The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1994 11 02CHANHASSEN PLANN~G COMMISISION REGULAR MEEtiNG NOVEMBER 2, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order and then asked each of the Planning Commissioners to introduce themselves and their backgrounds and why they chose to serve on the Planning Commission. ~!~ PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and 3eft Farmakes. Diane I-Iarberts arrived after item 1. MEMBERS AB~;ENT; Ron Nutting STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jail, Planner H; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Bob Generous, Planner H PI~EIJMINARY PLAT OF 1.87 A~C~_ i~q, INTQ 4 ~INGI,E FAMILY ~ ON PROPERTY ZONEI~ R~F~ Iag. qlDENTIAL ~INGI,E FAMH,Y AND LQCrATED AT 6330 MURRAY H/IJ~ ROP, D~ HOBEN~ W/ID WOQD FARM~ 1ST ADDITION. HOBEN (~X)RPORATION, Public Present: Name Addn~$ Chuck Spevacek Keith J. Boudrie Gilbert Kreidberg Paul Burkholder Peter Staudohar Kaye Benson 6474 Murray Hill Road 6482 Murray Hill Road 6444 Murray Hill Road 6370 Murray Hill Road 2204 Sommergat8 2211 Sommergate Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on ~his item. Scott: Any questions or comments from Commissioners? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Just to clarify what you said regarding condition 15. Are you suggesting that we make changes to that or that is if? Al-Jarl: Tho change I've... Ledvin~ Alright, thm~k you. Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Yes, I was going to ask for Mr. Hoben to make some comments. Do you have any questions for staff? Mancino: No. Scott: Okay, good. Would the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Is Mr. Hoben here? Oh, sir. Jim Hoben: Good evening. I am Jim Hoben and am reappearing. After listening to the concerns of the people at the last meeting I spent the next morning driving around, back and forth, up and down in order to do myself a favor as well as them. I decided to go with 3 lots on this particular parcel of ground, as was just explained by Sharmin so that the two entrances would be directly off of Murray Hill Road and the other off of Sommergate. I think we...next to the house that's already on the Sommergate. Lot sizes are more than ample. rve got a color rendering to give some indication of how they tend to sit on that property. The one that's marked out here in orange is the house that I intend to specifically put on that corner. There's always I know concern, not only about the number of units but all these things and I know from stuff and everybody else and having been in there for 6 years myself along with... On the other hand, if we're going to come into it and again, one of the reasons I wanted this specific parcel now was becamse of the trees and the ambience and the whole atmosphere which I thought was a very nice piece of property... And so we are going to maintain all the trees as possible on there. We will have to have a few clearing spots in order to set a house down but other than that I think I discussed this with Mr. Hempel and also with Sharmin and I don't think that we have any problem between ourselves as to how we're going to set those houses on there .... the en~neers have shown a 60 x 60 box and long driveway and that's kind of where they go but not exactly. This is a little bit more specific and the one large lot is 256 feet deep I think or something like that by 125 feet wide. The actual house, because again Sharmin...ifs going to be somewhat forward than that. Actually almost where the property line separates Lots 1 and 2, which is you go forward of that up in here. The house will sit more or less in the middle of the lot. And in doing that..and other than that I think it lays out quite well. As a matter of fact, doing that, making this change and again this was...a favor. I think these homes, what rm going to put on there will be worth a little bit more money than what I had planned to be on it before. If there are any specific questions which you wish to ask me, rll be very happy to answer them. Scott: Good, questions. Mancino: Yes, I just have one and that is, I just wanted to make sure that rm clear in the staff report Mr. Hoben on condition number 7. It says that on the big lot, on Lot 3, and you just stated this but I just wanted to make very clear that it specifically says that you will not Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 take down the two black walnut trees, and I just wanted to make sure that that was okay with you. Jim Hoben: Yes. It's fine with me. I have to work out the grading. Mancino: Because there won't be any flexibility. Jim Hoben: ...all kinds of things to work with, yeah I want to keep the walnm trees. We have to work out the grading. As we come up, this is a slight incline we come up to this 10% grade. I think what I worked out the other day, I was at 10.3% or something like that. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Thank you sir. This is old business and we gathered quite a bit of citizen comment last time and I guess what Pd like to do now is to get comments from commissioners regarding which way we should go on this item. So Ladc[ Conrad: Nothing to comment on. I think it's a good proposal. I think it's more sensitive than the last one we looked at and I don't have any further comments. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Is this is a public hearing? Scott: No. Ledvina: Okay. Well I just would like to say that I _think the developer has been sensitive to the wishes of the residents and he noted some deficiencies in terms of what we wanted to see in the last report such as the grading plan and we do have that in front of us and I'm fairly comfortable with that. I guess I would support the staff recommendations on this proposal. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I also support the staff recommendation and I do applaud the applicant for making the changes and listening to neighbors and Planning Commission and staff so I do support it Scott: Good. Jeff. Farmakes: I have nothing more to add to the comments that have already been made...if there are any individuals here from that development, the surrounding properties on that development, some of the comments from reading the notes from the last meeting that I did make is that there are large lots throughout Chanhassen, particularly in the south. People that Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 want to keep these hobby farms. If you're interested in doing that, the process here is not to wait for development to come into these large lots. If you're interested in doing that, you need to talk to the elected officials of the city to look at perhaps a secondary single family zone for larger lots to preserve them. There simply is no other mechanism in place to preserve those lots. If your neighbor chooses to subdivide and it's within the minimnm single family zone, and he's got these 15,000 square, they can do that This is a problem thafs going to keep on reoccurring. This is a small lot surrounded by a lot of large ones. This isn't going to go away. This one I think was solvable because of the developer and size of the overall development but I'm not sure that the intent to try and preserve those large lots of homes, I'm not sure we have a mechanism in place to do th~ Scott: Good, thank you. I'd like to thank the developer for woridng with us. Just for those of you who didn't follow this particular issue. The first revision of this plan that we saw on this particular property already exceeded our minimum requirements and a number of neighbors voiced their concern relative to how this particular development with 4 lots was not in character with what they thought the neighborhood was when they moved in and Mr. Hoben was under no obligation to change his development so this is a classic example of what we like to see and what I like to see personally as a commissioner where a developer pays very close attention to what the neighbors think. Makes some modifications purely on his own and thank you very much. May I have a motion please? Conrad: I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plans dated October 24, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the modification handed us to item number 15 tonight Scott: Good, can I have a second please? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff recommendations. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Plsmnln_~ Commission recommend approval of INeliminary Plat for Subdivision 094-15 for Hobens Wild Wood Farms First Addition for 3 single family lots as shown on the plato fl__ad~_.d October 24, 1994, subject to the following conditions: Plmming Commission Memfing - November 2, 1994 . , , , . . . All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. The applicant shall work with the city in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underb~shj All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Building Department condition that the applicant shall obtain demolition permits for any buildings to be removed before their removal. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. The existing garage shall be removed no later than December 31, 1994. Financial guarantees shall be posted with the city to ensure compliance with this condition. The applicant shall dedicate the following conservation easements for the protection of floes: conservation easement over the northern 40 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. b. A conservation easement over the northern 55 feet of the western 30 feet of Lot 2, Block 1. The two black walnut trees in the center of Lot 3, Block 1 shall be preserved. A tree protection fence at the canopy dripline for these trees shall be installed prior to any construction on Lot 3, Block 1. The tree protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lot 3, Block 1. The 50 inch dbh eastern cottonwood located in the northwest comer of Lot 1, Block 1 shall be saved. A tree protection fence shall be installed at the dripline of the tree. An exception to this placement shall be to tho north of the tree where tho tree protection fencing may be placed at the edge of the driveway easement. The tree Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 protection fence shall remain in place until the home is completed on Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 1. . The applicant shall provide the city with a $500.00 escrow prior to the city si~ning the final plat for review and recording of the final plat documents. 10. The applicant shall apply for an obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies for demolition of the existing buildings and disconnection of the utility lines for Lots 1 and 2. 11. No berming, landscaping or retaining walls wiU be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the city, and the applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. 12. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 13. Lot 3 will be charged a hook-up charge in the amount of $2,425.00 at the time of building permit issuance. 14. The applicant and/or contractor shall receive the necess~ construc.~ion in right-of-way permit from the city and provide a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 for extension of utility service to Lot 3. 15. Driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be limited to the existing driveway locations on Murray Hill. The driveways may be expanded to a maximum width of 20 feet at the street. Driveway access to Lot 1 shall be from Sommergate. The use of retaining walls shall be employed to minimi~,~ grading. 16. The applicant shall pay the city a SWIVlP water quahty and quantity fee in the amount of $3,879.00 in lieu of on-site ponding facilities. These fees are payable prior to the city signing the final plat. Ali voted in favor and lhe motion carrie& Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9,7 A(~F~. INTO 48 LQT ~INGLK FAMU~Y 'INVIN HOM~S. ~ITE PLAN REVIEW FQR 24 ~TRI, ICH. IRF~ AND A WE'rLAND ALTERATIQN PKRMIT ~TKI} QN PRQPKRTY ZONED ~ AND ~TED WI~T QF PO~q~tS BOU~.~ARD, ~UST SOUTH OF ~A~O~ SUSAN m~t.~ DRW~_ PO~ PLACK, .~kSPER DEVELQPMENT (~QRPORATIQN, Public Present:, N~une Add~ Pon Bremer Phil lungbluth Larry Harris Jim Jasper Mark Jeffries Greg Hailing Jay Jasper Joe & Dearme Hoppe Kounthone Souvanna Kane John Williams Betsy Jenkins Arthur W. Stene Loleta Rogers Gary Conduit Jerome R. Reutzel Doug Jacobsen Bob Lanzi Patrick A. Nelson Dave Clough Pat Victoria 8530 Jeff Zahn Ronda Pierre Tom Rasmussen 2021 Field Ave, St. Paul 8209 West 93rd Street, Bloomington Attorney for Applicants Jasper Development Millco Landsc~e Products Rader and Associates Jasper Development 8530 Tern Court 1600 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8440 Pelican Court 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8551 Merganser Court 8431 Egret Court 8411 Egret Court 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Merganser Court 8461 Pelican Court 1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8531 Merganser Court Sharmin AI-Jnff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on fids i~m. Scott: Any questions or comments for staff from the commissioners? Mancino: I have one. Sharmin, how are we deciding we have what three, did you say three wetlands? Ag urban wetlands here. Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 AI-Jaff: I'm sorry. Mancino: We have three ag urban wetlands here and one of them we are retaining. It will stay natural and then the other two. Al-$aff: They are...with the mitigation that will perform, we will get much bettor quality wedand. Right now the type of a wetland is still...they don't perform as well as they should. Mancino: Okay. Are we mitigating on site or7 AI-Jaff: Yes, we will on one. Some of the mitigation will take place on the northerly portion of this site so this wetland will be enlargexL The rest will be mitigated with the improvement of County Road 17. Mancino: How are we deciding, what is the procedure of deciding whether we mitigate 2:1 on site or whether we bank it and go somewhere else? How is that set up? Aanenson: A lot of this is part of the storm water management plan and we went through and we did...inventorying all the wetlands and going through and banking. Like Bluff Creek is identified as we want to enhance. We view some of those areas that aren't functioning as well and they could add value wefland...project somewhere else. We were before you a couple days ago to talk about the...on the other side of Lake Susan. While we're improving that wetland, we think that's going to function as a high quality wetlancL.. Mancino: Would you go one step further and explain to me what under utilized means because when I think of a wetland, it creates an ecosystem that is in and of itself, whether it's under utilized or not. Aanenson: Well it's very, very small. It's there but we think that by enhancing somewhere else, we're creating a better quality, be~er functioning environment somewhere else. Mancino: So it has to do a lot with size? Aanenson: Size and function. Again we're kind of, Chanhassen is very dyn~c in the way we approach this. We look at not only size and function and quality and if we can improve and make a better one somewhere else, it does.., idnd of rated them all. When we did our inventory we looked at where are the best opportunities to do some really good projects. Instead of them all being marginal... The ones that we felt were already degregated, to improve some of it for the chance to improve the quality of it. That was part of the rating system. Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Okay, thank you. Scott: Any other questions? Well would the members of the development team like to speak? Larry Harris: Thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation. My name's Larry Harris. I'm the attorney for the development. I think as you can see from reviewing the revised staff report, the developer has taken to heart the commentS that were made not only by staff but also by the Planning Commission and the residents at the meeting on September 7th. The primary issues that were raised at the September 7th meeting, I had written down into three categories. The first was a public safety issue. The primary areas of concern raised there were retaining walls. The Planning Commission had very clearly wanted to see detailed drawings of the retaining walls. They wanted to see engineering data, and Mark Seffries who's handling the landscape development for the development team will make a presentation in that regard. One of the other areas raised was access to Powers Boulevard, which staff has already explained. The plan has been substantially modified to address some of those concerns. Greg Hailing, the engineer for the development team will make a presentation where he talks about access issues and also shows how the layout was changed on certain issues such as berming the streets to enhance eye appeal have been dealt with. Another area of concern related to env/ronmental issues. One signi~cant area was wetland and wetland delineation. A qualified wetland delineator has been on the scene. A report has been prov/ded to staff. I think staff has adequately addressed that issue but/f any specific inquiry needs to be made, either Mr. Hailing or myself would probably be...to answer any questions that the Planning Commission members or the public might have. The third area of concern was primary developmental concerns. Style issues, shall we talk about The architect for this project, Ron Bremer has prepared a scale model showing out the units lay out. How the roads lay. Where the retaining walls will be so people can get a better feel for that and we'll make a presentation in that regard. Phil Sungbluth will make a presentation concerning what I'll call the style issues. Exterior style issues. One of the things the Planning Commission expressed was, what is the siding on it? What are the roof lines going to look like? What type of roofing materials are going to be there and Mr. Jungbluth will make a presentation in that regard. First I'd like to call upon C-reg Hailing, the project eng/neer. He'll explain the revised layout and he'll be in a position to answer any questions concerning utilities... Greg Halling: I'm Greg Hailing with Rader and Associates, civil engineer. Essentially whafs been done is to change the layout as the units lay out along Powers Boulevard to get more of a pleasing aesthetic look as you look at the units. One of the big things which Dave has already pointed out was the elimination of this connection to Powers Blvd and in order to do that, the road has been placed parallel and close to Powers Blvd. One of the wetlands which Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 was mentioned earlier that is going to be filled is in this location and on the earlier, the first layout, that wetland would not have been filled. So what we're doing is, you know it's kind of a balancing act. Trying to determine which item, whether it's that particular wetland or the road, is more important, and meeting with the County Engineer, or engineering consultant, and staff, it was felt that this was a good compromise and an improvement, particularly on the traffic routing. The other thing that I wanted to point out, the three wetlands that are being filled have been dug up previously because of sewer line. An existing sewer line has gone through there so those are very disturbed wetlands and that's part of the lower quality item I think that was mentioned before on those wetlands. Also on the wetland it is, we are looking at increasing the wetland all on the north side here and that particular increase in wetland is equal to the three wetlands that are on site so essentially we have the same area of wetland when we get them on site plus there will be the increased wetland on the city's project and location. The other thing that were done, there were two cul-de-sacs in this area and if you notice, this one is eliminated with the thru drive. This particular turn around in this area is accomplished for, or the mm around is for the fire trucks and it would be accomplished in a T type turn around rather than a cul-de-sac. And the reason that that was done is to try to pull the units in. Try to minimize the disturbance to the large mass of...trees that are on the site and so we're just going up to the trees, a smaller amount or trying to minimize that impact. Are there any questions? Ledvina: Is this model to scale? Ron Bremer: Yes. Each of the contours represents a foot and a haft. Approximately a foot and a half. Ledvina: So vertical and horizontal scale is equal here in this model? In terms of the grading and all of that. Ron Bremer: That's correcL Ledvina: Alright, thank you. Scott: Do those pins denote the sections that we have in here with regard to the retaining wall? Ron Bremer: Those represent very closely the comer points of the property line. Scott: Of the lots? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ron Bremer: Of the property line. Of our property line...individual lots but our overall property line. If we connect the line between those, thafd be approximately... Mancino: And what does this gray material represent? Ron Bremer: The model's generic in nature in that again, we're just generically showing where the trees are and the extent of the tree planting. So green represents the deciduous tree type. These little pointy gray things here represent a pine tree essentially. Coniferous tree type. And these simply represent planting hedges. I guess what we're trying to illustrate here is that we're planting above these terraced retaining walls so that we can prevent people from walking over those, even though we've minimized the height of those retaining walls but we're also guarding those. That's what these gray strips represent. They're lines of plantings. Mancino: I don't understand the retaining walls. I can't tell where. Ron Bremer: Oh the retaining walls, I'm sorry. They're back here. You've got to get up to actually observe them. That was one of the items that was discussed was the height, the overall height of the retaining walls. We've reduced the height of those and terraced them so that we minimize any one single vertical jump. Mancino: And the terraced area is approximately 5 feeff So is there any plantings on those terraced areas? Ron Bremer: Actually the landscape people would have to address th~ But again, they vary slightly from 3 feet up to 6 feet in height. And again, the plantings here are generic. We cover most of the major planting areas but there's an extensive planting program around each individual unit that's really not represented here because of the scale. Mancino: And the other thing that this model represents is some of the different detail work that you're doing on the roof lines? Ron Bremer: That's correct. We have two basic ~mit types which we%,o developed and when we get back to some of the boards, I'll show you more of the specifics on that. But so we have two basic unit types and beyond that, along Powers Blvd we~ve developed several various elevation types. We've introduced cross gables, dormers, and also gables at the ends of these porches so we've got a total of 4 types that we're introducing. In addition to that, optional decks and porches, and/or porches will be offered so there will be an additional rhythm here. This doesn't n~ly represent exactly which units get the dormer because ultimately thafs going to depend on who buys what options but we're saying we will in fact provide that kind of variety along Powers Blvd. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Unless someone doesn't buy the dormer style or. Ron Bremer: Well, dormer style is a side issue but if they buy an aRached porch, which isn~ represented here. Say this one might get an attached porch so this may get that sort of a look on it. So then we'll have to vary the pattern really. It all depends on what options people buy but we will provide that level of variety. Scott: Are there any architectural details that are available on the back sides of these units that will be facing Powers? Ron Bremer: Yeah again, I guess we'll get to that on the boards in a little while. Scott: Okay. How about, we all have some drawings that I believe, 6-7 sections of the retaining wall. Are those denoted at all on this particular model, or...landseape architect can probably tell us. Ron Bremer: He'd have to address that Scott: Okay. Any other questions? Thank yOtL Ron Bremer: I guess before I get to the boards, just a couple additional notes about the model. We've maintained a relatively low density, at least for townhouses. We've kept the roof pitches at a moderate level and all the strength points for the roof masses spring off of the first story elevation. The first story with elevation. In other words, there's no storing of half masses or two story masses here. We're all springing off of that. That point right up here. So we're keeping the roof masses low I guess is what I'm getting at in order to preserve the views across the complex. And when you get down and look at it at eye level, you can start to see, especially when you get up here, the place on top of the hill, there's very little impact with these people above the hill. Mancino: Actually what is the elevation difference? I stood up there in different areas. Ron Bremer: Well the site slopes generally, thafs north on the model. The site slopes generally from west to east and also from south down to north. The high point within our boundaries, within our...our survey just extended slightly beyond this property line. So the high point on our site was approximately 962. The elevation and at the low point was approximately 912 so there's about 50 feet of slope from here down to there. And again, as far as the scale of this complex, again when you get down and look at it, you start to see a rhythm of, a nice rhythm of, I think respectfully massed buildings with plantings and density and proximity to the street. I think this will feel more of something that might be in a small 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 town neighborhood rather than a high density townhouse project. And so as far as the architecture itself, or the details of the buildings themselves, we try to play up on that feeling. The small town sense. To do that we%e tried to minimize the scale or the perceived scale of the buildings. And also tried to introduce harmonizing elements. Or illuminizing elements I should say on the design. So this is the Itasca, which is the walkout unit, which would be closest to yourselves for the most part on that model. What we're doing here is we~ve introduced these continuous bands around the building to sort of wrap around and what we're expecting to do is provide a base for the building and body size and a cap if you will. And we'd reinforce that cap by using various siding. In this case the scalloped sort of ~hingle style siding. These are all premium grade vinyls and phil will talk a little bit more about that. Other elements that we tried to introduced that are somewhat traditional, are planter boxes. We're providing grids on all the windows. Again at the columns, where we have columns, we're providing a trim at the base and at the cap to give it more interest. And more traditionally styled guardrails and that's again with heavier...posts and traditional pickets in between. So we've given, we've tried to give these things a flavor of a little bit the traditional flavor. So that's the Itasca unit. Now again we start talking about the variety along the street here and rll show you some of the elevations we've developed~ Again these units along here, these 9 units are the Itasca so they're the same unit size. They're broken up into two parts. The curvature of the street house is i~ind of shifting back and forth like this and it also helps this coming in and out a little bit. It gives us a little more of a romantic progression through the site. So I guess in comparison this is the standard Itasca. One alternative that we~ve developed along the Powers Blvd side is to introduce these two dormers on either side. One more point to make is, the eupulas we have on every single unit aren't represented on, they get a little too small. This again is the Itasea~ Another elevation for it would bo the cross gables and cupula on top of that. We'd keep the scalloped shingles again corning from the front. Okay, so I covered the basics. One more. This one represents what it will look like with the screened porch on it or... Phil Sungbluth: It could also end up either having dormers and/or a central gable. Scott: So the cross gable is optional but not, this is the center section and side sections that are set back but it's the cross dormer on the side sections that are an option? Not the side... Phil Sungbluth: Right. Ron Bremer: ...porch. So you may see this with one or the other variations of the dormers. So I guess in sum here, we've got at least 4, in fact probably 5 different elevation types that we're introducing along Powers Blvd. And there's only about a dozen units along there so that's a pretty good percentage. Thafs our standard unit. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Phil Jungbluth: I guess that represents, that was the main unit of concern was the facing Powers Blvd. You had requested to see what the materials would be so we brought some samples today. This particular sample is what we propose to use as siding on the project and this right here. I think you can see what it is. It's a high grade premium vinyl siding with a 4 inch reveal and it has a very deep setback. Deeper than the standard vinyl or standard aluminum siding. It's also a very smooth finish so that it looks like a painted board. Thais the whole idea of this particular grade of siding. And these are the colors that area available. They're all metal, earth tone colors. A continuous band that we're talking about in terms of using as a decoration, we've decided to go with white because white will go with any of those colors. So rather than what is... Ifs a very thick siding and we use it on our premium grade. We offer two types of homes, because of our single family products and we uso this in our higher priced homes of $200,000.00 and up so it is something special. I don~t know how much more I can describe it. What we're also planning on doing with gables, as indicated on the front of the units, right in here and this is on all of the buildings, is using another vinyl product called cedar impressions which is a vinyl siding that looks like cedar shakes. IFs a very deeply embossed product used for accentuating architectural details and giving that textured look to all the units that we're trying to achieve. Mancino: So your customers can pick from any of these colors? Phil Sungbluth: Well what we would do is we'd have every other house a different color. First of all we won't let them have the blue. But they certa/nly could use any of these other colors. And however it would be the case of no two houses next to each other would have the same color. Or buildings I should say. Or across the street. We will control what site gets which color. So that only every lO houses have the same color. Scott: Any questions or comments? Harberts: What was the estimated market value of the homes? Phil Sungbluth: Well we're looking at upwards of $110,000.00. Harberts: Per unit. Phil Jungbluth: Per unit. Scott: Okay, anything else? Good, thank you. Phil Jungbluth: Did you want to talk about the landscaping? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mark Jeffries: I don't know whether this will yield any more/nformation than the model but it might help to take a look at those a little bit. My name is Mark Seffries with Millco Landscape Products and I did the landscape design. I did not design the walls but I can probably address some questions on the walls. I really don't have a presentation but if you have any questions. Mancino: What are the walls made out of? Mark Sefffies: The walls will be made out of inteflock-ing system called Stone Wall. Stone Wall select. I have brochures to look at. I have enough, does everyone want to take a look at one? Scott: Yes. Mark Seffries: You also on the walls have a detail I believe that shows a cross section in 7 different places on the wall. There is one that states on that cross section # 4 is a 3:1 slope instead of a 2:1 slope. Mancino: What about on cross section//6. Is that still a 2.5 to 1 slope? Greg Hailing: They all, the minimum was 3:1...3:1 on the grading plan that was laid out. Mark Seffries: Okay, so that would be 3:1 also. Mancino: So section//6 would be a 3:17 Mark 1effries: Correct. Mancino: Can you mow a 3:1 slope? Greg Hailing: Yes. Mancino: Okay. Mark 1effries: One thing on the plan, or on this model. Well yeah, it is shown. The planting areas here are shown in front. And you have a detail as to what those planting areas are. They are some...it doesn't show all of them but there's about, I think about a half a dozen of them. And there is one error on that also, the cardinal dogwood hedge, which is the hedge material that would go behind the wall, here is the specifications in 5 gallon drums. That would also meet those specs... 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Can you review for me the berming on Powers? And the height o£ the berming. Mark Jeff`ties: Well if' you take a look at that model, I think that might be more helpful to you. The planting areas, I really concerned myself with the planting areas and those by nature are typically bermed somewhaL And it shows on that model I think pretty well, the berming. Scott: Which, and I would assume that the species that you're using along Powers are all salt tolerant? Mark Seffries: Yeah. Right. Scott: Any other questions or cornments? Conrad: Who's responsible for the maintenance of the walls in 5 or 10 years? Is that the homeowners association? Mark Seffdes: The maintenance for the walls, you're saying like if they would fail? Conrad: Well, yeah cave in. Mark Jeffries: I guess I can't speak to what's between the builder and subcontractor who builds the walls. Phil Sungbluth: There will be a homeowners association, which will be funded to take care of any future structure requirements. There's also a homeowners association which will take care of lawns, snow removal, except for garbage... So if the wall fails or if .~hingles need replacement, siding.., there's a fund and the homeowners association... Harberts: Can you describe to me how you envision the garbage collection to occur with this type of layout? Phil Sungbluth: I sure can't. I'm not a, you know whatever. Harberts: Do you anticipate that it's going to be a door to door type of pick it up at each individual unit or is it going to be a common collection point? Phil Sungbluth: No, I would anticipate weql have it door to door. Scott: Any other comments7 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: I just had one more landscaping question. On the cross sections that I'll see at the property line, I understand should be a tree. Is that a tree at those property lines? Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge. Mancino: That's the hedge. Mark Jeffries: That's the hedge, right. Scott: Good, any other landscaping related comments or questions? Harberts: I have a staff question. This is for Dave. The turn arounds with the T and with the other sides, have they been reviewed by the Public Safety Department as to, can the vehicles, the emergency vehicles turn around? Do you know? Hempel: The turn arounds have been designed in accordance with the Fire Marshal's, he has a handout that he gives. He gives specifications described for turn arounds... Harberts: They're not concerned with that T style turn around or whatever? Hempel: They use a T bone, a Y or a standard cul-de-sac. Harberts: Okay, thanks. Scott: Anything else? Would the development team like to make any more comments before we open the public hearing? Good, thank you Mr. Harris. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public heating please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. AH voted in favor and ~he motion carried, The public hearing was opened. Scott: Just for purposes of information, how many people would like to speak at the public hearing? Okay. Good. You can still speak if you don~ raise your hand obviously but sir, if you'd like to start it off and give us your name and your address. Tom Rasmussen: My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and like Matt, I'm a civil and environmental en~neer. First of all, just to address, maybe in the future for the developers, it would be nice for the public to see this before the meeting so that we get a chance to look at it and make some comments on it. That's just a general question. The one thing very disappointing about the model is that there's a bunch of houses on top of 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 there and they're not shown for that. Probably my biggest issue with this thing is safety reasons. Catherine, could you come here please. This is my daughter. She plays on the back of the hill there and this is a 6 foot high ladder. Catherine, do you want to go up? I can't afford expensive models. Do you want to go any higher? Okay. Are you scared? No? Would you want to jump off from here? That's right. Okay, thank you. The development would be fine if there was nothing on top with the retaining walls. I can't nllow this to be in my back yard. They talk about some bushes and some shrubs and stuff but if you look at their plan, there's gaps. There's openings. I don't feel comfortable with that right now. The way the existing slope is, when the ball goes down the hill, it stills go down fight now. I'm just, I think it's stupid. I really disagree with it and think some others will also repeat that fear for the retaining walls. I think it should be a 3:1 slope throughout and no retaining walls. One of my other issues that we've talked about are significant grading within my property. This is my yard. This is the back of my house on Merganser Court. I'm within 30 feet of the property line and you'll notice on their grading plan, there's a nice little gap there between the shrubs and then all of a sudden I've got a 5 foot retaining wall. Boom go down to another 5 foot retaining wall and then we~ve got that. Sorry, if she goes sliding back there in the winter and it's going to be hard for us to watch them constantly and I know that stuffs going to happen with that. The other issue is when they're grading, they're doing significant amount of grading extremely close to my house. Within 30 feet of it and I'm concerned with foundation problems or whatever. Because my house is up here, you're going and moving a lot of dirt and what like that. You remove that. What happens to my foundation? I don't know. Dave and I, we had a discussion on that today and it's real... While ! also have this sky rail up here, I'd like to raise a couple of other issues. For this portion of the development that's there, there's only a parking stall for just 2 vehicles. In our previous meeting we had talked about what we were concerned where do their company park if they're going to have a party here or open house, where are they going to park? There's only room for 2 of thom down there fight now. For all of these units in this sectio~ there's no other public parking for that. The other thing, their third design wipes out is a 24 inch oak over here and a 30 inch oak tree over there. You can't, can we replace a 30 inch oak? I don't think so. For that. And I guess what I would propose and being some typo of options is where I've got the blue lines crossed out like that. I would propose some type of a re-shifting of the nnits to try and preserve the trees and then extend the parking lot down here in this region then and try to eliminate some of the use of the retaining walls up in this region as much as possible. That is just one suggestion to try and get around some of the issues that we~ve got facing us and ! realize that they're trying to make some money and all that too but on the other hand, we've got some significant safety and environmental issues that we want to talk about. We had previously talked about, mine is cross section ~4 in your pamphlet there, in case you want to...and I've gone and done another little one myseff here. But again as youql note, this is the existing slope and it will slope pretty much in an existing format just kind of continues on and then it kind of tapers off towards the bottom of the hill. Like thaL Again, it wouldn't 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 take much going to all of a sudden come down and again hit these steps. The other thing with retaining walls you need to be aware of is that back in '87 there was a significant mount of failures in Bloomington from the super storm. They need to be properly engineered and they need to usually have drain tile behind them also to keep these from failing. Those are important safety concerns and design...I do thank the developer for addressing the wetland issues and I'm happy to see that the one on north side is being preserved. I am happy with the access of that too. Getting back to Dave's previous comments about County Road 17, I'd like to state here publically that I'm extremely disappointed in our Roger Gustafson with Carver County as a whole for not listening to the residents that live in that area~ To our concerns. I think at a minimum where their driveway comes in there should be a pedestrian crossing to the park that's being proposed across the other road there. Why in the world, right now it's a pain to get out there. There's some cars coming up there about 55-60 mph and we've got to come from a dead stop and out there. Now we've got to cross two lanes of traffic. Sit out in the middle and then come back out. I know they did their projections and all that other stuff but common sealso, WO live in a neighborhood. I've made two 911 calls for accidents at the north end of Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17. We live there. We know what kind of stuff is going on there all the time. Lastly, we had talked a little bit about...along CR 17. Again, what we had talked about today is there isn't room for a berm up there of any significance to do anything. For noise reduction. The residents along there, ifs an extremely noisy road and if I'm, I wouldn't want to buy one of these townhouses where fight out my back yard is this road because there's no way for that. And if they can do any type of break at all, a year round break with trees of some significant sizes, that would help out a lot. On top of a 3 foot berm but with walk out units walking out to a 4 lane highway or whatever... And I guess I would like some clarification of the price. Tonight we heard upwards of up to $110,000.00. Tho last time we were here they said base price would be $110,000.00-$120,000.00. Applicant: That's what I did say. From $110,000.00. Tom Rasmussen: From $110,000.00, okay. I misunderstood you...So thank you for your time. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Jerome Reutzel: My name is Jerome Reutzel. I live on 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd like to reiterate some concerns that Tom had mentioned, and the concerns that I have. First of all the traffic concerns. Traffic's bad on County Road 17 and I recognize at this point in time that it may not be necessary for anything to be done. What I'm very concerned about is whether or not, how many deaths or how many serious injuries will it take before something is actually done, and it's not that far from reality. Will it be 1 death? Will it be 2 deaths? Will it be my death? Will it be my wife's death or will it be my children's death? That road 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 will be used and I'm hoping that it will be reviewed on a periodic basis, and I believe that it will be. My second concern is the crosswalk concerns as far as getting from one end to the other, as far as the parkland that's available on the other side of County Road 17. I don~t see any provision that's being made. I know a lot of people are making crosswalks or crossings from one side of the street to the other and there's no provision for thaL I was kind of hoping to see some kind of traffic light but I can see for at this point in time that may not be necessary. I'm hoping in time that that does become reality because I think it's necessary. My third concern is the replacement of the trees. Tom had mentioned that some of the larger trees were going to be disposed of and in looking through the report that I received from Sharmin, I noticed that one of the staff recommendations tonight is that increased vegetation be placed on this site, and I think the developers have addressed the issue to a ~ amount but it leads into my fourth issue. The fact of the safety issue with those retaining walls. I have to agree with Tom. In my back yard the children play there and they spend time there and it's dangerous and there are gaps where those kids could easily fall. They're young kids and I think that there needs to be something done, seriously, in order to prevent those kids from getting on the other side. Scott: And what would you suggest? Jerome Reutzeh Well you know Fd like to say, I'd like to suggest a fence. But from a realistic standpoint is that visibly appealing? Not n~y. I don't think so. I think a hedge may very well be, a straight hedge of some type would be necessary along the border, particularly where the retaining walls are going in. I've seen, I will speak of my parent's development. What they have are actually spruce trees that were put behind their property to border them from a church. That has been very effective over time to eliminate traffic. However from when they were first planted, they're still is traffic going in between the church and their yard. I think at a minimum there's going to have to be a basic hedge going in to prevent traffic back and forth. Kids coming down that hill are not going to see those retaining walls as they're going down. They're hidden and as a minimum, I implore the developers and based upon the recommendations of city staff, I ask that something be done there. It doesn't affect my property directly but I can assure you that it does, it could easily affect my children and affect a lot of other children in that development because I've seen them play there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Scott: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Of course you're not obligated to speak but we don't want to discourage anybody if you've got something on your mind. Yes sir. Bob Lanzi: My name is Bob Lanzi, 8431 Egret Court. First of all I really appreciate the builder working with the planning department I really appreciate all the help that staff has been. I've come at various times to ask questions and every time Pve had questions answered 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 so I appreciate that. Stating one concern also, it would have been appreciated to be able to see something like this little plot that's here ahead of time so we'd have an opportunity to respond to it. I know for myself living fight in that first cul-de-sac. The northern portion of this. I'd like to see exactly what that northem most wetland, what's going to be affected there. I mean we're talking about a 2:1 restoration. I do realize it's not pristine and there's no formal obligation not to touch it at all but one thing I'd like to see is just kind of find out what exactly it's going to do. Is it going to be a holding pond? Is it going to remain virtually untouched? Is there going to be, I know on the other side of the wad, the other side of CR 17, that is more so of a holding pond than it is a wetland natural area. I know for the whole, I can't speak for the whole development but I know as you come into the whole development, the first thing you see is you do see that wetland and that's kind of the character of the development as you go into it and I think that would be of some concern for all the residents. Not only the ones bordering along the proposed development, that something is done to keep it as natural as possible. I also.saw in the proposal that there would be some berming along the whole western side. Basically the whole back of the proposed development. I'd like to see exactly what was going to be there. I've seen some of the plans and it seemed like it wasn't adequate in creating some sort of a barrier between the multi family housing and the single family housing. Sure, all the residents that are here expressed a big part of their concern along with, the number one issue is safety. The number two issue would be value concerns for the homes in that area. It seems only appropriate that there is a very good buffer. I'd like to see what the exact pitch is going to be on those berms. It seems like a perfect time, although I haven't seen able to see it. I'd like also to see that the berming that is done, the vegetation that is there is more coniferous. Year round. Shrubbery. More along the lines of spruces. I guess the only thing I concur so far with what the developer has done on the other side of the road, and there really didn't seem to be much of coniferous. A lot of deciduous. We live in Minnesota. 6 months a year there are no leaves on those trees and as a homeowner looking fight there, I'd hke to see a berm adequately dividing the multi family compared with single family. Thank you for your time. Scott: Well thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad: I move to close the public hearing. Ledvina: Second. Mancino: Joe, I just have some questions that I would, that Bob and Jerome and Tom have brought up that I'd like Dave and Sharrnin to maybe help us with. One is, Tom had said Dave, that you two had talked about the grading and how close it will be to the foundation of his home. Can you tell us a little bit about that and your feelings? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: Sure, I'd be happy to. Previous to the meeting tonight Mr. Rasmussen and myself discussed this issue with the proposed project with the grading in relationship to his home. I've indicated to Mr. Rasmussen that I'm not a soil en~neer. However, we do have other examples in this city like when they do soil correction under a house pad, they typically go along a slope, a l:l slope or 1.5:l slope. Essentially it sets the house on a pyramid and as long as that zone is not impacted, it should not impact the foundation of that home. Another examples are...along the Minnesota River valley. The homes that are within 30 feet of very severe bluffs. Very steep and sharp slopes... Similar situation I guess but not nearly to the magnitude of the bluffs that we have over in the Minnesota Valley there...5 foot retaining walls but again, I'm not a soil engineer who could give you expert advice on that but my personal belief is that it should not affect the foundation of the home. Mancino: Does somebody ~and behind that? Does the developer? Do we ask the developer to stand behind that when they're going to be so close to a foundation? Hempel: I would envision I guess that is some property damage was done to the adjacent property as a result of site gradin~ the developer does have insurance to cover such occurrences. Harberts: Nancy, can I just interject? Who would be an expert in that area? Hempel: Soil engineer would be. We would need a soil engineer on site for the site grading to prepare the house pads and so forth... Mancino: That's a good ide~ To make sure that that's in the recommendations. Sharmin~ another question that came up that Bob asked a little bit about the w~dand. If we will be saving and mitigating and adding to and how will it be kept? Will it bo kept natural? A1-Jaff: What's going to happen is the wetland will be...it would be able to function as a,.. Hempel: Maybe I can expand on that a little bit. The wetland on tho north end of the project is a very low quality wetland. It has been excavated a couple of _times...and it's still a functioning wetland aesthetics... And they will be utilizing as a part of the storm drainage system, we will pre-treat the water prior to dischar~ng into it and then essentially a water... pond to utilize this wetland ares_ There should be water controlled by outlet constmcfion...so it actually should enhance the aesthetics. Scott: Good. The public hearing has not been closed yet so. Conrad: We've got a motion though. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Yes, we have a motion. Is that the end of the discussion? Mancino: Those are just some of my questions that I think. Scott: Which we can still discuss after the public hearing. So can I have all those in favor of closing the public hearing signify by saying aye. Conrad moved, l~lvina seconded ~ close the public heming. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public heming was dosed. Farmakes: I'm not sure on the traffic concerns how you, being a county roack..Mr. Caustafson. I know that they use a criteria that if there are so many accidents before they consider a cross walk and I've always been uncomfortable with that engineering talk when I hear it. It's a...what criteria he was using for saying that that's not factual. Hempel: I believe at this time the park is not existing... Farmakes: So that would follow that development then? Hempel: That's correct. I believe that should be what's dictating...crosswalk. Farmakes: I still know that the retaining wall's going to cut...safe from a construction standpoint. Safe meaning that I don't think somebody's going to hurt themselves severely by going over that. Obviously still it's of concern that close to single family residence area. And I don't think that the planting of a hedge is going to solve that problem .... a few safety issues. I wish I was more of an expert on that. Public safety...address that concern. I'm not uncomfortable feeling that I am expertise in that area but it seems of concern to me and those obstacles are that close to the back of the single family residents. Mancino: Well there are two sections. Sections 4 and Section 6 where, from my calculations the property line and the start of the first retaining wall is approximately 18 feel So again in Section 4 and Section 6, if children were going down tho slope and they hit the retaining wall in 18 feet. So you don~t have a long. Farmakes: Not much. Mancino: No. Farmakes: And if an obstruction is placed there to hinder them, I question whether it would be much of an obstruction for a year or so... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: What about an ugly but safe fence? Fannakes: I don't think that was the berm that the editor, the person that got up and spoke was thinking of. Not seeing a proposal for a fence and not having expertiso...qualify a~ being safe in that issue, I don't want to play designer on that end. I'm not comfortable with that. I think there's still a safety issue with that... The issues in regards to the highway planning, I would also like to remind the people at the public heating that Chanhassen has two representatives on the County Board. If you're not satisfied with the response that you're getting from the County, I suggest that you call them. Thafs what they do. I think it would help. The issue of the parking options were brought up. If someone has a party, where do they park. These type of units are fairly established in Chanhassen and I'm not sure if we've had a lot of problems with overflow parking in those areas. There could be potentially a problem with that here. But I think that thafs inherent~..not a lot of street and cars to park there because of the close proximity of the home. I don~t see where thafs going to bo solved unless we create a parking lot or something like that. The property's just too narrow for it... As to the exterior to the home, it wasn't clear when this first camo back. I'm somewhat concerned in trying to envision. There are so many variables here that as a purchaser, you may get a cupula somewhere. On one side of the building and not on the other. Depending upon which option you purchase. I'm not quite sure how lopsided that would be in the end result. Some of the options I th/nk are fairly innovative on the roof line in the back. The front seems to be rather stationary though. I don~t see many options on the front of the building...cupulas out in front. Large expanse of ceiling there, of their pitched roof. The rest of the options showing shudders and some of these other things. I like these things. I like these as additions. I think it would help the exteriors to face Powers Blvd..extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Well some good points that Jeff brought up. I~¢e got 3 or 4. I think the developers did a nice job coming back with the model. I appreciate that. That's neat. I think that, I appreciate the changes they've made. I have the same concern still with the retaining wall. I think something from a safety standpoint has to be done. I'm not sure, retaining wall, maintenance, have to be assured that maintenance is taken care of. Proper engineering. Have to make sure that the retaining wall, with all the water and the problems from the neighborhood talking about their drainage problems, I thinic we have to insure somehow in our contract that this is engineered properly so that we don~t need the maintenance. And safety. I'm not sure what to do with safety. Again, I like the terracing. I like what I see here. I still have a problem with a drop off. And therefore, ifs not totally solved in my mind. And as much as I hate chainlink fencing, or any ldnd of fencing, something has to indicate where that drop off is. I don't have a solution but something has to happen there. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Guest parking, does this meet the standards for a higher density development that we have for guest parking? You know, in our recommendations it says there will be no parking on the street, which means all guest parking will have to be in the driveway. Is that fight? AI-Jaff: It will be on the driveway as well as the applicant is providing 4 stalls right there. 2 stalls. Another 2 here. Conrad: Yeah, that's not very much. Now based on our place, our units up the street here that are higher density, we had all sorts of parking problems there for guests. How did we solve that? Did we solve it? Mancino: The one across the street. Conrad: Which way am I pointing? Yeah. Again, we had problems there and. Aanenson: Did we have problems there? Conrad: Had. I don't know if we do now. We did have a lot of problems. Aanenson: They provided guest parking. There's some areas...but if someone is having a party... Conrad: I guess the point though is, do we have a standard for guest parking for a higher? We don't have any higher density developments in Chanhassen. Aanenson: 1 parking space for 6 units. Scott: For guests? Aanenson: For guests. Do they meet thm~ Yes. Harberts: Has it been applied in the city somewhere? Aanenson: Yes. Oak Hill Ponds. They used it~ And again, it's not...but we did opportunity for them. Conrad: And is that an updated standard? Are we comfortable with that? Aanenson: Yeah. I think so. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Okay. And ifs working up here. Do we know, have we not gotten any feedback recently? Hempel: I dontt think we've had a true test yet to be honest. I guess this holiday season will be atrue test. Conrad: Okay, but it meets our standards. We believe our standards are updated. Okay. The only other question I have is the guarantee of design diversity. I like that. I think some improvements are just real nice. Thank you for adding those options. Again, I do believe that people should select what they want. I don~t like to force a developer into design but on the other hand, in this case, I want some guarantee. Now in our roc, ommendations, tho fff2.ff report said, the townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in the attached narrative. I'm not sure what that attached narrative is but it probably doesn't reference what they~e presented tonight" Probably. But again, I'd be interested for the commissioners who haven't talked how you want, you know in principle I believe that people who buy the units should select what they want to live in. Yet on the other hand, we don't want to have I don~t know, 8 units that look exactly the same because everybody liked the best option I guess. So I'm looking for a way around that" I'm looidng for a way to solve that in terms of encouraging the developer to make sure that happened. I heard them say that they would try to make that happen but I really don~t see anything in our staff report that would make me feel comfortable that some kind of diversity will happen. The options are there and I like that. The developer did their job. Aanenson: Can I clarify that Ladd? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: What our intent would be...these design options and the no... Conrad: The key word is options Kate. So we're stuck with options. Aanenson: We can put that into the PUD... Conrad: But an individual may not choose. The ones that buy these 9 units may not choose any options other than the basic option. Al-$aff: We can have them specify. Aanenson: On the site plan, just as they did tonight. They have to be either Itasca or... 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, and it's probably appropriate to do it, what Kate just said yet on the other hand, it doesn't insure it. So you know I don't like to decree design but as long as the options are there, are we happy? Aanenson: Well what you're getting on this, you're giving them the basic. The framework. Okay, if they want to put...they have that option. What we're saying is at a minimum these are the design... Conrad: Right. So I'm okay with the parking has met our criteria. I'm probably okay on the design diversity. I'm still not quite there on the retaining wall. Scott: What would you suggest? Like a 3, instead of having a 5 foot drop, 6 foot drop, have it like no greater than a 3? 4? Conrad: Joe, I can't figure that out. I really don~t know. I don~t know, I think if we had a 4 foot, I think the neighbors would still come in and say we have a 4 foot drop. You know I don't know that there's a magic footage there. It's just that my concern still is, it is, there's no warning that it's there. So in my mind we have an option of putting a chainlink fence around the entire. Every time there's an entire upper part, which is not the most aesthetic thing to do there yet. Mancino: I'd like to hear some options from the applicant. Scott: Yeah. Well I was just looking at the brochure. There's fence, fence. Conrad: Yeah. Scott: So it may be a combination of less severe steps and some sort of a continuous barrier, year round barrier. Conrad: Maybe. I don't know. Scott: Okay. Anything else? Conrad: No. Scott: Diane. Harberts: I don't know why but I think the staff should consider looking at a centralized garbage collection point in the main body of tho development. I'm just a little uncomfortable 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2. 1994 with the how fight things are. And given some of the discussion with City Council. I know this is a private street and stuff but if there an opportunity to have a centralized garbage collection. Just maybe to look at it to consider it and see. I don't know why, I guess it's just because of how tight the development is. With regard to the pond and some of the discussion in the staff report. Is it possible to have Diane go out there and take a look, or just kind of, I don't know, just kind of look it over and make sure that it does get to be an enhanced pond rather than a breeding pond. Al-$aff: She has a...and she has worked very closely with their wetland delineator. Harberts: Okay. So you're comfortable that ifs moving in the right direction? AI-Jaff: Right. Harberts: Okay. I don't have any comment with regard to retaining walls. Here I understand it's an issue. I guess I certainly understand the concern by the neighbors in terms of the safety. It certainly is a PUD so we certainly have some flexibility here but I think the homeowners on the back side also may want to take a look at options that they may want to look at in terms of safety for their families with a fence, or whatever. Lefs see, collector. Fencing. I like the design. I like the materials. I think it's going to be a nice building materials. A nice look to the ares. I think it fits in okay in terms of the density of Lake Susan. One of the questions I have, tell me about the trails. The trail system on Powers. Is there any trail system? Al-$aff: Yes, and it's going to be built in front of the improvement of County Road 17. Harberts: And so the trail would be on this side? Hempel: Both sides. I-Iarberts: Both sides? And when it talks about park and trail dodication fees shall be paid, are they then, rather than having the developer put in the trail system now, we're just collecting the funds to build it later? Is that the idea? Hempeh The trail system is part of the overall upgrade of Powers Blvd and trails are a big part of the funding for the county road. Previously with this development, the developer had dedicated considerable parkland in the overall Lake Susan Hills development. Therefore, their trail fees and park fees, or no trail fees and half park fees are going to be collected. Harberts: Say that again Dave. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees. Harberts: Because of the previous dedication of land? Hempel: And trails. Harberts: And trails. But did I understand that there's going to be trails built on this side and my question is, have we collected then either in land or in fees, to take that into consideration then? Hempel: Yes we have. Harberts: Okay. And we have plenty of right-of-way? Hempol: Plenty of right-of-way, yes. Harberts: Okay. Interesting comment from someone. I think it was the first gentleman. I wouldn't want to buy one of these homes being right up against a busy street like that either. So it'll be interesting but I guess thafs where, it's a free enterprise system folks so build them and see if they come. I guess that's about it. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: There was a question on the design and condition number 3. I don't know how we'd get at that but the developer had done quite a few units on the east side of Galpin, just to the north of that so, and I~e seen those _units and they're very nice. I think they've done a real good job with the colors. Mancino: Where? Ledvina: lust to the east and north. Right of this development. Thafs your development, is that correct? Okay. So I guess you know there's also a track record that we have here and I think that's, they've done a nice job there and I'm sure that they'll do a nice job on this development with their building styles and things like that I'like what I'm seeing tonight in terms of the elevations and the materials, etc. Let's see. Looking at the retaining wall, I think I have the same concerns as it relates to safety and I'm wondering if possibly we could use a short fence. Maybe a 3 or 4 foot fence behind the plantings that might work as kind of like a safety net if a kid racing, or something like that, the fence would stop him for sure. And if he's going to go over, if he's going to want to go over the fence, he's going to know that there's something on the other side of the fence. I mean a 3 or 4 foot fence won't 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 prevent the kid from physically climbing over the fence. It will prevent him from having an accident like a runaway sled or whatever. I don~ know but I think that can work. And with plantings in front of that fence, you could screen it from view. Mancino: When you're saying front view, are you talking about on the east side or the west side of the fence? On the neighbor's side? Ledvina: The east side of the fence. Mancino: The east side of the fence. Harberts: That would have to be on the, it would have to probably be on the side of the development because in the homeowners association then would probably be liable for the fence as well. As well as continuing maintenance so. Ledvina: And maybe the fence can be taken down at~r 4 or 5 years when the hedge or the shrubs or the conifers get large enough so that there is a definite you know break there. But a safety break and thafs, I think what has to be done and I guess I, in terms of what we're looking at tonight. I would suggest that a condition be added to that effect and I don't know what the agreement is on that but I think if a fence is added in that regard, we can provide that safety element. Scott: Is that at the property line or near the. Ledvina: Near the plantings. Scott: Near the retaining wall. Ledvina: Right. Scott: Okay. Ledvina: Behind the plantings or to the west of the plantings. Larry Harris: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that this is the Planning Commission's deliberations but both the landscape engineer and myself have some additional information. Seeing that the Planning Commission seems to be fixed closely on this issue. Would you like to hear what the developer believes it can do in terms of fencing and how the shrubbing would actually work along the retaining walls? 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Well maybe what we should do, what would you think about passing this on to the City Council noting that we have a concern and some possible solutions for the retaining wall and safety issue. You're going to be at that meeting anyway and then address that during the public hearing. But then I'm not speaking for the other commissioners. This may not move forward, but if it does, that would give you probably a better forum and then we'll just let them know and hopefully they'll be reading their Minutes. Okay, anyway Matt Continue. Ledvina: Enough with that. Mancino: Well I also think it's important for the citizens who%e come to also hear maybe a suggestion that they have so they can prepare for the City Council meeting knowing what the suggestion is going to be. I-Iarberts: But wouldn't the suggestion be incorporated into the packet that's going to be sent to the Council members? Mancino: Yeah, but this is a public hearing so I would like the citizens to be able to hear it tOO. Harberts: Well the public hearing's closed. Conrad: Joe, I think we should continue our deliberations and then give the developer a couple minutes to talk about the safety concerns that we have and that way the residents can hear so when they go to City Council, they know what is being presented. Scott: Yeah, it won't be a public hearing but I think this is a rare exception to how we do things so any other comments? Ledvina: Yes. One of the th/ngs on the south side of the property we clustered that group of buildings there to that southern extent and we did a lot of things with that connecting roadway to preserve the trees that are in that are~ The plan that I see with the layout, I don~t think it does that very well. I note that there's 9 oak trees that they've identified in their landscaping plan and from my estimation, 6 of the 9 oak trees will be taken out. I think that that's way too much. I think we're defeating the purpose of our efforts and maybe the developer doesn't even realize that but specifically unit 20, there's 2 oak trees. There's a 24 inch oak and a 30 inch oak. They're very close to the building line and that building, that unit has to be moved if those trees are going to be saved and I think that would be an absolute must. The other trees in the cluster to the south, there is 4 oak trees there that appear to be lost in the current layout and I don't know exactly what can be done in that area but I think that if we can save 2 of those trees, because as I look at the stand of trees, going 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 out to the site, you see the oaks along the edges and there aren't that many, that*s it in terms of the oak trees. There are sugar maples in the center and there's a lot of scrub in thoro too but I think we can do, I think the developer can do a better job of relocating those building locations to save more trees. Scott: Do you have a condition? Ledvina: Yes, I would add a condition to that effect Harborts: To delete or just move or what? Ledvina: Well specifically Unit 20 would have to be moved to save those 2 trees. I don~t know if I would go so far as to say that the developer eliminate Unit 21 to save those, and I believe that if they did that, 4 oak trees could be saved in that area with the .~hifling of the northern unit in that area so. I don~ know if I would go that far. But I think ifs, again I look back at the general purpose as to what we were trying to do with our efforts in that and I don't know if we've gone far enough. I think we can do a little bit more and really hit the center of the Target. Harberts: What exactly are you at? Are you saying Malt, I'm hearing two things from you. One, well what I'm hearing is that we should save the trees and if, the trees should be saved as our primary goal. And if that can be achieved by just moving 20, 21, fine. Ledvina: Unit 20 specifically and I don~t know about 21. I'm telling you that I don't know where I'm at with that one. Mancino: Do you see a way to move and save? Ledvina: I don't specifically see a way of moving Unit 21 and saving trees. I guess if 2 of the 4 trees there could be saved, I would say then move it. If not, lose it. Harberts: Lose the unit? Ledvina: Yeah. Mancino: And that's something that we could put in a recommendation and have staff and the applicant figure out if they can... 32 · Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: I think that's reasonable because the, you know we're looking at the most, some of the most significant trees on this site. And I think that was also one of the goals here. Let's see. That's tho ox-tent of my comments. Scott: Good, Nancy. Mancino: I don't really have any new comments at all. I think everybody's touched on them. I do think that this has been a good process, meaning that the Jasper Development has come back with some changes that the citizens, homeowners in the area have brought to our attention and I thank you for all your comments, because they've been very good ones. I also feel that when we are going to have models, and I know this isn't in an ordinance and I don~ know how to put. it in but that citizens who are coming to talk and be part of the process do have some time to come and look and to process it and ask some questions about it. And if we could, this is just a tremendous visual. 3 dimensional representation, if we could get these 48 hours prior to a meeting and have them on display here, it certainly helps. My last point, and this has nothing to do with Sasper Development. It just is a comment that I'd like to make to our commission and to our staff is that, I think this PUD in this particular area, this Outlet B was not well planned from the very be~nning. Taking a, you look at it and ifs like somebody decided that we needed multi-family in this aro~ I mean it just wreaks of that. They put a little strip with multi family and it looks like a strip multi family developmenl~ So from the very beginning of the process in 1987 when this PUD was passed, I don't think it was planned, well planned. I think that when we do do multi family, we want to integrate it into the rest of our neighborhoods. We just don~t want it to be this sore thumb sticking out like this. I think it has made this development problematic at best. I think there would have been other ways to have entered this development other than Powers. I think Jasper has done the best they could but I think they started out with not good planning on tho part of staff, Planning Commission and City Council. And I think that we should realize that and I think that when we are' looking at developments like this in the future, we'll be seeing another one tonight which is multi family near single family which also has an outlet. That we should think about the implications and whafs going to happen in the future. Harberts: Nancy do you think tha~ you know with your comments, do you think it's because of kind of the piecemeal approach to the development? Mancino: I think that the very be~nning when it was passed as a PUD and somebody said we needed multi family exactly nobody, they just kind of said in this outlet let's put multi family there and I don~t think anybody thought lttrough the implications of how do you put a road in there. How do you, you know whafs this going to look like? How is it going to serve our community? How is it going to serve that neighborhood? 33 Planning Commission Meeting = November 2, 1994 Harberts: It should have been a little bit more integrated I _think. Mancino: Yes, much more integrate& Scott: That also points out I think a major role that we play when we have multi, I think of Mission Hills. I think of the development that's corning up. I think of this one. One of the big roles that we tend to play is focusing on the transition between dissimilar uses, or similar uses, dissimilar density. So yeah, I think your point is very well taken. Harberts: Well I think one advantage too when you look at Mission Hills, we had the whole picture. Whereas with this it seern.~ it was that piecemeal approach. Mancino: Well the outlets kept getting developed but still, the overall concept was there to begin with. I mean somebody decided at the be~nning that these. I-Iarberts: Yeah, but we still didn't have that full picture. Not like we did with Mission Hills. Mission Hills was easy because you could see how it would integrate. How the transition would occur or not. You know make these lots a little larger, things like that. That was easy you know versus something like this. This seemed like anything with Lake Susan Hills was just like pulling teeth every step of the way. I don't know why. Mancino: Well we have single family to the west of it and we have single family to the north. We have park to the east and we have single family to the south. It just doesn't work for me from the very be~nning. From the get go but I just would like us to remember that and hopefully use that as knowledge as we look ahead, Conrad: Well then the PUD should not have been approved in the, I don't necessarily agree. The PUD should not have been approved in the first place. Then you're going to have to force every PUD to give you a design of all the outlets. That's wlmt you're asking for. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the developer's comments on their retaining walls. Scott: Okay. Do you have a very brief description of your thoughts? Mr. Harris. Larry Harris: Thank you Mr. Chair. I realize this is not your normal procedure but I wanted to get the information and I agree with Ms. Mancino. I think the residents want to know what the developer can do. Essentially the developer can do one or two things. Or maybe even a combination thereof. The developer proposes putting shrubbery across the tops of the retaining walls because it's the most aesth~y pleasing. Mark Jeffries tells me that in 5 gallon containers, one option would be to plant, and maybe not double but a significant portion greater than what would normally be planted for that density in year one and then 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 year two...do some pulling. If you do that he says that at the end of one year you should have full hedging across the top. That full hedging of course the benefit of it being aesthetically pleasing and providing a barrier. However, the developer is also willing to put fencing across the tops of tho retaining walls. I mean the obvious solution would be 4 foot galvanized, and probably black vinyl covered and just mirror and follow the retaining wall all the way across... The developer is more than willing to present that. To be honest, I think we want some direction from the Planning Commission and/or the neighborhood as to which way to go. In terms of restructuring the retaining walls, ifs really not viable to develop the property with intervals or steps less than that It jusfs an engineering nightmare and even if in the one area you went to 3-4 foot intervals, the concern of the neighborhoods and the concern about, the safety concern is the same whether ifs a 4 foot drop or a 6 foot drop. The issue is, what can we do to screen and protect the wall and I guess what we'd like to hoar is maybe some feedback either from the Planning Commission or tho residents as you see appropriate and the appropriate recommendation is going to be included in the information I guess submitted to the City Council. Scott: Well I'll tell you what we can do is put in a condition that either or both and then we°Il have another public heating and the residents can come. Express their preferences and go from there so thais. Larry Harris: Who will have the other public hearing? Scott: City Council. Thais assuming that the project goes forward. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the. Aanenson: Can I make a clarification of the motion? There is one item as far as wetland... There is a Wetland//94-5. Ledvina: Okay, do I add that to a specific item? Aanenson: Yes. Ledvina: Which? I'm sorry, which item? Scott: Which page are we on, 177 AI-Jaff: 17. Planning Commission recommends approval of PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration Permit #94-5. The rest remains the same. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Well then I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval, I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #$7-3, Weftand Alteration Permit #94-5 and Site Plan Review ~4-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the conditions in the staff report with additional conditions noted as follows. Number 33. The applicant shall evaluate tho potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the grading process. 34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface drainage and surface water runoff. 35. The applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection. 36. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent children from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held this evening. 37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. Also, tho oak trees in the vicinity of Unit 21, change that. The 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21 at a minimum by relocating the placement of the nniL If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak trees in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the developmenL Harberts: I have a clarification for Ma~.. Is it my understanding that assessment is to be done by a certified soils engineer? Was that your intent? Ledvina: Sure. Harberts: Okay, just wondering. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the sta/Ys recommendation with conditions as added. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Manclno seconded that the PI~ Commi*sion zeco~ approval of PUD #87-3, Wetland Alteration Permit fl94-S and Site Plan Review 094-7 as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1994, and subject to the foflowing conditions: . A "No Parking" restriction shall be designated along the private streets. Appropriate NNo Parking" restrictions/signs shall be placed on the private street. . Amend the PUD Contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 . . o . . . . 10. 11. 12. The townhome units shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached narrative. Introduce some variation among buildings facing Powers Boulevard through the shape of windows, adding louvers, shifting entry ways, adding dormers, or color. Introduce new elements to break up the large roof span. The applicant should submit a street lighting plan for staff review and approval. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for uso of the private streeL Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. Plans shall provide one visitor parking space per 6 units. Fencing shall be placed around the stand of trees to minimize impact during construction. Protected trees lost due to construction must be replaced on a 1.2 canopy basis in accordance with a plan approved by staff. A lighting plan shall be submitted eor the interior private streets. A revised landscaping plan which provide additional landscaping and berming along Powers Boulevard (CR 17), and the westerly portion of the site. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, In~ections Division for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the approved names after their review. Fire Marshal conditions: An additional fire hydrant shall be installed at the new 'T" intersection. The remaining fire hydrants shall bo relocated with equal spacing. Fire hydrants shall be placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. b. Submit new street names for review and approval. A twenty foot wide fire land must be maintained on the new proposed north/south street. "No Parking Fire Lane" si~ shall be installed on both sides of the street with 75 foot spacing. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 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 Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to tho City/'or review and/'ormal approval. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The street shall bo constructed in accordance to the City's private driveway ordinance for multi family zoning (Ordinance//209). Issuance of permits and inspection of the ufiliW lines will be performed by the city's Building Department. Streets and utilities, except the pending areas, storm sewer outlet and pipe systems, shall be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Wetland buffer areas shall bo surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge sign.~ before construct/on begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide pending calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with tho City's Surface Water Mmu~ement Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. Tho applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. Applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Highway Department, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, l~innesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of En8ineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should bo dedicated on tho final plat for all utilities and pending areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the pending areas. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way or utility and drainage easements without approval by the City. Tho applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100 year high water level. The proposed storm water ponds must have side slopes of 1 O: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereat%r or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond(s) shall be sized in accordance to the city's Surface Water Management Plan. Water quality fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accor~ce with the prescribed land use zoning. Water quantity fees will be based in accordance with the City's SWMP. Storm sewer trunk fees will be evaluated based on the applicanfs contribution to the SWMP design requirements. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain file as directed by the City Engineer. Prior to final platting, the applicant, county and city shall meet to discuss/resolve the specifics on pond design and access to the site. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 30. No decks or any portion of the dwellings may ~ncroach into the city's drainage and utility easements. 31. The curves in the private street lying south of the access shall be "softened" to accommodate public safety vehicle turning movoments. 32. The plat should be redesigned to remove those lot lines which encroach upon the 25 foot building setback line. 33. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for impacts to adjacent building foundations during the grading process. 34. Retaining walls shall be engineered to incorporate subsurface dmim~e and surface water runoff. 35. The applicant shall investigate the potential for centralized garbage collection. 36. The applicant shall provide a safety fence or other landscaping provisions to help prevent chilthen from falling over the retaining walls. These safety provisions or fencing shall be discussed and approved by city staff considering the discussion held at lhe Planning Commission meeting. 37. The applicant shall relocate Unit 20 to save the 24 and 30 inch oak trees. 2 of the 4 oak trees shall be saved in the vicinity of Unit 21, at a minimum, by relocating the placement of the !mit. If it is not possible to save at least 2 of the 4 oak tn~s in that vicinity, the unit shall be omitted from the development. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: This goes to the City Council. Aanenson: 20th. Scott: 20th? 28th? I'd like to thank the developer for working with the neighbors and I appreciate the neighbors coming in. As you can hopefully see, and Mr. Rasmussen, thank you for taking the time to kind of consolidate your neighbors' thoughts, but thank you very much for coming and we'll take a couple minute break while we exchange people because we have another issue coming up. 4O Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING; RETONING OF 49.9 ACIIF-q, OF PROPERTY ZONEB A2~ AGRICI, J-LTURAL F_~ TATE TO R4~ MIXED LOW DEN~;ITY Rg.q. IDENTIAL~ PRELEMINARY PLAT QF 49.9 ACRlr~. INTO 93 TWIN HOME L0'IS AND ONE OUTLQT~ AND A I~VETLAND ALTERATIQN PERMIT LOC~T~ NQRTH QF HIGHWAY fl APPRQXIMATELY 1/4 lVIH.E ON THE EAST Sine OF GAl.PIN BQI. JI.EVARD ((~ 117k LOTUS REALTY SERVICI~, LAKE ANN HIGHlaNDS. Public Present:, Name A~lrr~ Jeff Steinke Mike Gorra Blanc Hammer Joel Reimers Rick Manning Cinda & David Jensen John Hennessy Amit Diamond Colin & Desiree Brown Mark & Sharon Pryor Allan & Mary Jane Olson Julie Wojtanowski Kathy Haldeman Joan & Kevin Joyce Ed & Kathy Loveridge Michael & Kristine Perry Bonnie Leu & Charles Peterson James & Jeanette Freidler Peter K. Beck Ross Fefercorn Steve Selinger Virginia A. Bell Joy Bott Dawn Cook-Rorminger Patricia A. Lynch Lars Conway Dawn & Brian Erdman Wendy Stove 7481 1680 7421 7495 7460 2173 7305 2117 2131 7541 7461 2059 2059 2043 7508 7521 7496 7500 7900 7625 7480 7476 7490 7471 7475 4415 2091 2103 Windmill Drive i-ng w y 5 Windmill Drive Crocus Court Windmill Drive Brinl~or Street Galpin Blvd. Brinker Street Brinl~er Street Windmill Drive Windmill Drive Brinker Street Brinl~er Street Brini~er Street Tulip Court Windmill Drive Crocus Court Windmill Drive Xerxes Avenue So. Metro Blvd~ Suite 145 Windmill Drive Brini~er Street Tulip Court Tulip Court Crocus Court Fremont Avenue So, Mpls 55409 Brinl~er Street Brinl~er Street 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Bob Generous presented rite staff report on this item- Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: The grading situation, I guess I wasn~ able to resolve it. Maybe it was in the staff report. Was all the grading going to be done at once or what's, how is this going to happen? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That's one of the items that we pointed out in our staff report. It was unclear whether it was all going to be under the first phase or if it was going to be two phases. We requested the applicant to fax a narrative explaining the phasing approach of the site grading. One other ltaing I'd like to add at this point, I guess Bob had mentioned contingencies about phase two happening. The other item would be storm water quantities...as well for Phase two. Ledvina: So do we know what the applicant is planning as it relates to grading or we're requesting that of them at this point? Hempel: We are requesting that. Scott: Bob, you mentioned that there are several options for zoning of this property and I sense that there's some prerogative that we have. You had mentioned that of those options you need to determine which is appropriate, or maybe you need to tighten that up a little bit. Generous: ...basically a policy decision. Does the city want to continue and have the standard 15,000 square foot lots...go with a slightly higher density and have the twin homes which is still single family at least from our standtmint...Or should we go and look at what the Highway 5 corridor study is saying for the future and... Scott: Can I ask you a question? With the, has the actual, the decided location of the access boulevard been made public record? Has it been surveyed, platted, located, gtc, otc? Aanenson: Well we're going off the, what you recall the task force recommended the northern alignment. The Planning Commission recommended the northern ali~tmment but Council recommended the southern alil/nment .... hearing of tho EA document has not boon determined. Staff gave direction to the applicant to go ahead and use the northern 42 Planning Commission Meeting = November 2, 1994 alignment...as an environmental assessment document. But we still believe as part of the design...the northern alignment. This is approximately the second... Scott: So what do we have here? What is this proposed second phase? Is that, I latow that both the northern and the southern alignments and this was kind of the Bluff Creek crossing section so how does what we see on this plan relate to. Aanenson: It reflects the alignment on the EA document on the northern alignment Farmakes: Kate, can you explain when you're referring to the souther or northern alignment, are you referring to this particular piece of property, or are you talking about the several options that were available throughout the Bluff Creek corridor? Aanenson: ...this is the northern alignment that you're seeing...and the southern alignment had the road... Both options again, high density is already on the comprehensive plan adjacent to Highway 5 and we haven't changed that as far as the Highway 5 document as far as... There still is talk about the Van de Veire property and other opportunities there that have not been resolved... There was other land use considerations being used for that one. Farmakes: My question is, in regards to the Council, you said that they made a recommendation for the southern ali_,o~ment. Are you referring to this particular location of the property or for all the options that were available between here and TH 41 ? Aanenson: They went with the southern the entire route, is that your question7 Farmakes: The entire route from Lake Ann to TH 417 Aanenson: Correct. The task force had the cross over... Farmakes: Including the property west of Galpin. Scott: So what we see on this plan is the northern alignment? Thank yom Mancino: I would also like to add, being a task force member, that in our task force guide book on 23, that the potential uses were, they said single family residential or multi family and the higher density abutting obviously Highway 5 so they could also see it single family. At the time and on Highway 5, just so you know, nobody talked about twin homes. That doesn't mean anybody was for or against but I think when everybody talked about single family, they were thinking about the traditional single family, detached. They weren't 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 thinking about twin homes when they thought about single family and that just has to do with the Highway 5 task force. I just wanted to make that clear. Farmakes: I think I was opposed. Mancino: To? Farmakes: To the way that this zone was laid out period. It was my opposition to getting a corridor... Mancino: For the multi family. Farmakes: Not that I object to... Audience: Could you speak up, we can't hear you. Farrnakes: Nancy's referring to a task force that operated for a couple of years in regards to the Highway $ task force, which is referring to recommendations as to an access road that followed, that would allow traffic to egress into the city without getting on the highway. Highway 5. Where that access road would be going, there was options for both northern and southern alignments. Southern being closer to the highway. Like a frontage road going closer to the highway and the northern route more similar to Lake Lucy Road or Kerber Boulevard where it goes up farther into the northern reaches. When we're talking about the theory about what type of property zonement would bo along those routes, say to the south of the access road, to the north of the access road, what the buffers would bo between medium and high density housing. My concern, being on the task force, when it was talking about the comment that Nancy made is that there were diff~g opinions in regards to the solutions for this, including a task force and tho Commission here and what I'm hearing, tho Council also. There are a lot of different factors that play here. My concern was that we do not get a corridor between Lake Ann and Highway 41 that's nothing but high density or medium density, townhouse type structures and that there's some diversity showing up. Typically aligned next to a highway you'll typically see these long endless large apartment, townhouse type buildings that you see on 169 for instance going north. And they go on for 5 or 6 miles. I'm hoping we don't see that here but. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification? We're not recornmending...but still it's low density according to tho comp plan which was always 1 to 4 units per acre. We're not recommending medium. But within that we're saying there's three opporttmifies you have. And yet they're consistent with the comp plan... 44 Planning Commission Meeting- November 2, 1994 Farmakes: I think the issue is where the alignment road goes, anything to the south of that, in this case it's an outlet, what would happen there? At that point and for the property adjacent to it because that will somewhat dictate how that property develops. Aanenson: ...zoned high density. But the land use...comprehensive plan has guided that for high density. Scott: Okay, any other questions or comments for staff? Or any other comments from staff. Harberts: I'd like to ask a question. I don~t know exactly where I'm going with this but my understanding with this particular project is that it's going to force the Council to make a decision on the alignment. Are they ready to be forced into that decision? Scott: When is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet hearing scheduled? Aanenson: Well there are a number of things that have to happen. You have to decide whether or not...rezoning at this time, and you have to decide whether or not we're going to take utilities to the project. It's all predicated on the fact that you're ready to move forward with this plat. Then if we do get to that point, then the Council's got to decide whether or not that's what they want to do. Scott: As far as the road goes, the Phase I can be serviced with transportation and util ties from tho Windmill Run subdivision so for the Phase I that's, these are never no brainers but that's an easier thing to get at because the access boulevard does not enter into it. Aanenson: Correct. So we there's some time...if the road does shi~.. Scott: Okay. Harberts: To me though it's, well I guess as I look at this, I'd like to know where the road's at in terms of with the outlet, with how this maybe not so much with Phase I but Phase H or whatever. I guess if it was my preference, I'd like to know so I know what I'm looldng at as a total picture there. I mean we talked a little bit about the struggle we had with Lake Susan and the piecemeal affect. That's what's happ~ing so, that's my comments. Scott: Okay. Any other additions or. Mancino: Ditto. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: Ditto, thank you~ Anything else? Any other comments from staff? Questions from commissioners. Harberts: No, I'll be quiet for a while. Mancino: I just have one question for staff and that is, Bob you've given us the background here that we have 81% units are single family. We have as a category multi-family which is 9.6 and subsets of that category is twin homes which is 4% and mwnhouses which is 5.6%, fight7 What does that mean to me7 Generous: That 81% of the homes. Mancino: And single family. Generous: Are single family detached. Mancino: But I mean do we have any planning as to where we want to be in those? Aanenson: Yes. The comprehensive plan, one of the goals is to have diversified housing opportunities for people who want single family. That don~t want the large yard. Maybe first time home buyers. That's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan is to provide diversified housing styles. Ifs mentioned several times in the comprehensive plan. Farmakes: If it's mentioned, do we take percentage numbers saying that when Chan's filled up with 32,000 we have these percentage of multi family units? Mancino: Yeah. Generous: ...breakdown in structures. Farrnakes: So do we have goals as to, or are they open ended goals7 Generous: They're open ended. One of the goals is to provide affordable housing. Mancino: And again we haven't defined affordable housing. We haven't said how much. Generous: Well actually there are some definitions that we can use. Farmakes: I was wondering if we define that or that will be defined for us by a ]Vfinnoa~olis representative in the State Legislature. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: It's being defined for us by the legislature. Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments? Would the developer, the development team like to make a presentation? Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad John~n. I live at 7425 Frontier Trail. Sometimes I forget. I represent Lars Conway, who is the owner of the property. We have with us this evening, if you'd like to direct any questions to them, Peter Beck who is our attorney and Jack Lynch who represents BRW...as an introduction. He's done, we just figured out today, 250,000 lots, which I think is pretty impressive. And they just completed a 25,000 lot subdivision in Phoenix. I~t that amazing? And then Ross Fefercorn who is the developer and proposed developer of this site ultimately, with these country homes. Pve passed out some sheets because the neighbors have been concerned about what is this and because of the process that we go through when we're just doing subdivisions, this is not a PUD and we feel that we fall underneath the category of your comprehensive plan, is 0 to 4 unit subdivision is a permitted use here. If you recall last year somebody, I believe in August of 1993, adopted a plan for this area. You are a party to that. That suggested that this area be increased to 8 units. And the road south of the new Highway 5 corridor be 12 unit density. We've been kind of floating around for the last 2 years while we're waiting for that plan to be adopted by the City Council. Because there's some urgency on our part to get rolling.on this particular parcel, we decided that we'd stay within your current comprehensive plan guideline which was 0 to 4 units on this side of the road and 0 to 8 units on the south side of the road and if you look at your comprehensive plan you'll see, it says 8 units. 0 to 8. 0 to 4 and then the single family homes where these folks live, and that was the long range plan. If you also read your comprehensive plan you'll see that you have guidelines that have set up your goals as to what the multiple family unit mix should be in the city and historically Chanhassen has been well below their goal. I can't remember but I thinl~ we~ve got a copy of it because I was a part of that process about 7 or 8 years ago. This evening we realize there's two decisions that you may or may not make but we believe you have 120 days to make that decision because it's just a subdivision permitted under your rules and regulations. We are in fact trying to force the decision on the location of that road. We've told the Council that. We~ve waited two years for them to react to it. Because you, this body recommended the northerly mute, that's what we're using. This is exactly what you suggested late last fall. That has not been as yet recommended or accepted by the Council. Now you're free to change your mind but this was the decision that you made. Also in that report you recommended 8 units to the north and 12 units to the south. Obviously because the Council hasn't done that, you're welcome to change your mind. I don~t thini~ you're welcome to change your mind on the comprehensive plan that was adopted in 1987. I thinl~ that's there and based upon that, a lot of people have made decisions. As far as the staff report is concerned, we don't have any concerns with it other than items that we have planning on just 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 talking to them because we got an extended stay here as far as the public hearing is concerned so just for the record we have concerns about items 6, 7, 8, 19, 24, 25, and 27 and most of these are clarifications or technical issues. We will get together with the staff between now and than. I don~t think we have to go into getting exacL Because I think a lot of this is just input and probably participation by the, well one of the things. We've got a number of calls from neighbors saying that they were promised that this area was zoned single family. Well in fact it is single family but it's 0 to 4 units per acre. We weren't part of that. We have never had a call from any neighbor. I don~t think, Lairs did you ever have any call from a neighbor~ Did you ever have a call from a realtor? No. And so therefore any of that kind of conversation was not, we were not party to it. We believe that if anybody looked at the comprehensive plan, they would have said it a little bit differently. If they had followed the public hearings that were going on for 2 years on the Highway 5 corridor they would certainly say, well it could have been up to 8 units per acre so obviously whoever informed these folks that they were not following anything that you were doing. I dontt know if anybody talked to any of you or the staff, they would know. I don~t know. We are concerned however about how we buffer to these folks so in talking to Bob Generous he said one of the concerns was the transition. Not just by unit mix but also the transition by what does it look like. So we're going to show you some of the landscaping ideas that we have here now that may take care of that issue. My feeling though is that you will have to deal with this single family issue yourselves. I'm a resident of this particular community. I think we need more density just to get going but thafs my own personal feeling...but I'd like to have Jack Lynch just kind of go over the rationale behind the plat at this time. Jack Lynch: I'm not sure what I'm going to say, to tell you the truth. The piece we're dealing with is approximately 50 acres on the northeast corner of Galpin and TH 5. At this time we're asking for rezoning of the northerly 35 acres. Basically an R4 zoning category. There is a discussion on the table about the access boulevard. Whether it should be in the northern alignment or the southern alignment. It's being presented and asked for, vote up or down on it so we can get on with life. So the property owner can get on with his life and develop the property. We have, as staff has said and as Brad has mentioned, worked with the staff on locating and going along with the northern ali_,~nment. There has also been discussion here tonight on the differences from the zoning codes, the comprehensive plan, the guide plans, the corridor studies. They all mention something that's just a little bit different from the... The corridor study that I think this body adopted though had in it's recommendations was a density gradation from single family to mid density to high density. I think the guide plan talks about mid density to low density. And certainly we've got an existing zoning, or existing subdivisions at low density. We took the corridor study and actually I think some of your comments at the beginning of the meeting today and we took a serious look at the high density, medium density and decided that was a little bit too high and backed off of that to the low density to potentially medium density. This outlet has not been yet decided whether 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 it will be, exactly what it will be. But we did make a conscientious decision by the parcel north of the access boulevard and the subdivision to the north should not be a medium density product. It should be a low density product and that's what we're proposing. The other discussion item had to do with the landscaping. The initial submittal was a little light on the landscaping and we have gone back and taken a look at basically the landscaping was shown has to be increased by 50% and we would basically locate those additional plants and then do some more extensive berling along that northerly property line. Where we would propose a natural change from one density to the next density. Actually going from a 2 1/2 density product to a 3 1/2 density product, there's no difference. With that let's get into some of the discussion items and we'd be glad, all of us, to answer any questions. Scott: Questions or comments? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, can you resolve the issue as it relates to the grading with the two phases? How is that going to happen? Jack Lynch: Quite frankly it doesn't make any difference to us. It's probably more economical if you grade it all at once. However, once it's graded all at once, the commitment is made that that product is going to go for the entire 92 lots, which is not a big deal. It's probably easier to grade it all at once. Ledvina: If your proposal to grade it all at once? Jack Lynch: Well it was, yes. The proposal was to grade it all at once but it was unsaid, unstated in the solution. Scott: What's the total pad size for each building? Jack Lynch: Like the square footage for the unit? Scott: Not the square footage but just the pad, size of the foundation pad. Jack Lynch: It's probably roughly about 3,000 square feet. Ross Fefercorn: ...house pad is minimum size about 15 to 20 square. Scott: That's per side though, right? Ross Fefercorn: Yes. Per side. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: 3,000 total. Ross Fefercom: Exclusive of the garage. If we go a minimum with double car garage and build a 2 1/2 acre car garage and build a 3 car garage as requested by the customers. Mancino: Mr. Lynch, are you going to be showing us architectural styles, etc? Jack Lynch: No. This is simply a standard subdivision request. Mancino: But part of the Highway 5 corridor is that we're supposed to be making some of our decisions on the quality that we~,e asked for under the Highway 5 corridor study. How are we going to make a determination on quality in this corridor if we don't know what you're going to... Brad Johnson: Single family is excluded. Mancino: No it isn't. Brad Johnson: That's what your guidelines say. Mancino: Well, that's if we go with single family. But if we went with multi family, it wouldn't be excluded. Generous: Right, and thafs from... Aanenson: And again clarification, this is a standard subdivision. You're not doing a site plan review. It's not a PUD. It's not a multi family project where they're bringing in buildings... We haven't done one of these. We're all kind of...but that's why I said there's other options. Mancino: But under land use, etc in Chapter 4, etc it doesn't exclude single family. It doesn't say it excludes it when it gives guiding philosophies, etc. Aanenson: ...ordinance itself that was adopted. Mancino: Oh, okay. Jack Lynch: There has not been a developer selected but those are some of the units that are being talked about. 5O Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: No, thafs it. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, good. Anybody else from the development team? Brad Johnson: Well a couple questions have come up. We realize it will be about 2 weeks here so we have a slide presentation we can provide the neighborhood. There are 4 or 5 projects like this in the city...how they will look... The average price range on these rung from $150,000 to $350,000.00 per side. Their square footage runs from about 1,700 square feet up to 4,500 square feet per side. They're not small units. Audience: Is that on this plan development or on other developments? Scott: I think what we'll do, we have a public hearing and we can have some back and forth, and I'm sure there will be some. Brad Johnson: I just wanted, because somebody asked me prices and that's the range. It's a very versatile product and probably the number one product like this was designed by... very few children type of producc..They're the number one Reggie Award of all the homes in this classification. They won the number one award for quality and design. That's why we... Farmakes: Mr. Chairman, since we have a large group of people here and it is somewhat confusing because of the alignment considerations on Highway 5, the zonement, the rezonement application for options that we're looking at here may be something we should walk through once again. Looking at the possibilities. Again, this comprehensive plan is a guide and there is a difference of opinion as to which one of these routes should be used. Although we've recommended that, we did not recommend it unanimously and I believe that there's difference of opinion at City Council so the question being, it seems to be an important one, is what this property is rezoned for. Other than discussing the price of the housing units. It seems where do you start first. There may be some confusion on the part of the audience here with regards to the philosophy of what that zonement is going to be. Whether it's a PUD or whether it's low or medium density and where that ali_.mament defines that being the buffer. In other words, if the southerly ali_.mament has no developable property to the south of it, therefore there's a larger amount of property. The northern splits two pieces so there's a barrier. So anyway, there's several options to look at there and I think you touched on whether it was a PUD or a traditional development and that may need a little more clarification for the people in tho audience. Scott: Yeah, I think it might help from a RSF, residential single family, which is the Windmill and Royal Oaks, basically what that is, by ordinance a developer can come in and 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 cut the property up subject to the proper street width and so forth. Can divide the property up into 15,000 square foot lots. Put a house on there that has a 60 x 60 foot pad, which would include the garage and a deck and so forth, and they can build those all day long and that's the minimum from the ordinance standpoint. In some instances, I don't know if you're familiar with tho Song property. Lots of trees. Lots of terrain differences and thafs where we like to apply a PUD or planned urban development. What that allows us to do is that allows us to be more flexible with the ordinances but for very specific purposes. For example we had the Song property, that I mentioned, had a tremendous amount of mature trees. Extremely old so basically what we did is we allowed the developer to allow smaller street widths and allowed them slightly greater grades for the streets to preserve some of the trees, which obviously was a benefit for them because they can sell their property for money, etc, etc. but then it allowed us to follow one of our guides which is to preserve as much of the natural terrain or the natural vegetation as possible. So a planned unit development is a way that if a property has some si,~onificant topographical or vegetational, Fll make up a word, we use that. So those are two options that we have here. As far as the R4, which is the one I'm not as familiar with, basically what that would allow you to do, if you could envision this, is that it looks as if these lots are approximately, if you took the two lots together it looks like they're what, 20,000 square foot. Okay, so we have two lots but the homes are touching so basically what it looked like, if you didn~ know that it was two families, basically you're looking at a home that's going to be approximately, I think they're anywhere from 3,000 square feet to conceivably 9,000 square feet. And if you're talking about tho 15,000 square feet a side to the 4,500 square feet per side. So those are basically the 3 zoning optiolls. Now you've heard some talk about a Highway 5 corridor study. You've heard about the comprehensive plan. And then other guide documents. Basically what the comprehensive plan is that every decade the citizen task force, the Planning Commission, tho City Council get together and take a look at the city. All the undeveloped property and try to say alright, what do we want our city to look like. Where do we want to have multiple family? Where do we want to have commercial property and so forth so that our city develops in an orderly fashion. Well the comprehensive plan, these are all plans and things are not cast in concrete by any means but we want to have a plan that we have to present to the Met Council for approval so they know what we're trying to do with our property. That's basically what the comprehensive plan is. The Highway 5 task force was a study that lasted for over 2 years of which Commissioner Mancino and Commissioner Farmakes were involved with, where we figured we had this highway. It's going to have an impact on people who drive through our community. People who live here. What do we want them to see from the highway relative, because we got involved with building materials. We got involved with views to see natural amenities like Bluff Creek. So hopefully this is quite eye opening. There's been a lot of work been done on this but once again, these are guides. These are plans and we tend to, in this instance we're focusing on a particular piece of property. There's a known quantity. We know what your area looks like. It's zoned residential single family. We know what 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Highway 5 looks like. We know what Galpin. Because of the City Council not acting on the alignment, we don't know exactly where that access boulevard is going to be. So where we're at fight now is, because of, and you may have heard thin earlier today. Because of some misinformation or lack of information that was printed in the newspaper, this is not considered to be an official public hearing, which means that the Planning Commission cannot make any recommendations for the City Council. So what we're going to do at the public hearing is to get neighborhood input. I sense, and the other commissioners sense that one of your major concerns is the change in density from your development into what this may be and just to let you know, the Planning Commission, at least I've been here for 2 years, what we have consistently done is buffered not necessarily with just vegetation but buffered with a more gradual change of density inbetween two "dissimilar' areas. So if that is a major, may I just ask a question. How many of you are primarily concerned with the difference in density between your development and this proposed development? Mostly, okay. Okay. So I think that point is understood quite well by us and what, I'm not trying to discourage anybody from speaking at the public hearing but if 'maybe one or two people could articulate that for the public record, we'd appreciate it. If there's some other things, and thafs why we have these because the developer is using their, in good faith coming up with here's something that we believe fits with these three different doc-ments that overlap and underlap and so I mean in their situation, they're making their best efforts to do what they think is appropriate. Obviously when there's development next door to anybody, you're concerned so this is the way the process works and I think what we should do, with that in mind, is could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino: So moved. Harberts: I thought there wasn't a public hearing. Scott: Well. Conrad: Let's just listen for input. Let's have the public hearing next time. Scott: Would someone like to speak? Step up to the podivm, Give us your name and your address and then let us know, as best you can, what's on your mind. Kevin Joyce: My name's Kevin $oyce. I live with my wife, Joan and 3 children at 2043 Brinker Street which is in Windmill Run development. My property abuts the proposed Lake Ann Highlands development. At the end of last year, 1993, my family was investigating home sites in the southwest metro arear We narrowed our choices down to Chanhassen. We were very interested in the Windmill Run development that was being developed by Rottlund Homes. In researching our purchase, one of the main criteria was the type of neighborhood 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 that we'd be raising our family in. ! went to City Hall the week of December 27th. I'm not exactly sure of the date but it was that week fight after Christmas. ! met with Bob Generous of the Chanhassen planning staff. We discussed in detail the area just south of the property I was interested in purchasing. He showed me a color coded land use map that showed the Windmill Run property as SFI-I I believe designated. He never showed me any comprehensive plan. There was no zoning done on the property just south of this that we're discussing tonight. I asked him what was planned for that property and Bob said, similar housing to Windmill Run. Single detached houses. I asked would they be similar in value to the houses built in Windmill Run. Bob said he couldn't guarantee the value of the homes but the lot sizes would be the same. ]V[inimum 15,000 square feet or 3 SFtt houses per acre. I had a witness to this meeting and he's willing to file an affidavit that this discussion took place and this was the content of that discussion. When we received a notice of the development, we were obviously very upset and wondered if we had made a mistake. We had misunderstood what was said at that meeting. However talking with our fellow neighbors, we found out that most of them were either directly or indirectly told the same thing. SFH. Single detached houses. I think it proves that there was some misinformation here given by the action of our neighbors, and we have quite a few of them here today. That they have some concerns about this particular development. I feel we were misled by the City of Chanhassen. I feel there's been a gross misrepresentation by the planning staff of Chanhassen against my family. My family based a large portion of our decision to purchase this home in Windmill Run in Chanhassen on the information that was given by the Plann/ng staff. Many of our neighbors based their decisions on this as well. I feel Chanhassen's responsibility to us as new residents to live up to the commitment they made to us when we were told the property to the south of Windmill Run would be used as a continuation of our existing neighborhood and that's how I feel. I feel very strongly about this. I think there was gross misrepresentation here. That's all I have to say. Thoro are other people in this group who have the same problem. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Mike Gorra: My name is Mike Gorra and I live and own about 50 acres directly to the east of this subject property. Have you got something you can put on the screen there that shows the site plan? Generous: Subdivision? Mike Gorra: Just the whole site. Well, no. That shows the... First I'd like to say that I don't have any objections to what the proposal is on Mr. Conway's property. The only reason I'm here is to protect the interest of my property and if there's something that affects it, I want to know what's going on. First of all I really don~t think that there's any confusion to what the 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Council wants as far as the land because on March 28th of this year they voted on Resolution //94-40 unanimously to approve the southern alignment. And my conversations subsequently with the councilmen since then indicate that they haven't really changed their mind on that. Now maybe the staff has over ruled the City Council, I don't know but what are we doing looking at a plot plan here that shows the northern alignment instead of what the City Council recommended. That's my first question. No answer? Scott: I don't have an answer, no. Mike Gorra: Okay. So then staff did over nde City Council. Aanenson: ...considered the possibility that the northern alignment may be the preferred alignment. They've had several work sessions and the final alignment has not been selected. That was an informational meeting for the EAW, or excuse me, for the Environmental Assessment. The final public hearing with the final recommendation has not been held. Mike Gorra: What was Resolution//94-40 then? Aanenson: They did make a recommendation south but they~ze also. Mike Gorra: So whafs the confusion? I mean as far as the public announcements, the only announcement from the City Council is this resolution that I'm speaking of, is that correct? Aanenson: That's correct. Mike Gorra: Okay, so as far as we know that's the way it...so whafs the confusion? Aanenson: As far as what's on the public record, that's correcC But there have been other discussions that you may not bo aware of that the Council has held that they may consider going to the north. Mike Gorra: Okay, which brings me to my next question. Now this road on the south side of the development that ends in a dead end at the property line. Is that correct? Generous: Yes. Mike Gorra: Is there any guarantees from the developer that this road is going to be continued to the east? How can you act on a plot plan or a development when you don't know if the road's going to go any farther? How can you ask them to build a road when you don't know if it happens south there or if you can go farther? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Generous: Well we have to provide access to adjoining properties all the time and this would be providing access to your property. Mike Gorra: Yes, but I've indicated that I ~tn proposing a golf course on this property and it doesn't include a road at that location, which is the northerly access. And I've also indicated to the City Council that we're going to have to have a court hearing and let a judge decide if the City has a need for a road there when they have an alternative which many people think are better, cheaper and will look better in the long run. So there's no way that you can stand here and guarantee to these developer that that road is going to be where you propose it is. So how can you have it on the plan at this time? My _third question is the drainage. Have you studied the drainage on the proposed development? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Yes we have. Mike Gorra: Where does the water on the west side of this development drain to? Hempel: The west side of the development? It will continue to maintain the drainage that exists today for the most part. Mike Gorra: But will there be more water draining onto someone else's property than there is today? Hempel: It will maintain the pre-developed runoff rate. As with any type of development, the amount of runoff will increase with the amount of hard surface coverage. However, to maintain the level of flood protection and maintain the level of discharge rate, or the pre- developed runoff rate. In addition we will be incorporating the city's comprehensive storm water management plan to ultimately serve water quality and quanfity...in this area. Mike Gorra~ Okay but, what you're saying in the long run is this water's going to be running onto someone else's property. Hempel: As it does today. Mike Gorra: Yes. But at a greater rate. Hempel: Not at a greater rate. The same rate. Mike Gorra: Do you have those computations so I can. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Hempel: We do not have those at this time. That is a restriction we impose upon the developer to maintain that rate. Mike Gorraz But you have no computations. Hempel: We typically do not have computations at this stage of preliminary plat, Mike Gorra: Well all I'm asking the Planning Commission, if you're going to plan something, plan something that might work and go by what the, first of all go by what the City Council recommends. At least they're the elected officials and they're supposed to do the recommen~ons around here. Secondly is take action on a plan where the road, where you can guarantee the developer that he's going to be able to extend his mad and make it work. You can't do that at this time. Nobody can because we all know that when you go to court, nobody knows what's going to happen in court until it happens. And the third thing I want to be assured of is the drainage on this property. Ifs not allowed, you can't, everybody knows when you develop a piece of property there's going to be more hard surface. The water isn't going to soak into the ground so it's going to run someplace. I want to know for sure that this excess water isn't going to be running onto my property. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mike Perry: My name is Mike Perry. I live at 7521 Windmill Drive with my wife, my 2 year old and also my Golden Retriever and we came here from out of state so I wasn't able to review a lot of the proposed plans and ordinances but one thing that does happen when I relocate, and I've relocated 6 times in the last 12 years. My company takes care of a lot of that sort of thing for me. So they ask a lot of questions of the city and the planning and I also try to do some questions and some phone calls and that sort of thing. And one of the things that we came up with was, we were going to bo adjacent to development that was very similar to the one that we were investing in. And this is our second home, just like many other people. It's their second and for some people third home. And one of the things, we had a get together last Sunday and I guess one of the best testimonials that I can offer this council here is there was an individual that moved from out of state, just like I hacL He moved from the New Jersey area and he was faced with the similar type of development and I think it cost him, and correct me some people if I'm incorrect, that were at our Sunday meeting, but I think it cost him when a lower cost. Or I shouldn't say a lower cost but a lower quality development went in next to his property and then he had to resell it, it cost him a good $50 to $75,000.00 is what he quoted at that meeting. I guess my point is, if you're going to plan out a large area, and I've lived in some developments where they had all the way from $100,000.00 home, and I should really correct myself. All the way from apartments to million dollar homes. All the way from the stretch from $100,000.00 all the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 way to million dollar homes. It was done in a very, very quality fashion. And when the developer made his, even his first proposals, it had very, very good testj'monials of other properties. It also had very, very good architectural drawings, ~milar to the one that we saw earlier tonight where it was a nice planned out project And I think that this project is going to be done, and done well, we're first going to have to determine for this general area what we really want it to look like when we grow up. I can take you to Houston, I can take you to Dallas, I can take you to New Mexico and I have areas where I could show you whore it's one steam of apartments or townhouses right down a major corridor. Something they didn't plan 10 years ago in tho early 80's in Houston but certainly in tho 90's, that's what they saw. And they saw a lot of developers that maybe had some very, very good expertise in commercial but then all of a sudden decided to go into residential. And then when things got tough and Kate and I were discussing, you said interest rates went up, all of a sudden these developments aren't occupied. And that's another thing. One thing you have is you have a very, very good diamond here. You have a very, very good diamond and it's called Chanhassen and I think you need to polish. Polish that diamond and polish it in the fight way. And that's really all I have to say. I have some concerns about the overall planning and how this whole thing is going to funnel down together. I have concerns about the buffer ares~ I'm not seeing a lot of things that I've seen in other quality developments. I don't see any ponds that would keep the natural wildlife within the particular area~ rm not quite sure what's going to happen with the wetlands. I don't think it's a 100 year wetlands as they call it down in Louisiana but certainly it is a wetlands. What's going to happen with that? So I think there's a lot of open ended questions here and hopefully weql find out more and more what's going to happen with this development. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Joan $oyce: Hi. I have a very sore throat. I'm surprised I can even talk right now but I'll do the best I can. My name is Joan Joyce. I live on 2043 Brinker Street in Windmill. Putting aside the fact that we definitely, without a doubt have grossly been misled with regard to what we've been told by the City Hall here, I would also like to point out that in terms of coming into this community and looking at what potentially could exist here, in this area, it's shocking to me to even think that you can have two residential streets parallel to each other that are not first time homes. Probably second time homes because they are custom homes, upper bracket. Not million dollar homes but surely none of us are purchasing our first home here. This is second or third. It's amazing to think that something like a change of housing, such as these twin homes, can exist so closely to a small smattering of 35 homes. 35 homes is not a neighborhood. It's a small group of tho start of a neighborhood. Again, we purchased expecting this to be a big, nice neighborhood in which our children could ride their bikes down the street a couple of blocks here and there. That's definitely not what is going to happen here. Obviously what I see is you're going from single family homes to higher 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 density twin homes to apartments to townhomes. I mean and throw anything else in there to this big hedge podge unplanned area, it absolutely has no cohesiveness with regard to overall planning. I don~t understand how something like this could even be considered. Again, I think back to how this whole issue ~ when tho zoning was changed from whatever it was to allow the single family housing that now we live in. In my opinion, the die was cast at that point. That was zoned single family housing and that's what it's become and it doesn't make logical sense to me, afar such a small start on this neighborhood, to change it to something else and end up with a different sort of living with regards to the people that are there. It's a different lifestyle. It's not the same sort of neighborhood and that's all I have to say, thank you. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. John Hennessy: I'm John Hennessy. I live at 7305 Galpin. Bob, could you put that on. Could you point out my property. I own the 3 acres fight on that section. I would ask that if we're putting some screens, that the developer would screen with vegetation, trees around my property on the north and the east side there. And the other question I have was, I notice one of the internal streets comes fight through my northeastern tip. It looks like the pavement is right on my property line. If the pavement is on my property line, then the right-of-way is well into my property, is that not correct? Scott: Yeah, what would be the grading impact? We are looking at pavement here, fight? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can answer that. Thafs road right-of-way. Scott: Okay. And what would be the grading impact? How much beyond the road right-of- way does grading impact? Hempel: We're not proposing to intrude upon Mr. Hennessy's property with the grading of the street. Based on the grading plan. Scott: Okay. John Hennessy: That is where the... Hempel: Correct. The curb would be about 14 to 10 feet away from the property. John Hennessy: And then I would ask that storm water be reviewed very carefully because... land around there, from about 200 feet to the northeast of my land, it all kind of washes down 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 so if we have 2 1/2 to 3 inches of rainfall in a 4 hour, 5 hour period, I've got a nice stream running right across my driveway... Thank yo~ Scott: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Mark Pryor: Mark Pryor. I live on 7541 Windmill Drive which would abut the property. And just, I have to admit I'm fairly naive with this are~ It's diflqcult for a homeowner to kind of get the grasp on this. We did look into it and I took some offense to some of the remarks made earlier about not knowing what was going on. In listening to the discussion here today, I have a couple concerns in that there were representations made by the city to a number of myself and my neighbors about what was going to be there. And I can see, in just listening to the discussion, where it came from. I%,e heard a number of people use the term low density single family housing in the same breath. In fact I think Mr. Scott did the same thing. That's what we were told. Scott: Well I didn't. I used single family but ifs been kicked around, low density and it's 0 to 4 units and you don't, when someone tells you low density and it's not followed by the 0 to 4, you can assume what you want. Mark Pryor: Thafs representations that were made to us and thafs the kind of thing that we heard and that's what we looked into and that's what we relied on when we made our purchases and it's a real problem for me, when we go to the city and inquire as to whafs going on and get this representation and then when development comes up and when we come to the meetings and they say well, you know that's not really what it is. It's low density but it also includes twin homes. We didn't tell you that because we lumped it all together. But that's a real concern I have because I think these representations made were not clear and I think it's real clear in the discussions why that happened and I think the Planning Commission is the...to look at that in terms of planning in your plan. Not only your plan but also for representations made to, not only those who are new folks but other potential buyers of what's going to be in certain places and what kind of tiering and what Idnd of neighborhoods are you going to have in single family and a little more density and those kinds of things. I think the commission's got to look very closely at that. There's been some problems in the past which are coming to light now which I think...look at very closely. Scott: Okay, good. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Pat Lynch: Mr. Chair, members of the cornmission. My name is Pat Lynch and I live at 7475 Crocus Court, which is part of the Windmill Run development. I'm up way psat my bedtime tonight to emphasize how darn important this is. And I guess to restate it in a little different way, kind of the expectation piece that's of serious importance to me. What 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 everyone talked about in terms of the misrepresentation is that we're not all dnmmies. We're not all stupid and when we ask those questions, we believed those answers and we believed the answers in their simplest, easiest to understand form because we don't know the initials. And if you're not familiar with tho acronyms, you're saying does that mean ~ngle family houses? They say yeah, that's what it is and you say, well that makes sense. So people made what they thought were conscience decisions. People also didn't take the time to try to find things out and for the most part that many people can't be that stupid, I don't think, h terms of referencing did we pay attention over 2 years. Most of us have been here for 6 months. That development is about that new so to assu_ me, in some of the references that we would have been somehow rather illiterate to the plan, you can only ask the question when looking at it but if you haven't been a party to that during that period of time, it's reasonable to assume that you may not have had that familiarity if people have only been here since April. The other part of it I guess that's of critical importance to most of us is that what we had assumed in the conversations, and we received as many answers as well what we really need is affordable homes. Well $300,000.00 isn't affordable homes. And other people said, we're not talking about affordable, we're just talking about the spreading of a corridor in an orderly fashion and what it appears to us is that it's not an orderly fashion and what our expectation and what our hope is that there be given some consideration to that. Particularly in light of how much research so many people did. It isn't as if we're in some ways looking at it and saying we're not expecting to have neighbors. Everybody's assuming that we're going to have neighbors. We're hoping the neighbors are the neighbors that you said would be there, which is how this is how the neighborhood would progress up to Highway 5. And the other part of it that's of critical importance is the roadway piece. When people talk about using Windmill Drive as the construction road and when people talk about using Windmill Drive as the other access for emergency vehicles, that's a serious issue. Windmill Drive is not the kind of street that you'd probably look at and say, that's the one that you'd target for that kind of usage. Our hope is that as you listen to us, you're not listening to a group of neighbors who stayed up past their bedtime to simply be nay sayers to a project. We expect to have neighbors. We're hoping that the Planning Commission understands what our neighborhood is looking for, thought we were promised and would be happy to welcome to the neighborhood. And we'd certainly love to be a part of tho process of planning too because we weren't around for the other 2 years of discussions so, thank you. Scott:. Well you are now. You are now. Good, anyone else. Well since this isn't a public hearing, I don't have to close it. Anyway, I think this would be an appropriate point in time for the commissioners to discuss their thoughts and then at~r we get done with that, we won't be making any recommendations but it will be, this is what, we're talking the 16th. We're going to be exercising our stamina again on this. Okay. You're it. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Well we've had, over the 3 years that I've been here, we've had many situations such as this where residents will come in. Into our room here to oppose developments based on zoning and it always is a difficult situation and I don~ know, you know what happened with the city in terms of the discussions that were had with staff and I will personally be looking into that a little bit and seeing exactly where we*re at. But I thinlt xerom my perspective at this point, I have to look at it in accordance with the comprehensive plan and what we*re looking at there. And again we are trying to make a transition from the Highway 5 corridor and we have plmaning right next to the corridor that allows for a more dense type residential situation and that has to be transifioned back to single family. And the single house per lot situation. I think that that's a tough thing to do but I think with the efforts associated with a transition between the northerly extent of this development and the previous developments with landscaping and setbacks and those types of techniques, that those transitions can be made and I*ve seen that work many times. So I am somewhat confident that that will be able to make this work and work together. I have a few speci~c commentS for staff on the plan as it's laid out in front of us tonight. Looking at UnitS, and I*d like you to take a look at this Bob if you could. Looking at the back of UnitS/5 and 6 for Block 3 and 3 and 4, Block 3. There*s a~ Scott: On page? Ledvina: Well the preliminary grading plan. It shows that 5 and 6 is essentially a walkout and there's approximately 40 feet between the back walkout and the side of that other building into 3 and 4, Block 3. So if you*d just look at that area there. Maybe we can do something with that. It looks a little tight in there. You see where I'm talking about? Okay. There was one other comment that I wanted to make and I didn't make it. As it relates to these units that will be on the north side of this development Typically with our single family home scenario we can have buildings that are on the order of 15, well it's 20 feet apart essentially. 20 feet from comer to corner. Building corner and with this development you should note that the buildings will actually be along that north side 75 feet to, in some instance 120 feet apart. So I think that's. Mancino: Like where Matt? Ledvina: All along this north face. If you look at the separation distances between the buildings, we're looking at roughly 70 to 120 feet apart. So I ~inlt people are thinking these buildings are squashed together and they really aren't I mean because they are together, you know, the two unitS are together, you have a lot more side yard area and things like that and I think actually that's, that can be a very nice feature to have. The buildings are not in there compactly so I think that's another thing that can help in terms of the transition. So but as it relates to Units 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 on Block 3, I thinl~...taking a look at Also looking at 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 the grading plan, I know the developer has worked to maintain some character but I think some additional efforts can be made with the grading. I don't know, where are we in terms of street slopes Dave? Have you look at that? That center road. Hempel: Street...off of. Ledvina: Okay. So they're closing in on about the maximum grades? Okay. And I think after that, you know recognize that the developer has done pretty much what he can in terms of dealing with that. That's the extent of my commentS at this point. Scott: Good, Nancy. Mancino: I have a couple questions. Excuse me, Matt I have a couple of questions for you as the grading. When I got out of my car and walked at the dead end street that goes into this from Windmill Run. I went up and stood up on a slope that was directly south of that street and it was high. I mean I was standing there and I could see McGiynn's, I could see you know south. What's happening there? I mean I can see the road's going to go through. Are we going to be loping off a lot of the rollingness? When I look at this I see a lot of 990's to, I see lotS of 990's in this Phase I up to 1,000 so I see a 10 foot difference in elevations and that's about it. Through this whole Phase I. Ledvina: Well they have to, obviously they have to match the grade at the existing Windmill Road there. But a lot of, actually there's a lot of filling that's going on. Well let me take a look here. I guess I hadn't noticed that specifically in terms of what they're doing. It roughly drops to about 980 and then it goes back up essentially so there's a couple of hills in there. A couple of 10 foot hills in that road before it terminates at the access boulevard so. Mancino: Okay. So you're saying they are, to me it looks like they're doing quite a bit of flattening. Ledvina: Well they are but they're generally speaking they're attempting to maintain that general topography there because it does go, the top of the hill goes to a little valley area and then it goes back up and then it goes back down again. You know from north to south. So I don't know. And in those areas, you're fight, ifs pretty high and they are working at some pretty steep grades over in that area so. Mancino: Well I'm wondering though, the public view that we're going to have from Highway 5, that was one of the things that we discussed... Ledvina: Right, with Oak Ponds, yeah. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Mancino: Yeah, what's that going to do and if you look in Chapter 8 of the Highway $ study guide. Excuse me, of people who don't have that Bob on Figure 8.4, I mean we clearly say in this area preserve steep slopes. Is that, I mean I know the preceAent has been set by City Council that we're not really preserving steep slopes in our subdivisions. First hand on that but do we care? Generous: Well yes we care. It's how much of it do you need to preserve? Do you have to keep every knoll out there? Mancino: No, I think there was actually one right here, if you look on Figure 8.4. It wasn't like the entire, they weren't saying the entire area but a particular high point that one might say is a feature on this particular land. Generous: That's where they're reducing the peak down to 12 feet and they're shifting near the top of that contour, they're shifting over this...coming down from that. So they are taking out the highest point but then they're having, from that point to the intersection they're having a l0 foot elevation change. I don't know. How much do you have to preserve to get these... Mancino: Is it still steep? Generous: Not as steep, no. Mancino: And what percentage are you taking off, 30%? Hempel: I guess one clarification, what do you consider steep? What percentage is steep? We reviewed a plat earlier tonight where we had retaining walls with 3:1 slopes for back yards. Those are steep. Mancino: Well whoever wrote this put down steep slopes and it was one of the things that we talked about on Highway 5 so if we're not going to do anything about it, let's not talk about it. Hempel: As Bob mentioned, there's one knoll on Block 3 there. Lots 9, 10 and 11 that would be reduced by about 12 feet. The rest of the subdivision will maintain it's rolling character with the 7% street grades. If you wish we can grant a variance and increase to 10% street grade... From an engineering standpoint, I wouldn't recommend it I don't see the compromise as it's worth it. There's not trees to be saved. There's not wildlife to be saved as a result of it. They're still maintaining the rolling integrity of the piece of property. The curvalinear streets are going to magnify that as well. There is a~..difference of about 1010 with the existing Windmill Run street is. And when you get down to the southeast comer Planning Commission Meeting = November 2, 1994 where the frontage road is, the elevation there is almost 960 so there's a significant grade difference between the two. From the north end to the south end Mancino: Yeah, that's over a pretty big expanse. If we do 10% grades then on the south slope, much like we've done it on others so there wouldn't be a problem with, in the winter time. Hempel: Winter times it would be exposed to the winter time...freezing conditions. Mancino: Yeah, I'd like to see some grade changes in the street if we can maintain. It was significant during fffis Highway 5 study to put it on our figures here and yeah, I think it's important. I think that Mike Gorra brought up a very good question, discussion point and that is, we have certainly made a recommendation to the City Council on where the road goes. One of the reasons for even to me, at least I was told the Highway 5 task force was to be proactive. Was to get out there ahead of developers and say, let's do some good planning and I would like to see the City Council now, we have done our job at the Planning Commission and made our recommendations. I would like to see the City Council also come to a decision on where this north access boulevard goes. Because it will greatly affect what happens here. Farmakes: Are you clarifying that when you're saying the north access boulevard goes? Are you clarifying your preference? Mancino: Where they would like north of Highway 5. Okay. No, I'm not saying whether it should go north or south. I'm just saying north of Highway 5 I would like to see City Council right now make that decision. We've got development out here ready to go and. Scott: You've got to tap the microphone 3 times before you say that I-Iarberts: Mr. Chair? Scott: Yes. Harberts: If it's okay I'd like to make my comments. I have to catch an early flight tomorrow morning so I'd like to take my leave then. Scott: Good... Harberts: I'm not advocating for or against the development at this point. I'm certainly a proponent, if you understand some of the politics that are going on in the region in terms of what's coming out of the Metropolitan Council, that they certainly will have a greater amount 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 of power that the legislature has dealt to them through the last session. And what I'm seeing here is far bettor than what I'm hearing down at tho Met Council in terms of what they would like to see out here. I think Matt brought up a very good point, and I thinlt it would be in the best interest of the developer if they would perhaps take a step further in term~ of their presentation of what the impact really is or is not because when you look at this, when you look at the two lots that they average each lot perhaps, the average is somewhere between 10 and 12,000 per unit. You~,e got two lots together. That exceeds 15,000. That exceeds the lots on the other side. You~e got a 3,000 square feet pad, as I understood, as the total unit which is about the size I would guess of a standard home in that type of price range on almost double a regular lot size. I thinir, I dontt kllow. But that's what the numbers tell me based on my experience of sitting here for the last 2 years. Boy, thafs not so bad is if? But I don't know that if we have a display model or somff~hing like that rather than all these lines or something, it might be a little easier to see that a little bit more comfortable. I like, now don't hold me to my words. I don~t know if I'm saying these right. I like, I'll say a more enhanced density. I can remember sitting here with Windmill Run and talking about this is what we think is going to happen, because this is what's been happening in the city and I believe in the staff comment, you said this is the first time this has ever come to us. Somebody is challenging us or testing us in terms of what the code is saying and they're well within their fight to do it. Personally I'd rather see this as a PUD. It gives us a little bit more flexibility in terms of putting some more of the pieces in there that we like. Maybe a little bit more green space. There's a lot of houses in here. There's going to be a lot of people here. A little bit of green space. Kids riding bikes, things like that. I guess if this was a perfect world, I'd say put a PUD on the whole thing. Ladd tells me, well they can do this. Well okay, fine but I'd still like to see a PUD. If tho world was perfect, I'd like to see the Council tell us yes, this is what it is. The southern alignment. Yes, we've got it in policy but anybody knows with a governing policy, they can change their mind. This is going to force them to get on the fence here or get off on one of the sides here. I'd rather be able to be able to look at the whole thing rather than to piece meal. Sometimes this world isntt all that perfect. So we have to live and try to do our best job. We certainly you know, we certainly if we had our crystal balls we'd certainly make this a perfect world but we try and that's all we can do. I thinlt the input is good. I think it's great. There's some very good points brought up. I would like to see building materials. Yes, you don't, the developer does not have to, or builder, whatever it is. They don~t have to show this to us but come on folks. We've got some residents here that have a concern about what the values of their homes are going to be. Is it so wrong to maybe go that extra step further because that makes our job a little easier~ Like I said, I don~t thini~ this is such a bad, this is really a better density when you put it in that perspective, than if it was a single family house. I think. I don't know. I'm guessing. I can't tell a whole lot from lines on a piece of paper so I guess, since this is public input, we have an opportunity to see this, I would just encourage the developer to maybe go the extra step to help everyone becomes a little bit comfortable with what this is. I 66 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 remember sitting here with Windmill Run expecting yes, we'll see 15,000 square feet lots and a house and so on and so forth but you know, this is well within the code. You know staff lives and breaths this every day and this is what they expected to see. We~,e never had one of these. Whoa, someone read the book and this is what they can do. There's nothing wrong with that but yeah, I'd like to see a little bit more green. I'd like to see a little bit more open space. My comment though to Bob is, in Block 3, 16 and 15, I believe the way that pad is proposed facing the road, that that's going to be where their access point is...from sight lines, things like that and the amount of traffic. Is that such a good way for the cars to be backing out? I don't know. That's my, that's a challenge there. I'm not a real big proponent of, in the cul-de-sacs. The islands, sure they look nice but from a public safety and from maintenance and stuff like that, I don't know if this is a homeowners association as the last one. They didn't go into that. I don't know. Then they're the ones that have to wrestle with it but if it's a city, we don't need to raise our taxes anymore just to go around some pretty things. Those are my comments. We're going to see this back. Like I said, the way this is sitting right now, what I can tell or can't tell, I'd rather see a PUD just to, in a sense make sure we're meeting the criterias of Highway 5. Things like that but like I said, it looks okay but you know maybe the developer or builder or Brad, maybe you can give us a little bit more information or renditions of what we're looking at because this isn't so bad but when you look at all these blue lines and stuff, I'd get nervous too. Brad Johnson: Can we rent a bus and we'll see? Harberts: Sure. I'll give you a deal. With that, that's my comments and I'm sorry but my flight leaves real early in the morning. Scott: Have a safe trip. Harberts: Thanks. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing to add. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'll make my comments as brief as possible...I guess I see this as the cart before the horse here because of the ali~ment issue. There are people that talked from a standpoint of it has to get the City Council off the stick if they throw a proposal at them with an alignment the opposite of what they voted on. I don't know if I buy that exactly. I would like to remind however the people in the audience here that this property is currently zoned 67 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 agricultural estate I believe and that's important to bear in mind. What you have here, what people are talking are proposals. You have the opportunity to contact your elected officials and let them know that you disagree with thaL For those of you who~ve just moved into the area, been here 6 months or so, you're probably not familiar with some of the planning and so on that°s been involved, or the forces that are involved For some of you that are out of state. The Met Commission of the people's Met Council that people are talking about is a governing body that takes the 95 communities that make up the metro area and basically doles out and plans money for things like effluent collection and improvements of utilities and so on. These things are very expensive and they have a way of controlling development. The inner city obviously, and the powers that be within the city would like to see city density all the way out. They'd like to see as many people as possible placed per square foot so they don~ have to pay as much for utilities and sewage collection. So there are those forces at work that would like to see high density and nothing but because it would be chea~er for them. There are other forces at play out here of families who have owned farm property here for generations and they're selling off because of taxation and it's time to cash in. There are developers here who would like to have certain ways that they can develop a piece of property where they make more money and you have those forces at work and then you have your investment in a single family zone where you*re concerned about the value of your property and what goes next to it. Getting back to the original point I made. That property currently is zoned agricultural estate and the process, it's still open. It has to be voted on to change the zonement and so your City Council will get that on their agenda at some point in time and the process is, is that you call up and complain and say you don~t want it. If you have, you're part of that process. You're part of that pressure. I did not go along with the commission and voted for the southerly alignment between Lake Ann and Galpin. Then I went with the northern route. I think that there are Minutes available to you if you care to read that but I think that will be a deciding factor of whether or not this is a PUD or it's a regular development. I believe that there is more opportun/ty to buffer that development and your homes with a PUD and I believe with tho southerly alignment thero'd be more property available there to deal with rather than to compartmentalize the zonement. And I, if I make comments on this development, I kind of feel like I'm falling in line with what I see as sort of a directional phase to the northerly ali,,~nment" I'm not going to do that" I think that that*s wrong. I also think that if the City Council in work sessions are discussing this issue, it should be in the public's eye based on the amount of work that went into it. Particularly if it's counteracting public hearing information that they voted on. I don~t know what the particular city rules are on that but it seems that I wasn't aware that they were considering re- voting on that or were in session somewhere on that. Scott: Nor was I. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: But there are, depending on how you say this, there is a consensus that we were all in line and agreement with this and I know city staff adamantly feels that the northerly alignment is the correct way to go. Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is that whether or not it goes to the north or to the south, it's guided single family. Regardless of where the road goes and this is one option underneath the single family. Whether it goes north or south. It's guided single family. 1 to 4 units per acre. So what you have to decide is whether or not you want it to go single family, PUD or 1 to 4. That's what you have to struggle with. Farrnakes: Yes, but I think what the point here is, what we're tal~ng about and where it gets lost is what is the end result of what we want to see. And we're talking about this road and it's alignment. We're talking in some cases the end result of the ability to develop property and the options to develop a large amount of property as an option. A golf course for instance was named or townhouses or four plexes or where that road goes is going to determine what that is. And it seems to me that will be the first point. You don't come up with a development and then say well, here's the first development. We have the road up here. Therefore the rest of the properties surrounding it is going to fall in line. I would hope that what we look at is, we look at this as this is a guide and it doesn't necessarily have to dictate specifically what we wind up with. What typically happens in the process is that when a development comes forward, there's a developer, the surrounding property owners come forward and say you know, this is what we would like to see and then there's a process that we go through. But I'd probably see this again, like Diane did, as a PUD situation but I would again like to see the road go to the south. And I also think that that will change fundamentally this development. That's the end of my comments. Scott: Good. Well thank you all very much for coming and I think; hopefully being part of the process, maybe some of you for the first time, get at least an idea of the players, the forces that are at work. If you don't happen to know the names of your Council people, all their phone numbers are in the phone book and their published in every Villager. There's a section that says who they are at the State and local level. We appreciate your input and hopefully you felt that you were involved and we're listening to what you're saying. We'll be seeing this again and you all will get notices and it will be published in the paper so we expect to see you all in 2 weeks. I'd like to thank the development team for coming in and the adjacent property owners too. Thank you all. PUBLIC HEARING; AMENDMENT TO THE ~ {~0OE RE~ARDING ACCl~$ ~TRUCIVI~-~ ON REC~_,ATIONAL 69 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Comments. Mancino: What's an unenclosed shelter'? Aanenson: A fish house would be an enclosed shelter. So what we're trying to say is really just making this, it has a roof over it... Scott: It's not habitable. Farmakes: Are there gazebos that you just set up, they're not attadaed to the ground? I mean is that a requirement that it be attached? Aanenson: Well I think what we were looking at too...quality but it has to be well maintained and the enhancement to the beachlot or the setting...from the lake. Fannakes: Aanenson: So it's not just crated out and sat down somewhere. Yeah, yeah. And just brining drawings...the association would maintain it. Conrad: So would they have to, Kate would they have to bring a drawing for us to approve it? Aanenson: Yes...want to make sure it's part of the conditional use...makes sense because it may not make sense for all beachlots. I think in this one it did...but not in all. Certainly not a recreational beachlot... Scott: Okay, anything else? Can I have a motion? Oh excuse me. I have to open the public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? I think what I'll do, seeing that there are no members of tho general public here, that we'll forego the opening and closing of the public hearing and go fight to a motion. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission review, hold on. Scott: Can I help you with that? Ledvina: Yeah, help me with that. Is this where I'm at? Scott: I'd just read that. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Ledvina: Okay, well I'll read it. I don~ know if I know what it says but I would make a motion that the Planning Commission review and make any additional changes and recommend the City Council adopt the following amendment to Section 20-263, Recreational Beachlot as identified in the staff repork Scott: Is there a second? I'm sorry, was that a second Ladd? Conrad: Yeah, I guess so. Scott: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we endorse the staff's recommendations. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Plmming Commission ~commend flint the C~ty Council approve the following amendment: Section 20-263, Recreational Beachiots, is hereby amended as follows: (2) Except as specifically provided herein, no structure, ice fishing house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, shelters (except gazebos and unenclosed shelters) shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beachiot Add the following: (18) Gazebos and unenclosed shelters may bo permitted on recreational beachlots subject to City Council approval and the following standards: Minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. b. No gazebo or unenclosed shelter shall be closer to any lot line than the minimum required yard setback for the zoning district in which the structure is located. c. Maximum size of the structure shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) square feet. d. Maximum height shall not exceed twenty (20) feel e. Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall make use of appropriate materials, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high quality design concept for the lot which is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Gazebos and unenclosed shelters shall be properly maintainezC Structures which are rotted, unsafe, deteriorated or defaced shall be repainted, repaired, or replaced by the homeowners or beachlot association. Ail voted in favor, except Commissioner Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And your reasons ma'am. Mancino: Unenclosed shelters, I don't think are quality. I don't think somebody would want them on their adjacent recreational beachlot Gazebos I can understand. I don~t understand the universal unenclosed shelters. Aanenson: We could build in a definition... Mancino: To me it's just not in the same playing field as a gazebo. It's not a big deal. Aanenson: Gazebo has... APPROVAL OF MINUTES; Scott moved, Farmakes seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 19, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Kate Aanenson gave the Planning Commission a update of the actions taken by the City Council on items forwarded from the Planning Commission. Ledvina: Can I stop you there? Are we going to follow that up with changes in ordinances? Aanenson: At your recommendation. Ledvina: Well, it wouldn't be my recommendation but maybe it's their recommendation. I'm being facetious but whatever. Aanenson: I guess I missed the point. Ledvina: Well obviously there are ordinances on the book and we're trying to evaluate those as it relates to Shamrock and I don't know. The question is, do those ordinances hold any weight and where are we at with those ordinances. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Conrad: Yeah, I think we should get the attorney here and inform us more of what these ordinances mean and the intent statements because if we can't follow the intent statements, then we have to put some hard data into the ordinance, which is really ~mfortunate but obviously we'll have to do that so. Ledvina: Because we're going in a different direction than they are then and we're never going to, we're not going to come close then. Conrad: They're getting legal advice th~s different. Mancino: No, no. The lawyers said that they could use the existing ordinances, the existing comprehensive plan intent statement. They could use it and support what the Planning Commission had decided. They decided not to but it's like Dick Wing, that night...asked the attorney here, is this too much gray area? Can we not rule on these? Are they too fluff? Are they too general and he said, no. You can rule using these and it was in the paper and it's in the Minutes. Ledvina: Well my comment is that I'd just like some direction based on, obviously they're saying Planning Commission you're wrong but wdve got to get something back. We need some feedback on why we're, on what they feel is not right. Aanenson: ...try to meet and talk about some of those issues. Farmakes: Well that might be good too with the sign _thing corning up too bexause if they approve that monolithic sign there next door too which is kind of counter, why give them a 20 foot pylon sign when they make Target put in an 8 footer? I mean how does that, explain Mancino: Yeah, that was true too. Aanenson: So would that be your recommendation that there be a joint meeting to discuss some of these issues? Scott: Well the access boulevard for number one. And then, Iql keep it to planning related things. Mancino: Topography ordinances. I mean general. Aanenson: The intent statements. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Scott: I guess I didn~ the bluff ordinance, I didn't sit down and say well what are we protecting with that? What specific properties? Aanenson: Well that was a broad brush to say, steeper slopes and we told you it didn't cover a lot of those things. Scott: Yeah, I think we know that baby needs to be re-tooled. Mancino: But when we get very specific like we have about signs and street frontages and then we get something like a Byerly's where we have to give them the street frontage, and they really didn't need it on the east side. Then you can't take it away. So sometimes the intent statement works so much better than every little nuance. We'll never be covered. I mean we found that time and time again. But anyway. Conrad: I guess I need the feedback from the City Council. I don't know if I want it first hand but I need the feedback as to what they thought, and maybe that's staff summarizing it for us but what they thought about why they didn't feel comfortable. Was it the legal aspect that they would be taken to court, even though I just heard that wasn't. Aanenson: That's partially what she said. Unfortunately Elliott was at that meeting and Elliott had a misunderstanding. I don~t want, I mean there's a lot of issues there. Conrad: I've heard some different things. Ledvina: I agree with Ladd. If we sit down, we're just going to talk about generalities and nothing's going to happen. Scott: The last two meetings that we've had with the City Council I didn't feel we really got anything out of anyway. We asked some real specific questions about what do you want and...because maybe they don~t know. Farmakes: If you back up to the Press development though, we've had several, recently had several 6 to 1 or we've had several either unanimous denials and they walk out of there getting approved. Scott: Yeah. As a matter of fact, all the denials. Farmakes: Well, I'm just saying that a lot of them were based I think on philosophical direction, which I think is what they seem to be, just my gut feel is that they were acting as if they're treating it like a typical development. The developer comes in there and thanks the... 74 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 and they roll over. And I don't know if that's because we're not following it through or we have to show up and re-present it. Mancino: Well I think that it is our responsibility, especially when staff takes a different position than we do, because some of those we have recommended denial and stmef has recommended approval. So I think that when we differ from staff, then yes. Somebody from the Planning Commission should be there and explain why we differ, and that's happened. Farmakes: I feel somewhat uncomfortable with that because as I understand what we're supposed to be doing here is we're serving at the direction of the City Council and I get uncomfortable when we're going somewhere else. We should bo in sync. Now if there's a different philosophical direction, then we should know about it and make the decision whether or not we want to serve because we're supposed to be representing the community hero in that regard. As I understand it. Or we're giving tho community inpLrt. We're the commnnity representatives. It gets to be a discouraging issue I think if we're not in commnnication in that regard. Scott: Well there's also, there's a fundamental relation.~hip difference. I think our relationship with city staff is very similar to the relationship that I expect from the City Council is that city staff handles all sorts of details that I would care not to know about and then here's a product that we review and make our recommendations based upon that and we don't have to deal with a lot of details. We handle a lot more details than tho City Council should handle and then they should say okay, well what's the sense. Oh this is denial, okay. But it seems like there's a tremendous level of detail that gets tossed around at tho City Council level that it's kind of like it's almost redoing tho whole issue. Which, the developers and get a couple of attorneys, can take advantage of that. Farmakes: Well, you know you've got to read the notes. Mancino: They're not reading the notes. Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: But getting back and talking to a few of the members, the Council members, some of them feel that we should work the thing out before it gets there. And what I say back to them is that if someone refuses to do anything and they want to bring it forward to you, what are we supposed to do. Hold them to the floor. If they don~ want to compromise and go into what direction we feel is the overall direction that we're going. Mancino: They've got it made because. 75 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 Farmakes: They use that type of non-communication then to come forward. Try to ride it into you and then push harder with the phone calls. Do we get into a position where we're basically having this meeting over again during City Council _time where we're re-presenting all this stuff. Ledvina: Yeah, shouldn't have to do that, Scott: Well then also there's the issue, if I were to develop a piece of property in Chanhassen, I'd put together the, I mean personally I would do it differently but if I were a typical developer, I'd just say this is the minimal thing. 15,000 square foot, blah, blah, blah, blah. Here's the deal. Go to the public heating. Table. I'd just keep throwing the same stuff out and then you get bumped up, based upon a time issue and then there's another time issue and I don't know. Mancino: Strategy. Scott: Absolutely. You don't have to do anything. You just show up. Farmakes: Get your issue in at about 12:30 at night. Scott: Yeah, and then I don't know if there's anything in the ordinance that allows the City Council to toss the thing, you know if they deny it then they start the process all over again but, so anyway. That was kind of ongoing items and open discussion. Conrad: But what are we doing? Are we taking the initiative or are we asking the City Council to tell us what they would like to do? Do we want to review this ourselves at an upcoming meeting? Scott: Review? Conrad: Review the ordinance in terms of preservation of. Aanenson: And maybe have Roger... Conrad: Yeah. I really don't care. The City Council changes. I guess my, Jeff I do, I would like to think we're in sync. Yet on the other hand, I gue~ss I'd like to kind of figure this one out for ourselves. Farmakes: I'm talking more about philosophical direction than, I was listing out some stuff but rather than discuss those particular items, but talking more about more or less a general 76 Planning Commission Meeting - November 2, 1994 intent statement for what we're supposed to be doing. I think that it's not to say of course that the City Council can*t disagree with whatever we come up with but if there's usually unanimous votes, one tends to think well there*s a philosophical difference going on here. Scott: Then there's the question too about, I mean when we take away, when city staff makes a recommendation to us and ifs totally opposite of what we think it should be, I mean we make the effort to say, Kate. What the heck are you th/nking7 Did any Council people call any of you people on the Shamrock? Ledvina: No. Farmakes: I talked to one informally. He voted against it. Scott: Anyway. Okay, any other items? Aanenson: ...talk to Roger about coming in here... Okay, they approved the first reading of the diseased tree and then I neglected to put on there but...I believe that's about it. Scott: Can I have a motion to adjourn? Man¢ino: I just have two _things. I would like to at some point have two, and I don~ know if they're work sessions on them or what they are but number one is neighborhood commercial. We have never really talked about architectural guidolines...neighborhood commercial that may be happening. And how they're different than a strip mall or a strip shopping. And secondly, a Vision 2002. What's happening there? Aanenson: Oh interesting. Fred just came in today. They did do tho phone survey. Maybe I'll have Fred come to the next Planning Commission meeting... (Taping of the meeting ended at this point in the discussion.) Ledviml moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All vo~ed in favor and rise motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11~3 lxrn- Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 77