10 for Brendon Pond for 19 .single f-mnily lots and 4 ouflots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modifications and additions. Number 2 to add, this plan shall include a list of trees and their size. The plan shall be submiund prior to final plat approval Does that get what we need there? Okay. And that relates to the uee replacement and ref~fion plan. I guess with that I would also like to add that the applicant shall review the need for screen_ ing along Lots 10-12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west. Conrad: Can you change that to have staff review that? Versus the applicant. Scott: Also perhaps in addition to the extend the wee preservation area which would take into consideration 10, 11 and 12 to preserve... I don't want to make it too...If we see that there's something there that we need to preserve and then we might not have to spend a lot of time on it. Ledvina: Yes. I would, that condition I would have staff review the need for that screening. Aanenson: .../rom the wetland. Ledvina: Yes. Yes. Let's see. Condition number, add to condition number 18. That any wetland alteration be mitigated according to city ordinance and state laws. And that as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road, however that ends up, and if there are wetlands encroached in that area. Adding condition 25. That the app~t evaluate, applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it rehtes to pom~tial run on for the adjacent ~ owner from Lots 10-13, Block 1. I guess that's essen~lly it. 36 Phnning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Good. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve staff recon-anendafion with additional conditions as so smtecL Can I have a second please? Nutting: It was. Scott: Is that what that was. Not that we don't pay attention to everything you say. Let's vote on it. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Ptanning Commh~don recommend approval of Prelimi~ Plat for Subdivision ~10 for Brendon Pond for 19 sinl0e family lots and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Ctmrt as shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions: lo All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately ~ with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing s/te gm__rllng unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas dis~ with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a land~ reforestation plan on the site. Thc vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation casein_ ent. Trcc conservation areas are shown on n___nn_chrr~nt #1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal ~ption of these easements. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, rcffmval of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over (5" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of thc conservation easement and the applicant shall provide thc legal description. A total numt~ of 185 trees will be required for the forestation and tree repot on this site. Financial guarantees acceptnble to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This pinn shrill tndude a list of nil trees and size proposed to he removed. The ptnn shah he submitted prior to final pint approvnl. Stnff shnll review the need for screening along Lots 10-12, Block I ns it relntm to the existing single family home to the west. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easenamts prior to grading. 4. Building Departm~t conditions: 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 . 7~ . . 10. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indict, lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building pcrmi~ The applicant shall enter into a development conu'act with the City and provide the necessary security tn guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with final plat conditions of approval. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulalm'y agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWC~ Health Dep~lxnent, PC~ DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm wat~ ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high walm- level. All storm wa~ ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at thc normal water level and no more than :3:1 dopes thereatt~ or 4:1 dopes fl~roughout for safety purposes. Thc applicant shall report to thc City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during consu'uction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the.City Engineer. Access t~ the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. Fire Marshal conditions: A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, u'ees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operate. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. d. Fire hydrants shall be locat~l a maximum of 300 feet apart 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 11. 12. be Park and Recreation conditions: A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property shall be ~ into thc construction plans for Brenden Pond. by its alignment to the city. Full park and ~rail fees shall be collected per city ordinsq_r:c in lieU Of land acqRi~tion and/or trail construction. The proposed development will be respon~ble for a water quantity user fee of $35~01 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road i ,mpmvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the devel~ contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council If ... there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat 13. '-" The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be 14. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City thc utility and street improv~ts within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Manag~t Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitmt to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 17. begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be mitigated to city and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 18. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year starrn events and normal water level and hi~ water level calculations in existing basins/w~ and individual stco-n sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding ~ lying outside the fight-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the pod_cling areas. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the conUacC 21. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City far access to the Mancino parcel A private street shall be designed and constmct~ by the app~t in accordance to the City's private street ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 · single family homes.. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east linc of Outlot A. 22. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future fight-of-way for Lake Lucy Road through Ouflot B. 23. The developer and/or propa~ owners shall waive any and all proced~ ar substantive objections to the special as~,,ssments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." That the applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to poten~ mn on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10-13, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRRS INTO 50 LOT SINGI.R FAM~.Y TWIN HOMES AND SrrE PLAN REYs~:W FOR _~S STRU~~.S LOCATF~D ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED W~-~r OF POWERS BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTIt OF LAKE SUSAN 14~.LS DRIVE~ POWI~R~q PLACE~ JA~P~R DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Public PFesent: Name Addre~_~ David L. Wasson David & Donna Clough Betsey Jenlcins A. M. Strnc Ronald Ziebell Philip Jensen Tom Rasmussen Mona & Doug Jacobson Mary Beth & Jerome R. Reutzel Bruce & Shirley Bowman Craig & Janet Cariveau Jeff ?.nhn Terry Bolen Gary & Sharon Condit Lolita Tolliver Rogers Wendy Nelson Ronda Pierre Todd & Marianne Loader Leslie Jensen John Williams Pat Victorian 8789 Flamingo Drive 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1511 Lak~ Susan Hills Drive 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1561 Lakr Susan Hills Drive 1580 Lakr Susan Hills Drive 8531 Merganser Com-t 8551 Me~auser Court 1481 Lake Susan Hills DHv¢ 1541 Lak~ Susan Hills Drive 1501 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8451 Pelican Court 1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8411 Egi~ 1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1584 Lak~ Susan Hills Drive 1580 Lakr Susan Hills Drive 1531 Lak~ Susan Hills Drive 8530 Me.anser Court Sharmin AI.Jaff pre~ented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some comments at this time? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Phil Youngbuth: My name is Phil Youngbuth. I'm with Greatland Homes and I'd ~ to introduce myself in this way because we are in a joint venture with Jaspm' Development on this particular property. They are the developers of records. We will be building the units, both in terms of the design and construction. We are formerly from $oc Miller Homes. Working with Joe for several years. I've becn hcre before. I would like to rnakc a couple of units are 67 feet wide and 65 feet wide fitting on ?1 foot lots and ?3 foot lots. And the reason I bring this up is so you don't get confused. It shows on the plat the lot size, okay. And the reason the units are narrower is because you have to have a minirrmm of 3 feet from the lot lines to the windows. So that's why we're narrower than the actual lot size. We have u'ied to do our homework in designing this particular housing unit. I dlr~ meet with 8harmin a couple months ago and from our initial meeting I d~d take the original plan that you sec here and we've designed a few more architectural elements into the plan to make them more interesting. Work a little bit bettm' with the neighborhood. They arc a rambler sized and what we call 1 1/'2 stories. This keeps a lower profile if you will so that from thc street you're not seeing 3 decker townhomes or something similar. And for the fol~ on the hil~; they're not going to be staring at 2 and 3 story homes. These are nice low sillohucttcs. We've added things like gables, dormers, decks, patios. There's optional 4 season porches to the plan. Scott: Yeah, you might want to tip it one way or the other because I think it's glaring on the camera. Yeah. That will work for the folks at home. Phil Youngbuth: I can hold them up too. Scott: That's fine. Phil Youngbuth: As you can see by the porch, which is an option, the deck is standard. And it's not just your typical cedar 2 x 2's...2 x 6's, etc. It will be a smooth cedar with some turret posts...things like that so that they're a little more int~s~. A little more fitting with the kind of traditional flavor to them. Not just your slap them up kind of porch. That alone makes for a more intmw, sting back view if you will Several of the units back up to Pov~m Boulevard. They are walkout style so from the back, this is a rambler with a walkout. Thi~ is the front elevation and you can see some of the things that we've done to make them more inviting. Friendly. On the back you can see that we've changed tho root'scape. We've added gables to extend the gables as to bring out a porch over the deck. There are many windows so that in other words we're talking about something that's more interesting and pleasing to look at versus...or something like that. More interesting side elevations, etc. Additionally the product itself is probably, you know the final prices aren't in yet but we're looking at $110,000.00 to $120,000.00 base price~ I know that, in the early stages of conversations 42 Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~nber 7, 1994 these were talked about being $80,000.00 townhomes_. Now I know that affordable housing is a nece~ty, h gets to be more and more difficult to do that and please everybody. So they're intended for single, single professionals. Perhaps not retired but a little older people. Easy to live type of homes. Again, the den~ty that we're talking about is au i~t factor u~ be bringing up like we did. When we're talkin~ about, what was it, 9.3 units per acre. The reality is, there is a way to gct to that with 30% or 35% covcragc. And it happens just down thc street and that's when you start building up. So I think that this is a reasonable and well presented answer to a unique site and I'm hoping that together we can mmte forward and get this job completed. That's my report. I think it looks good and we'll help with you. Do you have any questions? Mancino: Yes, I do. Thank you. I see that you have two type style houses. The Itasca the Voyageur. Can you tell me, as I look on your prel/mina~y plat, I mean the houses that are on the eastern s/de of this development, they'll line themselv~ to Powers Boulevard? That's all one style house? Phil Youngbuth: ~ Mancino: Okay. So we're going to see a row of, the rear elevation from Powers as we're traveling. Phil Youngbuth: Coxrect. I'm glad you bring that up. What's nice about these particular townhomes is that although they're identical, they'll be in several different colors. Okay, but they're not like all pink or you know. Mancino: And what are those colors7 Phil Youngbuth: Well, there's only about a half dozen colars that are even earth tone. Reasonable light earth tone colors. Mancino: Do we have samples? Do you have samples of those here? Phil Youngbuth: I don't have those here. They're vinyl It's vinyl siding, called ~briar. It's a very smooth, high quality premium siding. And we're looking at white windows. Or I should say whi~e windows with whi~e grids on all of the units, As far as what one may look like from the other, the reality is that they're no closer Wgethcr than any of the ~ingle family homes you see here. Between the ,nits is 15 feet. Single family homes, from one to the other is typically 15 feet. And if they were all split entries or multi-family, or I'm sorry. Multi-level and split entries, they're very similar in design. Especially from the back. So what I'm saying is that this is not much of a variance from that. In fact it might be mare Planning Commission Meeting - Sept~nber 7, 1994 pleasing because it will be constantly maintained. This is a maintenance free extr~or with a homeowners association. Mancino: Staff, did you ask for samples to be brought so that w~ could see the ~i_ding ai~ that we would know exactly which ones of these lots have what colors because I know that we've brought up several times, especially when they're in rows, we want to see a variation of tone and color and not just. Do you know what I'm. Al-laff: I recall asking for the rendering. I really can't re~n~znl2~r if I asked far sarape. Mancino: Do you also talk a little bit about landscat~g or is that someone else on your? Phil Youngbuth: Well, we can talk about it. Mancino: Can you tell me a little bit about the, those are walkouts on the back? Phil Youngbuth: On the Powers side. Mancino: On the Powers side. And_ you have balconies there that will put some of these up high. How are you going to screen the back of those wslirouts from such a big street and the noise and the traffic and thc lights7 Phil Youngbuth: Well my undgrstanding is that the~ will be bex~ing all along Powers Blvd, at least from some kind of a meandm-ing berm that's to be worked out with the staff and whatever trees that they are recommending that go in. At a minimum that's what's happening. Additionally we'll be doing exten.~ve landscaping around all the units. Mancino: And that's something I think that you have in your conditions? Sharmin, m work with the developer on that. Okay. Those are my questions right now. Scott: Good. Any other questions or comrmnts for the applicant? Do you have someone else on your development lram that would like to make a presentation? It's not a requirement but ff you would like to do that, that's quite alright. A1 Racier:. Thank you. I'm Al Racier with Rader and Associates and we're woridng on the civil engineering and thc land surveying portion of the plat. And I guess I can answer any questions you might have directed related to that, you know those questi~ but basically as far as the roadway system goes, being that this site is up higher on this end than aclxmlly Powers Boulevard, would bring the grades up on the main entrance here. Bring the grades up...this cul-de-sac. Ru_nnin§ them back down at a slight grade to turning down on that Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 northern cul-de-sac. And that water will acamlly, the drainage pattern will run the same way so the water will come down, be picked up by an intermediate...down to a pond at this comer here which will have an ovedlow. .. storm sewer system. The units along Powers have their garages directly entering onto the internal private drive here. These units here, here.,, these two clusters have their own private little driveway...and the southerly most clusler of the 8 units of 4 buildings, they'll just be one short cul-de-sac. Basically that pretty much d_e6n~ with the water paUern will be. There will be retaining walls needed along the back side of some of the units here and those will be engineered walls. They'll be handled by an engineer. .. and probably be a urn-ace type thing. $cot~ What's the, one of our big concerns with any sort of development is the hnpact on the neighbors and I'm familiar with that area. Basically what is the difference in grade inbetween let's say the top of one of those units and perhaps, I know there's a number of homes along the side. Just roughly. Are we talking 20 feet7 Al Raden. I guess I can't, I really can't relate to the top of it. Scott: How about just grade to grade. Al Raden. 'Grade to grade difference being about a 9-and should reach...as far as we've shown with thc 954 and we have 939 for a garage so about 15 feet. Over on this side it looks like it could be 20 feet. Scott: Any questions or comments? Okay, anyfl~ ing else? Al Rader: The other thing I had was, any of the wetlands, the ponding, we'll address it with the city staff...and those are all pretty much issues that they'll do and ~1 us... Conrad: Talk to me a little bit about the retaining wall It's hard for me to visnuliTe what you're doing there. I guess I wish I saw a profile d this project versus, it's really hard to understand what you're doing with the retaining wall Al Raden. Basically we've got to take up the diff~ in grade along, this is the prolmrty line of the project here~ It's kind of a random patmm here. We've got to take up the grade difference betw~ the ~ up here and the maximum you can get these up to so the~'s a percentage grade we can share. We've got it down to the property line to a point where we've got to stay away from the building a certain distance so the difference between those two will be taken up by the retaining wall Some of the walls will be shorter but in other areas there will be higher walls. But it won't be in one wall It will be a stepped, terraced 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Conrad: Is this a wood? Is this concrete? What is this made out of? A1 Racier: I guess that would be up to the design engineer. What they recommend and what the developer wants. I'm assuming it would be a pre-fab concrcte...field swne retaining wall Something, but it's going to be done well so that it's going to be fairly, it will be maintenance free. They're not going to have to repair iL Conrad: And it's set into, at the wp of that retaining walk is that where the grade takes off again? A1 Radec. It will take off at the top and go on up to the common ~ line with the adjacent neighbors. Conrad: $o given you're backed up to a neighborhood, how do you prevent, you know again. It's hard for me to vis~,sljTe, this. Are we, we've got an 8 foot berm or a 10 foot drop? Al Rader: 10 foot. Scott: Per step7 I'm envisioning. If I lived tlgre, I would be falling in tlgre. Mancino: Are these planted? Are they going to be planted terraces so that kids can't, I mean kids come to the edge of the property. Al Rader:. I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. If they should be planted or be left wild, native grasses. Native plantings. Conrad: But how do you prevent, and again. Maybe this is not a big deal but how do you, as you abut a neighborhood, how do you keep people from actually being injured? Is it just that obvious. You can see it. You know that there's a wall there. A retaining wall and you're going to be careful or is it a hazard7 I guess that's s~g that I'm not convinced of yet. Nothing's been presented to show me we solved a drop of 10 feet or whatever. Al Rader: Wails are used on a lot of subdivisions. If you look on a lot of subdivisions they'll have the same type situation. They're stepped but they'll have the building pad elevation will drop down 5 feet to another building pad and drop another 5 and that's basically the same thing we're doing here except for you're not going to, you probably won't have that 90 foot spread building pad. You'll have a landing terrace. I'm sure the city staff will have some reconunendations on it because they're going to be reviewing this. They're going to have to look at what we design. And work with the consuuction... Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Do we have any indication as to the position of adjacent homes relative to th/s7 I ~ that's something that we're sorely lacking in basically every package we've received in the year and a half I've been here. We do not have a clue as to whether this is encroaching on neighborhood's property lines. We don't have a due where the houses ate. We have no idea, and I mean I look at that as a potential hazard depend~ on how it's handled. And you know once again, if we can't, if we don't see it, we can't do anything with it. Aanenson: Well you can't encroach on the neighboring property line. That is the plat line. Scott: Yeah, but we don't have a clue as to where the homes are located in the whatever addition of Lake Susan Hills that is. It'd be nice if it were just sitting there with nothing ~onnd it but there's no clue. I don't have a clue anyway. Aanenson: You have to have at least a 30 foot setback. Al Rader: I assume that those lots would be 140 feet deep. You take 30 foot from the setback and take about a 40 foot house so you've got 70 off of there. 40 feet and probably have a 50 to 70 foot range back yard on those adjacent pwpetties. ': Mancino: What if somebody built their house back a ways? Scott: So are there, the entrance, I don't know what the street is but the entrance. Is it, you have your two entrances and then there's another entrance into I think it's the 4th Addition or Lake Susan Hills West. I'm just trying to get a picture of where the houses. Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills Drive. Scott: Lake Susan Hills ])rive and I know there's a home kind of set up on a hill. Is that thc closest? I'm just trying to get a clue as to. Okay, you've got to do it so north is west. Mancino: The house is back Sco~ Okay, so there are houses back in that entire, okay. Al-Jaff: This is thc concept PUD. Scott: Okay, because I don't think there are homes built on the north side. I'm just trying to get, okay. AI-Jaff: No there aren't. Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott Okay. Where do the homes actually start? Is it about maybe a third of the way from Lak~ Susan Hills Drive. Al-Is_fi: I can try putting these side by side. Scott: Well those are platted lots but I don't know if they're built on. Al-$aff: There's Lak~ Susan Hills Drive and again this is Lak~ Susan Hills Drive. The lots, the first lot is fight here. Scott: Those aH have homes on iC Al-Jaff: And then it goes aH the way down and around. Which is fairly similsr to this. Al Rade~. Basically I guess just you know, on a preliminary plat I was showing where the lawns are actually located. I'm not showing houses but you can see how many houses are lined up along the edge of this subdivision. Any other questions? Scott: None? Al Rader: Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else from the development team like to m_~lre any co~ts7 Good. This is a public hearing and I would like to have a motion to open. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearin~ Ail voted in eavor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Bowman: My name is Bruce Bowman. I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. I'm the 7th one of that. Coming up from thc south side. South side of...7th lot. Al-$aff: Lot 107 Bruce Bowman: Yeah, fight there. I have several questions regarding this but I notice the time and I notice that at 11:00 you just stop. Scott: That's unusual when we stop at 11:00 but we'd appreciate concise comments. Bruce Bowman: Well I just didn't want to get us aH involved here and going and so forth and then find out that we had to stop in the midst of it. So that was my main reason for Pbmning Commission M~ting - Sop~ 7, 1994 getting up right away it you wanted to. Thank you. Tom Rasmussen: My name's Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and we've done a lot of the homework already on this. I had a meeting in my house approximaiely a week and a half ago in which I had most of the residents along that side there and also some adjacent properties come over to my house and we discussed amongst ourselves the issues relating to this development and what we've got here is kind of a summary lxesen~on, if that's alight Instead of everybody speaking, we'd like to tell you what our issues are and at this point I can't believe staff is making a recommendation for approval of this at this stage and we would like to go over and make a presentation. Helping me here do this will be Phil Jensen and also Ron Ziebell. What I'm first going to do is talk a little bit about our association. We passed around a petition addressing our concerns and we've got 50 residences. Not individuals but 50 homeowners. Everyone along the strip, and some others beyond it, that are concerned about this development Have signed up and agreed upon what we're discussing here tonight. So it's not just me. It's 50 reaidenm. Why are we here? Well first of all when we heard $80,000.00 townhomes we all had a heart attack for that. We were the ones that were concerned our property values might decrease. We are the ones who have children living there fight now that could po~tially be injured by this development off the retaining wails. We are the ones that are putting up with ~ and noise issues along '" County Road 17. Right now. Today. We are the ones that have to live with the decisions of your commission and of the City Council And why are we here7 Actually because we care about improving the quality of life, not only for ourselves along the sides there but we do have a concern. We know what the neighborhood's like for the people that will be moving in here and we do look out for their intrust too. Not just for ourselves. For them. What we're going to talk about are safety issues fksL Environmental issues second. Development issues third and we have come up with a list of recommendations. We didn't want to leave anybody hanging for that and I'll conclude with that at the end here. Phil Sensen: Thanks Tom. I'm Phil Sensen. I live at 1580 Lake Susan Hill~ Drive and I'd like to make one conmumt. I feel a lot better. .. so it's nice to see Phil. I've known him for years. The first thing, our concern on safety happens to be that we're a young community of course and of course a picture's worth a thousand words and Phil is familiar with Joe Miller Horm and he built a community for us and he had all the block parties that he cele~ with us for. This is the...I'd ~ to pass around. Just in one short block, the first very short block there, there are 28 adults and 26 children. Just in the first block. Not to mention the rest of that street that backs up to the property and our first corn primarily is to how we will be able to handle our children and our pe~l~'tive was no di~erent than your's quite frankly. That we didn't know if these retaining walls were going to be 20 foot drops or what they would be. We were very concerned about that. We'd like to see that addressed in some fashion. Whether it's a profile of it or something so we feel a little bit more comf~le Planning Commission Meeting - Sepl~nber 7, 1994 there. Then in addition to the block wall as I scan from my outli~ here. In addition to the concerns we have about the retaining wall is that we have all experlen~ structural damage. Most of us have experienced structural damage in our community, whether it's by sod or wash away from our own soll or water drainage into our home and so on because of our community. We've got those bruises that have happened. We don't want that new community to have those same bruises. We want your building, that you're btfilding, to go through the same experiences that we went through so our concern is in this engineering design of these retaining walls. That if they're not done correctly, of course it takes the pressu~ away from the hill that we're all living up and arotmd, if it takes away the pressure that's holding the land in place, we may see some pressure coming away at our foundations and the hill above it starting to show some stress problcm~ Some send problems and so on. In addition to that, our watershed and I would just utili=e a couple more pictures in this that I would hand to you and these are just a couple illustrations of local yards of what we experienced from watershed from above when we were laying sod. We'd have a stake cutting party quite frankly where as soon as somebody laid their sod, dog gone it, we just got out there the next morning and we'd lake our bucket and we'd cut out a bunch of slakes and put in the bucket and we'd go to our neighbor and help resmkc his new yard and that's because that watershed will just pull all these thousand rolls of sod fight off his yard and go right down the hill. I perso~y used my kids toboggan to pull back over 1,000 rolls of sod back up thc slrect · I don't want my new neighbors to have that same problem so I'm very concernod as to how this retaining wall will affect that. In addition to the retaining walls and drawing children to that, we have the traffic co~ as far as our safety. And if I could get that one graphic back up first on thc. Actually that one will work just fine. Let me walk over here and I'll point out exactly what we're ref~ to. And that is that CR 17 is becoming an expressway and one thing that our community is aware of is we know it's going to go to 4 lanes. And that's to be to get everybody to Target and Byerly's~ Weil that's great It's going to go to 4 lanes and help with the traffic flow and all this other jazz but what we're concerned about is thc driveways here in these different spots that have access to it. If it doesn't turn to a 4 lane highway, these driveways will be a one way turn only. They're not going to he able to cross 2 lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn across on a 4 way as we envision it and street lights we don't fccl arc an answer to place that's 50 mph speed limit now that people are traveling. There's already people that wait at Lak~ Susan Hills Drive, fight here at this corner as much as 10 minutes in the ~mornings trying to get on CR 17. Just trying to get onto it. And that's because there is no stop sign. We're not advocates of street lights. We don't want them. We'd just like to see the speed limits come down and stop si~s. I'm atready consulting Larry MacKenzie at the Depm~amnt of Transpomttion for Minnesota. Hc informs me that wc merely nec(l to request to the County an audit be done. They in turn will ask the State to audit it and they will tell us as to the date what the ~ flow what should be designed for that, for 4 lanes and whether stop lights exist or not. So in this area of outlet to this Lake Susan, they're going to have to only mR~ fight hand turns and Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 then they're going to get down to a sign where they're all going m mak~ U turns. So we're a little concerned how that traffic flow goes and we'd ~ to see how that is going to be developed by our city or the County or whoever is involved in that. The next thing is that... We really hope that there's nothing but families that join our community because we're really, really supportive of that. We want a whole pile of kids to be here. Well if all these kids are here, they're going to want their own park. Well if this is a 4 lane highway and the park is supposed to be here, how are they going to get there7 Well, I'm not going to bore you with the photos but I've got all kinds of phows and one of the first things we heard back was they can use the tunnel Have you seen the tunnel? Do you know where it is? We had to find it ourselves. It's, I'm guessing but it may have been a tunnel that was used for cows bock when there were farms here. It is not passable and I have the photos to prove it that just~ they Wel'O taken last week. So tho tnnnol's not an idea to get people across to this park and I certainly am not going to send my kids across CR 17 to get to that park and I sure wouldn't want my new neighbors to do that. That's not a good idea. So we're here to recormnend, as Tom gets into the second part or the third part of this, what our recommendations are to gain access to the park. The other side is we're going to be crawling :. the retaining walls we don't know about yet and trying to get through our yards to get to the other parks. So we want it to be a safe environment, not only by the uaffic flow but also by some type of a profile of those walls. The last thing I would have to say is, in my commentary is, school bus loading area is also right down in the bottom of that hill where I point out first is the very bottom portion of that graph. That's where the school bus stops and this is also where that traffic blocks up today because there is no stop sign on CR 17 and that speed limit is 50 mph. I don't want to get too emotional but dog gone it, it's my town and this is our town. It's our community and people are just passing through it. We live there and we would strongly ask you to make recomme~lations to the county for them to have that section of highway audil~i for it's traf~ flow with our new neighbors joining us and the new neighbors across the street coming, we want to make sure the speed limits come_ down and we have the ~ stop signs there so they have access in and out of their community and that makes it safer for our kids as well as their's. I guess from the safety standpoint, I think I've addressed mine and I would pass it back to Tom. Tom Rasmussen: The next thing on our outline here that we'd like to talk about would be the enviromnental issues and our ~Lrst thing, as you've lmtrd a million times already Itmight are the issues of trees. We don't have much but we do have a beau~ little cluster right in the middle of this development and although they have made some efforts to retain those, if you look at their grading plans and their landscaping plans, they have homes that are encroaching into the trees on both sides and if you also look closely at it, they're planning on removing most of the under shrubs and only keep a few of the larger portion trees there of that. Our reco~tion is they just leave the whole thing as it is with brush and everything along in there and we have pictures showing the trees and how they sit fight there. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - Sept~mba' 7, 1994 Our recommendation is that they don't encroach into the trees and they don't go in there and start thinning them out either. The next issue that we have is on the grading plan they're showing a wet pond, retention pond. Whatever you want to call it. I've got a problem just reading the grading plan. I see, what is the elevation the pond's supposed to be at. There's no invert elevation shown on the 12 inch outlet pipe. We don't know what the nomml, the lO0 year flood elevations are. We don't know what the emergency overflow elevation of that is. They have got some serious problems already along Egret Court along there with drainage problems already and this pond is making those residents extremely nervous, as it is right there like that. Right now the other issue that we have is that there is poor soils in the vicinity of Egret Court. As Phil had mentioned, they've led already to drainage and structural problems. All you need to do is drive in there, in that Court and see for yourself. But they want assurances that they're not going to get any worst. We don't feel comfortable right now pond were raised about stagnant warn'. Odor problem~ Mosquito breeding grounds. All of thOse things. The residents along there feel that the city and developer need to nddress these issues and get answers back. The next thing here is something I haven't heard mentioned yet, although I can't see why it wasn't. There is wetlands present down there where this pond is supposed to go in. That is a wetland in my mind although I have not seen a wetland delineation and assessment report yet to document that. I realize we need to have the vegetation. We need to have the soils. You need to have the hydrology to chtssify it as a wetland. I have not seen a report that does that. However, we did go out there. We surveyed the vegetation there. There's foxtail, reed canary grass, aster, cattails, marsh golden rod. All of those types of vegetation thnt indicate it is a wetland. There is standing water there all along the line. I have not seen any delineation report yet. I think it needs to be done for that. I think the hydrogology must be there or else this wouldn't be existing. The question then comes along the lines of soil The next thing is that there is appwximately about a 1/5 acre of wetland locatexi in the middle of the project Fairly small but however under the wetland conservation act, anything less than 400 square feet area can be filled in. I believe this exceeds that. And again that should be part of the wetland assessment report which has not been done. Thirdly we get into the area of, we mentioned thi, already on the safety. However under the areas of erosion controL..This tells you the type of so/Is we're den_llng with and these are moderate slopes. Not even dose to the slopes they're proposing for the development, These are the type of issues that we have come across already. Like that. Slope failures are inherent to the neighborhood and I don't want that happening below my house like that. Next, if this is determined to be a wetland where they're proposing this pond, we need to see some on site sedimentation basins to protect that wetland as is requital under the wetland preservation act. With that, the other thing that we want to see is some type of implementation schedule that after they go and do the grading, how long do we have to stand around and wait until they smrC..seeding, putting the hay on the ground s_nd protecting along those measm-es there. I know Joe Miller's development across the street had 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 that stuff but I watched it every single day and I thought that was fairly poor erosion control measmcs across the street there. From my eye~ Lastly we do, we talked about perce~t impervious and all the density and stuff like that. In our minds, when we look at the plat, we think it's being crammed in there. That's from our eyes. That's what everybody along here has...so although the developer threaumed in my mind, about how they could build more and build the units like going up next to Byerly's here, we still think that there's an opportunity to provide more green space and less dense units in here. Next we'll get into the development issues. I'll turn it over to Ron. Ron Ziebell: Ron ZiebelL 1561 Lake Susan. Lot 13 on the southern end. I re, ally liim to shorm~ this. One of them's already been addressed. We're concerned, first of all with the maintenance free type of enviromnent, both from the building and the landscaping. My ~g of the proposed plan of the back of my lot, which now has a slope. Incidentally, the slope hms from my lot down to CR 17...extensive excavation to put the development in there. And I don't have a real problem with that except from my lot down to the s~ and down there will be some retaining walls and...14 feet down to 8 feet. And this will be. .. others will be close to it and I'm concerned with the safety issue with the children of the neighbo~ood. Some sort of a safety measure, whether it be fencing or whatever. Natural vegetation...to help terracing is a big relief to me. I think that would help and anything along those lines. With respect to maintenance free, with the retaining walls and the steep slopes, I'm concerned with the maintenance of the ~ itself. The retaining and...development are~ We're concerned also with thc property becoming rental uni~ We would likr to maintain them as an owner occupied with some assurances along those lines. We would suggest items liim buildin§ sprinkler systm~s to enhance the maln~ free aspect of the property but also to give some assurances that the rapid development for ground cover and retmfion of the soil for the development...excavafion and slope that you're going to have to build into it. And we're concerned with the planning. It may not be the maximum density permitt~C We feel that they are a little bit crammed in and the cookie cutmr approach to the units. We'd ~ to see a little bit of variance on that. Across Highway 17 and Powers Blvd, there are some townhomes in there... In fact there would be no reason why similar units couldn't be integrated into this particular rental unit here. I guess...thc proposal part of it and... Tom Rasmussen: One of thc things we thought of is we don't want to leave you hanging here thinking what is on our mind. What do we want to see for that. So therefore we have come up with some reco~fions to kind of put up along there. This is something that we decided and talked about We would like to see, personally we want to see the elimination of all retaining walls and steep slopes and we want to retain the existing slope coming down from our units as much as possible. ~ that We want to deew, ase the number of units to prevent intensification and traffic congestion issues that are along CR 17. We want to require more green space. We want to preserve the wethnd. We want to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 preserve the woods and we want to preserve any type of green space, especially along the slope as much as possible. Like that. What do you do with wate~ from the site? We're recommending that you put a pipe in across from the development over to CR 17 to the existing ponding syst~n with the 1oe Miller Homes development. There is ample stora~ in there and we believe that that would help solve all those issues. That helps...befo~ it goes into Lake Susan. We would like to request that a closer look be taken at County Road 17's traffic and safety issues. We would like to see the speed decreased. We want to limit the number of access points coming out from this development. We want to install 4 way stop signs at both Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17 in--on. And what we would like to see is we would like to see a pedestrian foot l~dge coming from this development ac~ss to the park over there. We see this as the only altmative to get over there safely. Right now the~ is no green space. The children can't play in here. We don't want them coming throllgh our yards...There's a nice park proposed across there and we think that that's the only natural safe spot..~gain our recommendation is that they continue on with the maintmmce free ext~r and trim and I was pan of a townhome before I came out here to C~anhassen and believe ~ the underground sprinklers are an excellent idea ahead of time. The time to do it is before you do any grading out there and think about that. When we first started off we hired some children, or some kids that were off during the ~mrner~_'me and you get such an emitic pattern of the way the dev¢lopment looks, It's just a nice, lot cleaner, better looking development to just go ahead and work those in from the be~nnin§. Right now we're ullder some maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills on the west side there. We'd like to see at a minimum those type of guidelines be applied to this development. We would also like to see along the edge here, where we've got in here, is we do want to see some type of a buffer. We want a year round ~ That is not proposed fight now on the landsc~g plan in any manner whatsoever. We feel that that's a must. We addressed the issue already about no recreational space within the development for the children and we also want to reco~ that you impose stringent townhome association guidelines so we can be assured that they will have the capilal necessary to take as much pride in maintaining their buildings and their yards as we currently do in our's for that. Right now in conclusion we're asking you to table this. Right now none of the plans we have seen, they don't have any of this tiered retaining wall system. They haven't done anything like that. No berm is shown along CR 17, although I heard a lot of stuff being mentioned from the developer. I don't see it on the plans. Sorry. But right now you can't give approval to anything that's not on the plan and has a chance for us to review it. We've had a lot of patient people here tonight. Waiting. We've had two meetings in ourselves to try and eliminate the time that we're here talking to you. Along those lines, we've come up with a design we ltgnk is feasible with one access point. One common driveway that has a berm between there. Then you just go ahead and rotate the units in. This way you Igeserve the slopes as much as possible and the units could face each other where these arrows are would be a common driveway. Thank you for your time. Planning Commission Meeting - Sel~mber 7, 1994 Mancino: Excuse me. How many units are you proposing? Tom Rasmus~: Well, right now it's just a schcmafic but I just thought that, if you look at the pictures, there's the slope coming down and there's a fiat area. All their recommendation is is that they sit there and try to work within the fiat area as much as possible. That way you don't need to do the retaining walls and if you sit there and you rotate the units in a little bit, you can maybe like the larger blocks might be units, maybe 3 or 4. Instead of twin homes they could be maybe units of 3 or 4 townhomes and the smaller ones might be the twin homes and have them served by a common driveway there. That way we get a little bit more... What it is, I'm just throwing it out as a schematic but to me this type of a design would address a lot of our concerns. And that's why we wanted to throw something back that they could possible work with. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes Wendy Nelson: My name is Wendy Nelson and I live at 8411 Egret Court, which is the first lot. Up at the top in the northern part. And my husband and I really have concern about the retention pond.- -I'm not too familiar with retention ponds except that I know that there's wa~er which generates mosquitoes and da, da, da, da. But Fd like to know, and I don't know if the en~neer can tell me thi.% how close this is to my property line. Because from where I sit, there's not that much room fxom my property line and CR 17. So if someone could kind of tell me. Scott: We have the scalemeister is calculating it as we speak. The only problem is with something like that, it could either be 100 miles, 100 feet, 100 yards so but being the competent individual that he is. Hempel: Scaling it off the plan, it appears to be the normal water level of the pond would be approximately 20 feet from the pwpa~ line at this point. On the proposed plan but I have to back up a st~p and maybe address a couple of the issues that have been thrown out in terms of storm drainage and wetlands and so forth. The staff report does take into account wetland delineation and storm water po_n_ding issues on the site. We've made some recommendations very similar to what the association had concerns with and some of their recommendafiom...at our's. That is classified as a wethnd area. It's a very si~iflcaut graded wetland area. There's been a sanitary sewer line run through it approxima~y 3 to 4 years ago. It's been regraded and filled in to mainUtin the drainage from upsueam in Egret Court down to the county road. It has taken back on it's wetland clm-acteris~ as a pond...through that area. That area is desi~ as a surface water management pond as part 55 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 of our city wide con'4yrehensive storm water management plan. The applicant would be required to...banking the city or another developer. We're looking at some banking area would be Powers Boulevard...involved in that project. There's also another storm water pond potentially in the center of the site which we are considering buying the...to limit the number of ponds on the site to one. That area may be a wetland. It's something that we've required...have a professional biologist and wetland...and ~h the site and come back to us with a survey of that. Storm water pond will be tied back into the loc Miller's 9th Addition which is on the east side of the street. We made provisions for that development to take the storm water runoff from this side of the sueec It Igeuea~d the water quality treaunent ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands there before into Lake Susan. So we have a step up on that. Wendy Nelson: Wetl David, the retention pond, you said that's 20 feet from my pwpa~. Hempel: Property. Wendy Nelson: Property line. Hempel: That's correcC Tom Rasmussen: Is that normal? Hempel: That's the normal water elevation. Tom Rasmussen: How high wonlrl it be with a 100 ye~ storm then? What's the em~rge~'y overflow? Obviously you got betu~ plans than what was given to us. Hern~l: It appears to be about 5 feet away. 5 to 10 feet away from the ffropeny line. 100 year flood elevation of the pond before it would overflow and go out to Powers Boulevard. The Scott: And then as part of our surface water management plan, all of the retention ponds have got minimum slopes. Or maximum dopes. 1 to 4. Mancino: 4 to 1. Scott Yeah, 4 to 1. It starts to taper and my guess is, as far as mosquito control, because that's obviously imporUmt to everybody. From what I understand, and I'm not a mosquito ~ but I believe that these ponds are designed so that it doesn't allow for the shallow calm water the mosquiWes to breed in. But I think usually because of the size of the ponds, 56 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 it's really not a good environment because it's usually exposed to wind and wave action which is not the best place for mosquito breeding but you know, there's our expert over there. I think that has something to do with it. Hempel: There's a couple different design parameters that we can _err~,loy. We do employ a safety aspect of it...where we have a 10 to I slope for the first 1 foot of water to provide a bench around the pond. That area does occasionally grow vegetation, cattails and so forth in the shallow water. The other type of pon_ding design, they've come out with a 4:1 slope. A more gradual slope that doesn't provide that shallow water shelf. It's a gradual slope. So if someone was to fall in, it would keep...3:l slope. Those are some_, of the things that we... Wendy Nelson: Is it normal for retention ponds to be that close to the property line? If that is normal, could you give me an exan~le somewhere in Chanhassen so I can have some idea. Aanenson: Lake Susan has plenty of them. Scott: Yeah, it's real common. Hcmpel: 'All thc storm water ponds in your neighborhood. Directly across the streeC The water treatment ponds that are in thc back yard~.. Not thc property but it's in the back door. Wendy Nelson: One other thing. I know Tom mentioned the problems in our cul-de-sac. I don't know if many people are aware but there are lots, I don't know how many houses are in that cul-de-sac... Yeah, and out of those seven, how many have had problems? Five. So that's another concern about the building in ~At are~ Because we are sbi/-ting of land. If anything were to happen, I mean who would be responsible for the houses that are still standing there and aren't having any problems? Where will we go ff there's a problem? Scott: Good question. I don't have an answer for you but I think that. Wendy Nelson: Major problems in that cul-de-sac. Hempel: We're familiar with the problems. You've been having soil corrections way back apparently to they oversized the house pad on the lot type situation, is my understanding... Maucino: So that we're sure when this is built, that that will be investigated to make sure that it certainly won't repeat itself. Hempel: Well certainly if the soil corrections that went in, it's ~t to detent/ne the 57 Planing Commission Meeting - Scptemlx~ 7, 1994 ramifications from this development alone to thi~ existing ncighborhoo& Scott: Is this something where soft borings be one avenue of dem~ining that or? Hempel: Right. We do require some soil borings from the applicant. Any kind of soil correction mea~...~or to issuance of bnilding pcrmiL Scott: What about, is there a permitting process for retaining wails? Hempel: That's cotre~ I believe the ordinance is for any kind of retaining wall that exceeds...obtain a building permit prior to construction. Depending on that height, if it does ~ 5 feet, I believe it needs to be engineered by a profess/onal en~neer, stmcuual Sc, otC Okay. Well thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? Loleta Tolliver Rogers: Hi. My name is Loleta Tolliver Rogers. I live on the south side, fourth house off the comer. I know we said we wanted to keep our comments short and sweet...or whatever but this is a burning issue and we as a neighborhood have not been presented with all the facts. As we came in today we were told that townhomes were going to be $80,000.00. The developer says $100-110,000.00. As we were told we were going to have retaining walls, we don't know what they look like. We don't have a ~ve of them. I personally have two children. One 5, one 3. Very curious. I can see them playing in the back yard saying, I race you to the top of the wall And what's going to happen when they fall over? Once again, where is the liability? Who's going to assure me that my children are going to be okay? I think when it back to their ~-presen~ve today, a flyer from what we need as an association have been given are not the same. We have not seen the... paths and before this can be taken any fin'ther, I feel that we as a development need to see what's really going to happen. He desa/bes this, the back of these homes are going to be against Powers Blvd. Multiple colors. I was born in a large city. That sounds like row houses to me. I did not move out here to live in row houses. I did not move out here to live in a section divided. To live with a different class of people. There are too many unanswered questions I think that need to be resolved before this can go any fin'ther. Thanks. Scott: Good. Thanks for your comments and that's the reason why we have public hearing~ So your cornrrw~ts are apprechted and we do pay very close ~ention to what people say. Yes sir. Jeff ?.s_hu: My name is Jeff Zahn. I live at 8461 Pelican Court which borders the property. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - Sepmnl~ 7, 1994 I just had a couple quick things .... approve this project when retaining walls haven't even conceptually been thought of by the developer. Not ~ Not whether it's tiered or what so I'm a little aw~,ed at that. A lot of talk about water drainage but I haven't heard much about the upper lots. How that water can flow down into this development. My back yard, when it rains, it pours in just like a river back there flowing down that hill. The retaining walls there, I don't know where that wmer's going. I pose that question. Just one last thing. This developer, and I'm not even sure who they really are. They talk about a joint venture. My concern is they're going to be doing major excavation right next to my lot. I want ~ know who they are. Who their contractors are doing this excavation and whether guess that's all I have. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else7 Yes sir. Gary Condit~ My name is Gary Condit and I'll just point up here where I am. I'm Lot 24 here. It goes from this corner to this corner, lust very briefly, I think the issue of the retaining walls has become a major issue. You can see how the land juts out. If you've got a map there with elevations on it. I have maintained the mode that the whole top of that hill around, I planted uees on it and I see from our lot line, the back of these homes, 25 feet Now if you take a peak at the elevations, it's 20 feet down and 25 feet this way, what's that? ...it looks like a 45 degree slope. Now if you go out 25 feet and down 20, that gives you an idea of what the kind of steepness in this retaining wall is going to be. And I think at this point it's a major design error and I would strongly recommend, like our recommendation before is to move them out more into the flat land area and go with more of an idea like that. Scott: Thank you. Yes sir. Bruce Bowman: I guess we're on a first name basis by now. Bruce Bowman. I have a house that backs up to what is going to be continued woods, or woodland area. That's one question. The retaining walls are something I cannot get through my head. It's going to be a lasting thing, first of all. And secondiy, how in the world it's going to be safe when they don't even know if they're going to have any fencing, uees or anything else. I think that at best it's a very premature thing. My perso~ opinion, looking at that rendering, they didn't tak~ into consideration the topography of the land. They're taking dirt out of there and as someone already said, ff you're going down 20 feet or 14 feet or smnething ~ that, and then just a short distance to the back of the house, I don't know how that would work. I have another concern. I like to work in my yard. Everyone else along that sUeet ~ to work in their yard. At least keep it up. Have pride in ownership. What's going to happen to these woods? That they're going to leave there. Are they just §oing to forget about it? Is there a homeowners association that's going to tak~ care of this? What's going to happen? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Chanhassen is a nice community. I moved here in 1978. I lived in another area. When I moved away in 1989, the area I live in now wasn't even there. But I think that there needs to be some more planning. Personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more planning on this situation before they just blindly go in there, start dig,~ng dirt out. Making walls and making no apparent safeguards and no apparent way of making it into a part of Chanhassen as we know, a valuable area and a nice community. I thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Ron Ziebell: I'd like to expand a little bit about what I said before for the record here... The wooded area, if you draw a circle around tha~ is an area that sl~es from Bruce's back yard in pretty much a uniformed grade down to Powers Boulevard. The retention of the wooded area is going to cause some problems that should be addressed in the plans. First of all that the woodland is going to be retained, that means they're not going to be graded. The land right next to it is going to be graded rather severely and...retaining walls and the...and the woods. The consideration should be for overall landscaping. How do the woods blend into the retaining landscaping, particularly along the top of the or along the border between the existing housing and the proposed developn~nt. There should be some sort of a planned landscaping scheme that considers the retention of the trees and blending of that particular area in with the surrounding neighborhood. Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to close the public tma~g please? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearin~ All voted in flavor and the nmtion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Sco~ Ron. Nutting: Where do you begin? I can't personally pass this along. I need to see it back. I need to see stuff on the retaining walls. I'm still new at this game Kate but I see, there's a lot of stuff in thh report I don't think most of the residents have seen in your reco~fions are there to address the issues regarding wetland and landscaping and everything else. But I guess there's enough issues and enough concerns I'd rather see it back with some of those issues visualized for us so that we can better respond to the con_cema of the res/dents. Rather than to move it on and not have a chance to see it back. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I guess I have quite a few queXdons. Thank you for all your remar~ and questions. Dave, can you talk a little bit to all of us about Powers Blvd and the 50 mph Planning Comm/ssion Meeting - S~tember 7, 1994 speed limit. It seems to me that in Chanhassen we have a lot of big wide roads that just encourage us all to go faster and we have them through our neighborhoods. I have a huge concern about that. We're building bigger, wider road~ People are going faster and they're fight in the middle of our neighborhoods. And this is one that I think a lot of citizens here tonight have brought up and what can be done about it. Hempeh Conuni~oner Mancino, there have been si~ps taking already in fact to address the speed limit issues on most of our major highways within this city. This past spring or sumn~ the City Council, in a joint effort with the Carver County public Mghway department petitioned the State to perform speed studies on all of our county roadway systems in the city. Galpin Blvd, Powers Blvd. To review these. They haven't been reviewed in a while. Plus all this development we've had over the last few years. Have a lot more Ua/ftc. Lot mare residential neighborhoods abutting these streets so it is being addre, s~/. Will be looked at by MnDot here and we hope to have something back shortly. Powers Blvd is in the process of being widened and upgraded. The construction plans are being drown as we speak Carver County is the lead agency...participation. The consultant en~neer that the County has hired, I did speak with them on this issue with regards to access. They are undecided at this point where they'll be limiting the access points to a fight-in to a fight-out or one of the access, maybe the...will have the full turning movement. That's something that we're looking at taking the sight distances and distances between access points. Carver County did supply us with a memo based on the access issues. The storm drainage issues so these will be addressed here in the upcoming month he~. Their construction plans and the developer. I think one of the conditions that we put in the staff report was the atrplicant meet with the County and the City to review the access issues and storm drainage issues and so forth. Powers Blvd definitely will include pedestrian trails/sidewalks on each side of the roadway. There's been some talk tonight about accessing the parcel on the east side of Powers Blvd. It's my understa~_ding that they're looking at a pedestrian crossing with a runnel. There's an existing cattle passage if you will, on the north end that's been used. It needs some work. There's some erosion that's ocon'red...bad shape. There's a similar proposal I believe to occur on the southerly portion of Powers to access and provide a pedestrian access across Powers Blvd without having to cross. The pedestrian bridge, great idea. The cost of something like that unfominately I think, we're well aware of what's taking place in the downtown with the price tag of that one so I don't know if that's reality. There is another park systmn that's essentially larger and it's probably going to draw these neighborhood children as well and that's in the Lake Susan Hills development...hill. That's already been developed and the Lake Susan Hills residents are enjoying already. I'm sure they can all use little parks... Mancino: And that's being addressed. Will the stop sign issue on ~ Susan Hills Drive ss it goes into Powers Blvd be addressed? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~ 7, 1994 Hempel: I did ask the consultant and they're looking into that. There was no ~in__te_. talk. They didn't feel that thc warrants were there to justify a signal intersection. They will be looking at that though. They will be providing the mechanimrts in the co--on of the upgrade of Powers for future signa/izauion so I don't...wnzrnnts are mec But at this point we don't consider any ~ controls at this intersection. Mancino: Okay. Do you have any time line when you think MnDot will get to act on the speed limits on Powers and Galpin and our major roads. Hempel: I'd have to check further into that. See where they're at. Mancino: Retaining walls. Sharmin, did the developer and staff, I mean how does staff feel about and do we have it in other places in Chanhass~ where we have 14 foot retaining walls abut§? Al-$aff: We...with the applicant and we expressed our concern over the height of retaining walls. Mancino: What was the applicant? Aanenson: That's why we want to lx~race them... Mancino: Okay, to go with the terrace. Al-Jaff: We also...put fencing in. Mancino: So fencing at the top of thc highest point of the terrace and besides fencing, because we also know what fencing looks like. Some sort of nrbontitae or some sort of Al-$aff: ...approval. Landscaping plan. Mancino: Okay. Did the applicant look at all about doing a sloping down a little hit and then tearaciag? Come down a little bit more gradually, and I know that that would probably lose some land for developing but was there any creative look at that? Developing it that way. Al-la/f: When we met with the applicant, which was Tuesday of last week, we recommended that they revise the plan. That they show us a ~ retaimn' g wall and we left the de.~gn issue with them. That they would have to come back to us with a design that was 62 Plarming Commission Meeting - $~ber 7, 1994 Mancino: And we don't see it, right? Hcmpeh Maybe if I could expand on that a little Mt. Nancy, I'm sony to in~..we did throw out some suggestions to try to break up the row of houses. Meander a sUeet through there. Possibly providing all the units onto the west side of the sneer Move the street closer to Powers Blvd and act more like a frontage road if you will and provide suffi~t buffering then between Powers Blvd and that frontage road if you will That resultexl in lo~ng quite a few units there. They felt it was going to, they thought the grs_~ng was going to be approximately the same. They still have the units on the west side but, bring that rond closer to Powers Boulevard. If you bring the units down the hill somewhat and I think reduce~ some of the impact But it does knock off quite a few of the units being proposed. Aanenson: Can I just comment on what Dave is saying too. I think there's an q~mmce that this was dropped in our lap and we just reviewed it. We've been working with this applicant almost a year. This thing has gone through many evolutions. It's a very difficult piece to try to develop. There's an inherent density in there and hc feels there's an inherellt value in that property. Okay, so we're trying to come up with..zesolve but it is, there's some tough issues there. We're trying to...- Hcmpeh I'll touch on that a little bit more. The applicant was given the opportunity to revise his drawings...he'd like to bring it out onto the table and see what issues are actually out there so if they do go bnck, they can take into con~i_derafion nil of thc issues and go from Mancino: That's helpful information. Aanenson: This is an opportunity to get public input. Go back and respond to it. It goes back to that thing, should we put it on or wait until everything's finalized and then come back and you get them in a different order or bring it out in the public hearing and get some direction from everybody and go from there. Mancino: I just have a couple more questions. Sharmin: on the tree plan here. Are we suggesting that there be custom grading in some of the areas where it abuts the existing trees? Al-Jaff: Yes. They would lose some trees... Mancino: On that side. And quite a few on the north. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~emb~ 7, 1994 Al-Jail: Well it will probably be more than that. Mancino: So you're going to ~ke off about a quax~ of the trees that are there. AI-Jaff: Correct. However, all of this will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 as required by ordinance. We are also requesting additional trees being placed on this site. One thing that might help is, by reati~g those unils, it could potency minimize grading with those units and it could also winin,dze impacts on the stand of frees. Mancino: Trees. Okay. And when I see this tree plan, it has 10 trees that look like this. What's that t~lling me? I mean they're going to take all of this but what does it mean? Are t~o~e the ~ A1-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Going back t~ the canopy coverage. Mancino: So these are the trees that are larger than 12.caliper inch that they have designated they've shown. But the rest of the underbn~, the saplings and everything else will be saved and they may not go in and clear cut the underbrush? Annenson: If that's how we define the conservation easement outside of our grnding limits, We've indicated that some will be taken out that are shown on the plan. Mancino: Okay. But then the rest en masse will stay. Excuse me, I wrote down notes as everyone talked. I think that's the end of my quesfions~ Scott: Mat~ Ledvina: As far as retaining walls are concerned, another aspect that I'm interest~ in comes from what I'll call the Oak Pond effect and after seeing those townhomes go up, I'm just wondering what really happened there. But the retaining walls are going to be a major visual feature if they're built and I want to know exactly how they look when they go up because those will be viewed all along Powers Blvd, if indeed this gets cons~ like this. So I think that's going to be extremely imparlant. This is a PUD and I think it's kngortant that that be very well defined and we understand how that's going ~o look. Comments regarding the landscaping. Staff has indicated the deficiende~ I guess I would like to, when this comes back I would like to see a very detailed landscap/ng plan which resolves those Planning Commission Meeting - Se~exnber 7, 1994 deficiencies. I think thc plan is quite d~tYicuit to follow and I think it could usc a lot of improvement there. Thc idea of thc retaining walls going into thc treed area. To put in those ~g walls there's going to be all kinds of gra_dirtg beyo~ those areas. Equipment and essentially many, many of those trees would be lost in that area so you know I would not support those retaining walls within that freed area. I think that probably defeats the purpose. Let's see. I guess overall I think the residents had a lot of good commenm and I'm not going to fry to respond to each of those other than I think many of them have quite a bit of merit and I'm sure we're going to §o over those in derail They've put their thoughts down on paper which I think is great. They're very well organized and have a §ood handle as to what they feel is important for their neighborhood and I certainly appreciate that. The one thinE that was, or another thing that was brought out was the runoff from the upland area. The other neighborhood and I would, we really haven't addressed that anywhere in the staff report that I've seen and I know it's a matter of course to consider the watershed regardless of where the property lines are but I just want to make sure, in this case I think it's extremely important because there is a tremendous amount of water that will come off from the upland area that I want to make sure that gets addressed. I'm sure it will but just to emp~ the importance of that in terms of incorporating surface water comrol features into whatever retaining walls are built or whatever and that would be hind of tricky. But that would have to be done in this instance. I can't imagine for stability sake water cascading over those retaining walls so, that's the extent of my comments.. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: You know when you look at the footprint that we got, it wasn't bad. When you think that this has really been negotiated to have 9.3 units on it, it wasn't bad. h's coming in at 5.1 and unforumately it's probably not meeting the real need for, the real reason for having medium density and that bccomea affordable housing. And if we're st $110,000.00 which, as a minimum, I'm sure the neighbors appreciate that more than the $80,000.00 ~nnit but really when we put in a PUD and we put in medium density, the reason was to make affordable housing and we planned that for years and years and years. That's why we do our plans so that people know. It's there. It's been there for years. I said that and then I look st the retaining wall and I look st some issues when you start playing around with landforms, that if you were here when we talked about other ~ and that starts to bother me. When we start playing with the landforms again and putting in a retaining wall. That's when, what I thought to begin with kind of breaks down. It's to the point though where I want to see if it works. It looks like it could but I'm not totally convinced of it, and that's why the ap~~t has got to bring back some _better___. We have to visualize what this looks lik~. We have to, as planning commissioners and as neighbom, have to understand what we're doing with this retaining wall We have to see how the landscape plan affects that and how it moves from this medium density to the neighboring low density. So it may not be acceptable but on the 65 Planning Commission Meeting - $oplx:mber 7, 1994 other hand it just may but given what we've been given tonight, I don't have a clue. And given that fact, we have to table this. We have to. There's just no doubt. We have no other choice. My only other issue, I think a lot of the issues from the neighborhood, I think they'l~ resolved or they're close to being resolved. If you saw the staff report, we've dealt with, you know thc staff is dealing with speed limits. Staff is clealing with trec preserv~ Staff is dealing with wetlands. I think we're concerned with construction and I'm concerned with constxuction and what it could potentially do to the neighbor's houses and liability there. I think we have to let the neighbors know what it is. Who's accountable and we'll do that. My only other issue though is the variety of designs that abut the street. You know I really don't, I really don't want a row. It's not what we need there. I think gencrally I didn't have a real problem with the house design~. I think they're, but I don't want a row of houses abutting that street. There's got to be some kind of variety and I don't think it's just color and I think the developers have tried to put some gables in and some different varlafion~ but still they've got a great potential of a lot of units sitting exactly the same distance back from the street and it is, it's a wail. That bothers me a little bit. So we need to see it back and see what the developers can do but the big deal is, we have to visualize what your perspective is of that retaining wall. We have to see it because you're changing a landform that we really don't like to, or at least I don't like to play aronnd with the land that muck I idnd of like to leave it as it is and if you're to change it, then we've got to see how you're doing it so we can all say, yeah..That makes sense. So anyway, because again I starled out, the reason I started out with density, they conlractually can put that kind of density in here and you have, there's some other alternatives. It may not be economic for them to do it right now. There may not be a market for the higher density right now but they have some, contractually we're liable for putting in some units so when they come down to 5.1, that's not bad. So we just want to make sure they're the right 5.1 units that are going thcre so again, I say that to the neighbors. There's some other options that nrcn't as good but again, we have to make sure that this works. In a transition to your area and that's why I want to see it Mancino: I'd second that. Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am. lVlancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff. .. some direction about and that's impervious stn'f~. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impious surface is over what the PUD states. Scott: Is it 30 on thc PUD? 66 Phnning Commission Meeting - Septem_l~r 7, 1994 Mancino: It's 30 on thc PUD and fl~'re at 34%. Conrad: We can enforce that. Yet on the other hand, we could enfoix~ thac Aanenson: We went over on the other one... Ledvina: I think I'm willing, personally I'm willing to be flexible on that given the type of design that I see. If we were looking at another design; maybe 30% would be more appropriate. So I think the staff recommendation as it relates to that is appmpriale for, in my opinion, for this particular development. Mancino: Well it's probably one of the masons why you get the row of houses also. I rela~ thc impervious surface percentage to that and lining up the wads. Ledvina: It's very, I would agree with that and I think soimihing needs to be done to break up thc wall. And if that ~ losing a unit and staying...or losing more units or however it's done and also in rehtion to the severity of the slope differentials. In the final analysis, · ' retaining walls may not be the aplax~date way to-develop and the density would come down. I don't know but I think more sensitivity and analysis there will provide some answers. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table action on the prelin~ plat to subdivide 9.7 acFes into $1 lots twin home mulfifamily devdopment for Jasper Development CoFpoFation. All voted in favor and the minion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this back as soon as the applicant can do what we've suggesmt but just in summary. I believe it wotfld be very helpfifl for us to see a ~ve view, a westerly view of the, not necessarily the whole development but at least significant sections of the development where the difference in grade is very severe. Number two, if it is at aH possible and we all have to understand thst this piece of pmtmrty is pretty much a bn~c-tcase to try to develop and I think that this initial pass that we've seen is a good effort towards it but ff there's any way that we can get the street to meander a little bit so we have _more_ of a wave effect instead of just the row house, that'd be i .mlx)rlant. We'd like to see building materials at the next meeting and. Mancino: Detailed landscaping. Scott: Yeah, and the other comments I think are on it. Okay, good. Thank you aH very much. We appreciate your. The public hearing is closed sir. I'm Sorry. Planning Commission Meeting - Sep~ 7, 1994 Resident: I understand tl~ but I need to ask one quest/om Can we get the inf-ormation that we're asking too? Can we as homeowners? Annenson: Yes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes were available due to a copying machine problem. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on what occtmred at the City Coun~ meeting of August 22, 1994 and the Commis~on had some questions regarding the Entertainment Con. lex presenlafiom Mancino: My only concern, publically, is that they reviewed it much like we did. Remember we reviewed it. It was very long. We ~ at 5:30 and we went until 11:30 one night or 12:00. Aanenson: But this is just a concept. This is just to say, we should spend some money to do some drawings. Mancino: Exactly but I also want to say that it was too bad that I think that they did_ it like at 1:00, 12:30 at night too. So I mean there's nothing to be done. I'm just saying that it's Ledvina: Was it really that la~? Mancino: Yes... Aanenson: A 2 hour snowmobile issue... Kate Aanenson also reviewed thc legal issues involved pertaining to gifts presented to public offici~ with thc Planning Commisdon. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meetin~ Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:$0 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Pl~ning Director 68 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Pr~ared by Nann Opheirn