The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1993 03 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Oisen,'Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY pLAT OF A PLANNED VN~T D~VELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 76.47 ACRES AND A W[TLAND ALTERAT[ON P~-RMIT TO CREATE HOLDING PONDS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD= ~ND LOCRT[D EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AMD SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION. ARGUS pEVEt. OPMENT, PubIic Present: Name Add~'ess Riley F. Kopp Don Patton Ron Isaak Wayne Tauer Phil Jungbluth Scott Montgomery Andrew K. Oison Tom Niisson James Domholt Gary Kassen Tom Dotzenrod Pete Kurth Randy Koepsell Kirby & Sandy Paulson Ron & Ann Kloempken Tom & Pat VanAsh Don & Annabelle Diamond Randy Marquette John & Karen Engeihardt Thomas A. Rasmussen Chris Miller Gary & Mary Nussbaum Don Wisdorf David Flaskerud Tom Burns 3im Pehringer Robert Smithburg Dave Dummer Rod Annis Argus Development RCI Argus Development Pioneer Engineering Argus Development 8260 West Lake Court 8290 West Lake Court 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8251 West Lake Court 8270 West Lake Court 8280 West Lake Court 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1110 Dove Court 8410 West Lake Drive 8311 Nest Lake Court 8320 West Lake Court 1131 Dove Court 1101 Dove Court 8645 Chan Hills Drive No. 8531 Merganser Court 8401 West Lake Drive 8391 West Lake Drive 8639 Chan Hills Drive No. 8411 West Lake Drive 1551 Lake Susan-Hills Drive 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8651Chan Hills Drive No. 417 Santa Fe Trail 8625 Chan HiiIs Drive No. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 2 Batzli: Does anyone on the Planning commission have any questions they want to ask Jo Ann or Dave before we ask the applicant for their presentation? HaTberts: I have one. Could someone just explain the rationale with regard to the fTont yard setback reduced to 25 feet. This is number I in the recommendations. Olsen: It's adding flexibility. It's not a'Tequirement. We'Te allowing them to do that and what that does is, aIong what's shown as MallaTd CouTt is that it can puli the house up 5 feet closet and a lot of the tTees were in the rear of the lot and so that would help. HarbeTts: Okay, so it's a matter of saving the landscape. Olsen: Right. Ledvina: Do we want to restrict that 25 foot setback or allow the 25 foot setback to a certain numbeT of lots? Olsen: You can do that. Ledvina: As you've written the recommendation here, this applies to the entire subdivision. Is that coTrect? Olsen: Right. Mancino: On page 6 Jo Ann, you talk about the City can require caliper Teplacement of tTee. Staff is Tecommending that the appIicant work with staff and the DNR FoTester to develop a reforestation plan. That is not put in the recommendations. Olsen: Yeah, that was a mistake. Is that page $ did you say? Manctno: Well, yeah. Olsen: Right, okay. Mancino: So did you mean to leave that out of the. Olsen: No, I think I Just foTgot to put that one in. Mancino: Because I think that's...is that we wiI1 be asking for Teforestation of the lost trees. Scott: Excuse me Jo Ann. On this MallaTd Court is the longer cul-de-sac that's on Block F? Olsen: Right. Scott: I just took a look, I know we've got a new cul-de-sac length ordinance. I think it's 600 feet. Did someone calculate the length of that cul-de-sac because if it's non-conforming with the new cul-de-sac length ordinance, that has to be pulled up. And I just took a look at it. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 3 Olean: I think the 600 foot minimum is. Scott: Or maximum. Olean: Maximum, right. Is if it could be connected with another street or if it should be a thru street. It's not necessarily saying that you have to pull it back to that distance. What the ordinance is saying is that there's a reason, a physical reason why that street cannot be connected to another subdivision, to another phase, then it can be a. longer distance. I don't know that we've ever used it to require that cul-de-sac to be, you know that has to be a cul-de-sac to be reduced. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to give us a presentation or talk to us about the conditions? Wayne Tauer: Good evening. My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering. I'm representing the Joe Miller Homes. Argus Development tonight. We have a couple people from 3ce Miller Homes here tonight who can also answer questions. I think before we move on I've got some literature that I would like to probably hand out just to expand on a 'little bit as to what I'll be talking about tonight. Maybe I could ask 3o Ann or somebody to take these. Okay, everybody got one? 3o Ann, maybe if you could rotate that to the left making kind of north up. Maybe we can just get a better feeling making Powers Boulevard go, yeah. Well, back a little bit more. Well I mean rotate it. Doesn't Powers kind of run north/south there? Something like that. Now we're getting close. Okay. Generally speaking, running through the points on page 111 guess. The conditions of approval. We have basically no major problems with that. 3o Ann touched on a park problem that we will have to go back to the Park Board and talk about. I think an assumption was made in a preliminary drawing that possibly shouldn't have been made and I guess maybe that's about all I need to talk about it tonight. Where we were putting a pond on city park. Well, we didn't think it was city park. We were just going to be basically nice guys and give more park away is what we were going to do but we are going to give all the park that the PUD and the preliminary concept program did recommend so therefore, everybody's going to be happy hopefully, after the Park Board meeting. Just talking, a couple of minor exceptions or revisions, possibly typos in the staff report. On page S, I believe, it talks about average lot size. In the middle of that larger paragraph, about 2/3 of the way down where it says the average lot size is 13,658. Actually it's much larger than that. It's closer to 17,500. Between 17,000 and 18,000 based on how you figure it out. So we are above the average or the minimum lot size by far. That City requirement is of course 15,000 square feet. Farmakes: Is that taking into account the setbacks and the land areas and so on? Wayne Tauer: Well that is the lot specific. Farmakes: The average size. Wayne Tauer: The average size of every lo.t, right. Not including streets. or. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 4 Farmakes: Where you can't build? Wayne Tauer: No. I don't know. Now Jo Ann, is that a. Olsen: When I did the calculation, I just did the lot areas themselves, Farmakes: So what you're saying is that there's a 4,000 square foot discrepancy here on the average lot size? Wayne Tauer: Well it depends on how you calculate it I guess. We're talking about the boundaries of the lot here. That's what the boundaries of the lots area. 17,550 square feet. Olsen: We can recalculate that. Conrad: Why is there a difference 30 Ann? Olsen: I don't know if we know why there's a difference. Conrad: A lot size is a lot size. Wayne Tauer: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I went back actually through each number on one of your handouts here and averaged those up. Actually it came up higher but that's what we have on our preliminary plat is 17,550 so I'm going to stay with that. But no, we are not under 15,000 for average lot size. We are above 15,000 and that's I guess the only thing I wanted to point out. Okay, one of the other things I wanted to talk about a little bit was the landscape plan along Powers Boulevard, County Road 17. There was a recommendation in there that we should abide by the City's primary deciduous tree list. One of the problems we had with that, and we knew of the list when we did it but the thing that we have a problem with is the fact that virtually every tree on that list is not salt tolerate at all. Either they're very sensitive to salt'spray or very sensitive to salt in their root structures. Therefore that's why we changed some of the tree types along County Road 17. Anytime you have a major thoroughfare where speeds exceed 40 to 50 mph, you're going to have a problem with that, especially a county road where they salt quite heavily. I can see that primary list being a good list for anything that is residential in nature where it's 30 mph or less and not a major amount of salting is done. In the handouts that I gave you, maybe just for your own information, I did some research. Actually I've had it in my files for a long time and that's where some of the design work that we do was based on. On those particular recommendations by the University of Minnesota. So maybe just for your own information you can walk through those and see the trees that are salt tolerate and salt sensitive. And that's why we're changing it. Now again, we can work with the city staff and work out a reasonable solution to this. Maybe not all primary Crees. Maybe some on the secondary list are more appropriate. Also I know one of the problems or one of the things that people who are here tonight are going to look at, as far as the plat goes is the tree removal process and how much we are actually going to remove. We have an exhibit that I think most of the neighbors have seen at the neighborhood meeting Monday night but for the' Commission's viewing, we're going to pull it out here. Where would be the best place to put this? Right here? North is being that way of course. . Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 5 The trees that you see in green here are the ones that are being saved. Unfortunately I guess I didn't highlight the ones that are being lost. The major, there are some being lost right in here obviously where the cul-de- sac is and where the house pads are ultimately going to be. This is where we worked with the staff to move the cul-de-sac to the west basically. We're moving this road over. We're asking for a 5 foot front yard. setback here. That allows you the 5 feet. We're asking for a 5 foot setback here. That allows you to...we've adjusted the grades in here so we get down and match the grades better. So the trees there were in the backyards are now being able to save. The ones that are actually on the pads are real hard to save obviously. We did pull this cul-de-sac back, therefore most of the trees on the pine knob are being saved. And then a nice band along here being saved and virtually every tree, except for just a few right here, are being saved along Lake Susan. So. there's a major band here. Major group here and a band here that are 'being saved. And a group that are between the two groups...are being saved. We worked up the numbers and that's on the handout that we gave you. There's a total of 938 trees...specifically shot from here over. And out of those trees we're leaving 279, which turns out to be 29.74~. Of those trees, you can see the breakdown. 30 are oaks and 30 are elms and 27 basswoods and so on and so forth. Now amongst that group we did not go down to this area and count these trees at all or this group in here. We have no idea I guess basically as far as what count is down there. But as you can see, it's a fairly major group and it's trees that'obviously are the parks-but we're not taking them out. So if you're talking about an overall average, I mean probably 29~ is not a real number based on what trees on the entire project that we're saving. It may drop dramatically. I supposed we could go out and get a count down there. We didn't think it was necessary. In fact we are saving 70~ of the trees on the site I think is probably pretty good for a residential development. I guess basically that's about my only concerns that I had about the staff report. Was those minor changes in the square footage and to let you know what we're doing as far as tree removal, or saving trees, as far as that goes. I'll be glad to answer questions. Batzli: Let me ask one about your issue with the primary versus secondary list. In the conditions what staff is asking for is 50~ from the primary species list. You want to change that from 50~ so tha~ you can choose more than 50~ from a different list? Wayne Tauer: No, I don't know if I want to do many from the primary list at all because those trees will be dead in a few years. I'm saying that they are not salt tolerate and maybe for a year or two they might survive or until such time as the... You know they may survive for a while because of the fact that there's only 2 lanes at this point in time. But as soon as 4 lanes go in and the salt tolerance probably comes into effect when the high speed develops. I mean I'm not saying that we're not going to put in nice trees. I Just don't, I want to kind of get away from the primary list a little bit so that when we develop, trees that will ultimate survive in this area. Batzli: So you're thinking about landscaping along the road there and not internal to the project? That's where you're concerned? Planning Commission Meeting Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 6 Wayne Tauer: We will also put $150.00 worth of landscaping per lot. That's also part of our program. It's hard to show any kind of a landscape plan due to the fact that you have no idea where the trees are really going to be. Once you determine where the houses are going to sit, where the driveway's going to be and where these surfaces are going to go, it's just a condition of approval we prefer and we would, put that $150.00 per lot into each lot yet. That's not a problem. We're not disagreeing with that. Batzli: So do you have a problem with putting species from the primary list internal to the development? Wayne Tauer: No. Internal's fine. Batzli: 3o Ann, on this condition, were you thinking that all of these species were going to go along the county road there? Olsen: No, not necessarily. They have to provide additional landscaping within the subdivision itself. You know with the boulevards plantings and so no. We do not want Russian Olives and trees like that. Wayne talked to me about this and we can look into that and I'm going to research to see whether those trees are salt tolerate or not also. Cut the 50% can easily still apply within the plat itself. Mancino: Is this $150.00 for landscaping just include plant materials? Olsen: It doesn't state what it's really going towards. I mean the $150.00 doesn't buy you whole lot. Scott: It's like one tree. Olsen: That was '87. Ledvina: That's a question that I have. Is it appropriate to adjust that for inflation which has occurred over the last 6 years? I mean that would be about 25~ or 30~ over that time to get a comparable landscape or tree or whatever as was originally intended with the PUD contract. Olsen: Today we require $750.00. It's $500.00 for sod and $250.00 for trees. Scott: Especially since a major issue of this development has to do with trees and reforestation, that appears to be quite appropriate in this instance. Batzli: What's the ramification of adjusting that Paul? Any? Krauss: Well as long as we're allowed to do'it within the PUD guidelines, which I think we may be. Olsen: Well, the PUD contract stated it was $150.00 per lot..-There was a 5 year grace period for the PUD contract that stated that any new regulations you couldn't apply but that 5 ~ear grace period ended on December of 1992. $o we can look into that but technically I think you Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 7 can now pull in any other regulations that you wish to do. Or else you could even just recommend that the PUD contract be amended and go that route too. Krauss: I should also pointed out that the way the $750.00 is applied elsewhere in the city is it's, if you already have mature trees on your property that are being saved, you're not obligated to put any more in. So at that point you just have the $500.00 for seed and sod... $o you wouldn't be getting more trees in that area... Scott: Yeah, because that looks like at least. 50% of the lots don't have any trees on them, or won't have any trees on them. Batzli: I thought it was a regulation that the developer had to either seed or sod all disturbed areas. Krauss: We put that into the development Contract. The developer is obligated to do that with the major grading and such but what happens is oftentimes, it probably won't happen in this case because...but a lot of times lots are sold off to other builders and they're brought in 2, 3, 4 years from now and we typically have that $750.00 provision in there to make sure that each individual home as it states is taken care of. Mancino: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Batzli: Go ahead. Mancino: 67% of the oak will be removed. Where is that on your drawing? Where is the bulk of the 67% that will be removed? Wayne Tauer: 67% of the trees being removed are oak. Of 30%. Well, I don't know exactly where every one is. Mancino: Okay, so there is no one major place?. Wayne Tauer: Well, I suppose generally most of them are right in here and I suppose there's a few over here. We do have a plan that typically points out where every tree is. We have a number. We actually went out and counted a tag on every tree out there has a number and it corresponds to a list. I believe that's in your particular handout. But I guess I didn't memorize it. I don't know exactly. Ron, you went through that a little bit. Generally, can you tell me where most? Ron Isaak: They're generally scattered all throughout but the more bigger trees are up on the hill. Farmakes: I have a question also. What type, on Block 1, Lots 1, 2 and 8, what type of house do you plan on putting in there? That would be a lot area of 12.6, 12.8 and 12.7. That's your smaller lots. Particular has a fair amount of contour there. Wayne Tauer: Okay, which number? You're in Block 1 you say? Farmakes: 8lock 1, Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 8. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 8 Wayne Tauer: ...not a major amount of contour in there. Farmakes: It looks like I has a fair amount. More than 10 feet. Wayne Tauer: Well existing, there might be-a definite break there due to the fact that I think some of the artificial grading has gone on when Lot 3 over here was built. It looks like a very definite slope. We're going to come in and probably flatten that out a little bit but generally the lot will be flat except for... Farmakes: What square footage house do you estimate that you'd be putting on there? Wayne T. auer: ...what square footage house will go on the lots on this end building right here. Phil Jungbluth: Well there's architectural controls which we have yet to set. And one deals with developing this...square footage, whether it's a multi-level house, single level house... At this point We can't really say what the square footage of any particular house is going to be on any particular lot. Farmakes: Is there a structure on Lot 3 at the moment? Is there a structure on Lot 3, the adjacent lot? Wayne Tauer: I guess I'm not sure. Probably. Those lots...are sold out? Phil Jungbluth: Oh yeah. Farmakes: But is there a home on that lot? I didn't view that particular lot when I went out and looked at the property... That lot is how many square feet? That 3, the adjacent lot next to 17 Do you have any idea? Is it scaled off? Wayne Tauer: I suppose we can get a comparison. How big is Lot 1...? Olsen: Lot 1, Block 17 Wayne Tauer: Yes. Olsen: 12,600. Wayne Tauer: 12.67 I suppose that might be about 14,000 then. Farmakes: Is that homeowner here tonight by any chance? 'That's you? Resident: Yes. Farmakes: Can you tell me, what is the square footage of your property. there on 3? Resident: About 135 feet by... Batzli: I don't think we have a definitive answer. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 9 Farmakes: Depending on how fluid the land is there isn't it? Batzli: If you asked me, I'd have no clue what mine was. Farmakes: Alright. is. I'm assuming that we're going to hear...vague as it Ma nc i no: Farmakes: His house is 2,000 square feet. I didn't mean your house, I meant your lot. Batzli: Did you have anything else? Resident: No. Ledvina: I had a question. Regarding the stockpiles of soil that are on the site. Will those just be graded in overall? Ron Isaak: My understanding is that's part of our... Ledvina: Okay, so those topsoil stockpiles will be completely removed? I guess what I'm concerned about is the possibility that those areas haven't been, if they're going to remain, that they haven't been adequately compacted. $o those would be cut out entirely and back to the native ground, and then compaction as necessary would be dose and if there's fill in that area? Ron Isaak: If it's in a controlled fill area, yes. compacted... It will be Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. We'll probably have questions after we close, get done with public comment. This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the commission, please come forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Do you have one for the staff? Robert Smithburg: No I don't. I'm sorry. Batzli: Why don't you give this one to them so that it can go in the record. Robert Smithburg: My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North, which is across from the southwest corner of the proposed development. I'm here to raise a serious concern about this development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed. The concern I have is to present, or excuse me, to prevent the destruction of valuable old growth trees. These trees, which are 80 to 150 years old, are an irreplaceable resource. I want the Commission to know that i received a letter on March 2nd from 3oseph Miller informing me that they have made several design changes in order to address this concern. I thank 3oseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into consideration with regards to saving old growth trees. However, their changes do not go far enough. From the neighborhood meeting on Monday Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 10 night, I estimate the elimination of over 50~ of the old growth trees and we disagree. Tonight their presentation I think was somewhat deceiving. Batzli: Can you please put the map back up on the easel? Thank you. Robert Smithburg: The tree loss, there will not be as they pointed out, there won't be tree loss along Lake Susan because that is not, that site is not developable. We have a major stand of old growth trees right here. I'd say at least 100 to 200 yards wide so you'll have major loss here and this whole area of the hill right here where'the road comes in off Powers Boulevard is all trees also. ! have reviewed the 1957 development agreement. In Attachment A, clause 6(B), which I have in my back page, the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plat by the city. I ask the Commission to exercise it's authority to not approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees has been prevented. I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this plan violates Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan, the Tree Preservation Act or any other city ordinances. And please refer to Attachment C9. I believe the Planning Commission has the opportunity and the responsibility to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does here tonight. I aiso believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation to act responsibly. The standards of the 1987 PUD agreement are minimums compared with current standards. I am asking you, the developer, to in good faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligations'of 1987 and meet the current standards of 1993. Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhassen you are a consciencious and environmentally sound developer who will'be encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future. Thank you very much. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes please. Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf and I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills Drive North. I have similar feelingslto the previous speaker, Bob. That stand of trees, ! don't know if you've had a chance to go out there and take a look at it but you gain a quick appreciation for the age of those trees and the size of those trees. What the developers pointed out as far as putting in, Z also am opposed to to a certain degree. We do appreciate the concessions he's made to,'at least it's in the right direction but we feel it's quite a distance yet from really what needs to be done to save this old growth of trees. Bob had mentioned that they're about 80 to 150 years old. Depending on size and also type of soil they're in, they could be even older than that. One thing that's not shown on here is the number of trees that are being removed and if you take a close look at the circles that are here, if we were to fill those all in with red, on the inside, you'd really get an impact about what's really being removed. There is a lot of trees along the shoreline which is not developable. Both take a look at the trees that are in this area and here are some photographs I'd like to pass around to give you an idea in regards to size of these trees. What's really going to be devastated. Farmakes: In your discussions with the developer did you have discussions with regards to specific lots or...? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 11 Don Wisdorf: We had questions on specific lots but our feelings are is that the entire development needs to have more in appreciation for the trees that are there. For example, the ones that are along Po~ers Boulevard, that's a very large stand of trees. That is completely being wiped off where the development's going in there. There's about 1,000, or about 950 tags on those trees and our best estimate is that it's more like, of the ones that are going to be removed, are the larger sized trees. We realize that the builder has a right to be able to develop that property and we welcome development into the neighborhood, since it is zoned for residential development. We appreciate his efforts to be able to try to improve the impact upon the trees but I think it has to go further than a few lots being custom graded and the Mallard Drive being moved. They moved it about 5 feet to the southwest. I would suggest at the minimum that you consider moving that Drive more than $ feet because if you move it more to the southwest you'll be able to save a significant area of trees within that area. There's about, I counted about 13 lots that were deemed to be custom graded and as you know with custom grading, you still have a major amount of devastation but if we could, if they have more lots that could be custom graded rather than the 13, in fact that gives us almost half of those lots have old growth trees standing on them. I'd strongly urge your consideration of more than.just 13 lots. I'd say all of the heavily wooded lots, which.is about maybe 40 or 45 lots that are there should really 'be. custom graded. That would be another thing that would be able to at least help this development be more friendly to the trees. This is an issue not just of the area, neighbors in the area but it's also an issue in regards to Chanhassen. As you know we've got the Tree Board that's just starting to get developed. Our particular issue we're dealing here tonight is going to be very similar to ones we have in the future and I think it's important 'that we pay close attention to try and preserve these old trees throughout our city which have really been here longer than the city itself and in some cases longer than what the State of Minnesota has been established, and I think we need to be very sensitive to that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. the Commission? Would anyone else like. to address Tom Rasmussen'. Good evening. My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court. I'm directly across the street on the west side of Powers Boulevard and if you came into my living room and looked out, you'd see the entire development from left to right. So I've got a good view here. I guess what I've got is a couple of other concerns, more in regards to the plan when I reviewed it. I was just wondering if the Engineering Department has had a chance to look at the slopes leading to the NURP detention ponds. They appear to be fairly steep and what I'm concerned with is that if anybody is there with children or whatever, future down the road, as somebody goes ahead and buys these plans-and the kids are playing, they could slide right into those ponds. And if those ponds don't have a bench, by bench I mean having a slope that's fairly mild so that they can stop before they go sliding in all the way down, that there's the potential for some drownings and some accidents. I just want to point that out as a concern to your attention. The other thing is access to these ponds. These ponds require maintenance by heavy equipment and there needs to be a route for machinery and stuff to get there and to Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 12 do access and I just want to bring up that point too to make sure that they can go ahead and clean these ponds so they're effective. If they fill up with sediment, then they're essentially worthless. My second area of concern is dealing with the speed limit along County Road 17. It seems like every day I'm having more and more of a problem turning left out onto CR 17. The posted speed limit there is 50. I have a hard time believing that most of those cars are doihg that. I think they're doing 55 or greater and we're essentially coming from a dead stop out into that and sometimes they're just boom, right up on your tail and you're just trying to go up to TH 5, a short distance. I ~uess what I would like to request that the City, on behalf of my neighbors and myself, is to reduce the speed limit. There's about a 9/10 of a mile segment that's 50 mph and reduce that down to 40 mph. And what this would do, it would only add 16 seconds to the commute time but what I would like to, I just think for a safety reasons, I guess what concerns me is they're proposing a fairly large park across the street and as the kids on the west migrate across, they essentially could be crossing with cars traveling in excess of 50-55 and even 60 mph and I don't think anybody would want their children crossing that street. I guess what I'm requesting is that that be reduced down to 40. For the safety sake. My third area I'd like to briefly just talk about is that Monday night the developer mentioned moving some of the trees instead of devastating them and cutting them down. Moving some. guess what I would like to see is a specific number of trees that they're planning on moving. ~4here they're planning to move them to and it would be nice to get those nicer trees up along Powers Boulevard. And if you raise the, if the slope comes up from Powers Boulevard and at a distance with the reduced speed on Powers Boulevard, then maybe salt isn't such an issue anymore. Like he had mentioned, 40 mph seems to be the major point. so thank you for your time. 8atzli: Thank you. Dave, would you address some of Mr. Rasmussen's concerns regarding slopes and erosion and the speed limit. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The retention ponds are proposed to be built to NURP standards. That type of design allows for a bench a~ound the pond that has a 10:1 slope, which means the first foot of water will be a gradual, the first 10 feet of the pond it will only be i foot deep. After that I think it goes at about 2 1/2 to 1 slope. $o there will be a bench around each one of the NURP ponds. As far as the speed issue along Powers Boulevard. Powers Boulevard is a county road and all speed modifications and so forth is under the jurisdiction of MnDot. The City can certainly petition the County to also petition MnDot to perform a speed study on Powers Boulevard to see if the speeds are accurately posted for warrants. My initial thoughts out there, it's 50 mph north of Highway 5 along Powers and we have built up conditions north of Highway 5 along Powers also. It would be of some interest to check with the State and see when the last speed study was done along Powers Boulevard there since we have had quite a few residential developments go in the area. On another note, the city and county will, in approximately 5 to 10 years e~ter into a joint construction project for the widening of Powers Boulevard. It will be widened to approximately a 52 foot wide urban section. That's with curb and gutter. At that time most definitely the speed limit would be lowered I would assume in the range between 35 and 45 mph. Mr. Rasmussen brought up a valid point as far as children crossing Powers Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 13 Boulevard to reach access to the park and continue on to Chan Hills, since there will be a trail connection there. It may be wise to consider also pedestrian crossing anyway and again that would have to be approved through the State of Minnesota. Followed up by the Carver County Highway Department. So those are a couple issues that we can certainly pass on to the County to look into as well as the State. Batzli= Would you address one other thing and that is erosion control. The conditions related to that. Hempel: Certainly. The applicant/developer will be required to prepare an erosion control plan in accordance with the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice Handbook, which will address erosion control needs, slope stabilization and so forth throughout the development. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Pete Kurth: Good evening. My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive. That is the First Addition of the Joe Miller properties. The first development on Lake Susan. I guess I'd like to share with you some of my experiences that we had with the reforestation process on Phase l, and I 'm sure many of these restrictions were in place. What the developer had done was to take trees that .were native to the area and transplant those on our lot in a very unnatural setting. For example, I had 3 trees in a row placed directly on. the property line. And these were scrub trees. They met the reforestation requirements that were placed upon them but they were trees that were also planted in a very unnatural setting and then during the construction process of our home, they were further damaged to the point that it Was necessary for me to remove them once the home was completed. The developer met this obligation to the PUD development but I, as a property owner didn't have anything. My concern is the trees in that we physically protect those. We mandate silt guards to prevent the erosion into the lake. I think that we need to take that one step further and protect our trees. We need to identify the grade that .these trees are currently at and make sure that they're not damaged during the construction process. My concern there is that 3ce Miller is the developer but he's not the person who does the actual construction. And those developers or contractors may or may not share his ecology values. They're concerned about production. If those are damaged during the construction process, ~hich they often are, susceptible to damage during delivery of materials, excavating, placement of driveways and what have you, they're lost forever. So I think we're protecting the waterlands by mandating silt guar.ds. I think we need some kind of physical barrier on these trees to make sure the trees are not damaged. And that's my concern. Batzli: Thank you very much. Olsen: Just real quickly to answer that. We do require the trees that are going to be preserved do have to have snow fencing. It's whatever the crown is, we do half again that size. The diameter around the trees so they cannot get the trucks in there and dump soil or anything on the root system so we do provide that protection. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993- Page 14 Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Sim Domholt: Good evening. Hy name is 3im Domholt. !'m at 8251 Nest Lake Court. I'd like to set this up for a moment if [ may. I don't border this area but ! don't notice any ot: the neighbors who are here tonight and [ did raise some concerns about this at the meeting on Monday. This area right across here, there's been a, as was mentioned, a very large mound of dirt compiled out there during earlier phases of construction, and it has caused a tremendous amount of water problems for the homes that are already built there that border to the west and border to the north. Rnd I think it's a concern of those residents that something pretty definite be stated as far as what's going to be done with that mound. If it's going to be brought back to the original grade, that that be stated pretty clearly so that after this row of homes is done and it wasn't brought back to the natural grade, there's nothing can be done at that point in time. Rnd there have been a lot of water control problems on the original phase because of the way the contouring originally had been done. Thank you. Batzli-' Thank you. Dave, are you aware of that problem that they have right there on, is it the northwest corner? Hempel: Yes I am Mr. Chairman. There's some existing stockpile of topsoil and excess material that creates some additional drainage going towards the existing homes there to the west. 'It's my understanding based on the grading plan that that material will be removed and those lots will be graded in the fashion that the front part of the lot will drain out towards the new street and the backyards will continue to drain towards the west along that drainage swale. It appears that the drainage area that contributes to that westerly area right now will be reduced with this new development once those existing dirt piles are removed. Batzli: So more of the water will be moved towards the east once that pile's removed? Hempel: That's correct. As the homes are built out there, the lots will be graded so the drainage area is reduced. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comment, for the Commission? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Nancy, why don't we start with you if we can. Mancino: I had a few more questions. In looking at the trail map we have here, it designates D and E on the western side of Lake Susan. Are we going to lose more trees due to the trail going in there? Olsen: Well actually I think that trail's there isn't it? I think we'd Just be redoing that trail along the lake there. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 15 Hempel: A portion of that trail is in place, that's correct. There's already an existing sanitary sewer line that runs along part of the lake there also. Olsen: Where we did look at, where they were going to trail would have resulted in some more tree loss, I believe we were working with Todd to relocate that between two of the lots that didn't have trees and-so we were working on that too. Mancino: Okay. So that's like segment F? Olsen: Well no, that was one of the fingers coming up from E. into a lot of the trees. Mancino: Olsen: Ma nc i no: the southwestern corner of Lake Susan Hills Drive? Cutting Where does segment F go? Pardon? Where does segment F cross and go into the neighborhood which is So segment F is eliminated? Right. Okay. So we won't be going through...forested area with a trail Oh yeah. That's one of the things we were looking at with the Outlot H, which is a...3.9 acres, what's there? Nothing. Do you know is it a passive, or natural park? Olsen: Nothing's there yet. They're going to be putting in like a totlot and simple things like that. Ma nc i no: Olsen: Mancino: Olsen: Ma nc i no: So there's no way to switch parcels of land? Into? To build on H and take those 3.9 acres and. For the trees? Yeah, for the trees. Kind of do a land swap. Mancino: Olsen: Mancino: anyway. Olsen: trail. Mancino: Olsen: Mancino: Olsen: This is really, it kind of depends on where the park property and the ponds go and also I believe that that segment F was connecting in with that cul-de-sac and that was there. Now that that cul-de-sac is not there, I believe that they weren't even going to do that section. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 16 Oisen: Well, I believe that that park was going to be used for active. So you'd probably be removing some of those trees with the park development. Mancino= Has anybody looked at that? Olsen: No, nobody's looked at that. No. I'm sure the developer would have comments on that. But I don't know that you couId require it. Mancino: Do you think that's a possibility at all? Olsen: Well if you're talking like to replace that with Mallard Court? Mancino: Or the, I'm thinking of the southwestern section where Lot 4 and when you get down to Lots 28 thru 38 and also Block 5, Lots 20 thru 28 - where there's a lot of tree loss. Massive tree loss. If you took that area and put that into park, which already abuts Outlot E and 3ust make that, make the park bigger and save those trees and then the development of single homes could go in Outlot H. Olean: Well, I don't know how we'd get street connections. You'd have to have another access. Well you might, be able to pull the cul-de-sac. Mancino: We could do a cul-de-sac through 11 and 12 or you know, I don't know how but. Olsen: If it's going back in front of the Park and Rec, I guess they can look at that. I don't know. We've never done something like this. Krauss: You know we really don't know what the determination was of the Park Board when they picked that in the first place. However, if it's consistent with their other decisions, they have sought flat open ground where they can build facilities and if it wasn't flat and open, they would make it flat and open. It probably wouldn't meet your goals. Mancino: Except that if you go back to the neighborhoods and say what do you want. Would you rather have flat and open or ~ould you rather have these landmark trees kept. Olsen: But the neighborhood you'd be going back to would be Lake Susan Hills. Right, you're not going to Chan Hills. They have their flat and open par k. Mancino: Well I would like to bring it up in front of the Park and-Rec Commission. That's all. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I'm trying hard to like this development but I'm not being very successful with it. It seems to me a couple things I'd like to point out. It seems that the last few PUD's that we've seen we're getting in the presentation I think kind of stilted way of presenting the information. Leaving pretty much important presentation areas modified. So that the presentation favors a particular direction of the applicant. I think in Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993- Page 17 this case one of the major features is the issue of tree loss. It seems to me that we have a very weak presentation. We have a big listing here of all the trees and so on, but we don't have very good graphic representation. I think certainly we could have better graphic representations since this is a key issue here. Particularly along the slope there next to the lake and the two problem areas that some of the citizens discussed here. It would certainly go a long way in interpretting this. It seems to me it's difficult to take information off of a page or a listing of how many trees and try to associate it to an area when somebody's verbalizing that they're spread out there and you're looking at the total development. That's pretty loose information and I feel real uncomfortable with that. I also am asking myself, what are we benefitting here as a PUD from. To me when we're listing these properties as total square footage, one's next to the lake anyway on the entrance side. Off of Po~ers. I don't see how they'd be building in those areas anyway with the slope that's there. Perhaps they could do some serious grading but I 'm not, and I 'm not sure hca4 that fits in with our restrictions. I can't recall that if they went with the normal development, how well they could tear up that area. But it seems to me that this is an awfully tight use of this property and in a couple of sensitive areas, it just seems to me that that's the reason we were reforming our PUD standards. In an attempt to get more aggressive in saving these trees. And this seems like sort of a half solution or that's how it appears to me. I'd like to be more aggressive with it. I'd like to, ! think that that direction is there from the City Council and I think that we should pursue that harder. The other issues that the citizens brought up I think are being talked about. The NURP poT, s and so on and the issue of County 17 speeds. You might want to p~/rsue that further. We really don't govern that here but I agree it's been a while. There's been a lot of development along CR 17. Although I do live on CR 17 and visibility seems to be the issue of coming'out. Your vtsibility's restricted. For the person who's driving $0 mph, that then, that's a concern certainly. But I've lived on there for a decade and it's good to have that corridor route to be able to go 50 mph as long as it's not a safety concern. I'm also very concerned about the lots that are listed 1, 2 and 8. Particularly 1. It seems to me just proportionately it doesn't seem to be, compared to the home next to 'it in the previous development. If they have a 2,000 square foot house on their lot., I'm a little worried about what's going to be going next door on 1. And I'm also concerned about the issue of the PUD. The average lot size. Didn't we work out where that was going to be 157 I'm concerned about the difference of opinion here as to what that works out. Olsen: Well, with the new PUD regulations yes. Under this PUD, you just had to have the average of $0~ with ~$,000. Farmakes: This is going back to the '87 issue here? Mancino: But isn't it a 5 year life? Olsen: Right. And that's true. You Can choose to, because of that 5 year life, if you wanted to, to bring in the whole new regulations. We talked with the Attorney's office about, because of course staff had the same concerns. If this would have come in today, that concept plan wouldn't be Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 18 approved as it shows today. Ne would have kno~ better to save those trees and to have those protected. But that concept plan was approved. To preserve all those trees, you're removing, essentially you're moving Mallard Court. You're losing quite a number of very precious lots to the developer also. $o there was a question whether or not we should pull in the PU0 regulations and we, with what was, the background on this, we've always used the old ones. Krauss: The legal issue too isn't entirely clear · ! mean we have a developer who had legitimate approvals and who has made constant progress on building out the project that was approved 6 years ago. The language that says the thing is voided out after ,5 years is a little bit ambiguous and we felt that to tbs best of our abilities, it's reasonable to try to honor that original approval. %4e have pushed the developer I think as far as we reasonably could within the context of that and as Jo Ann points out, with 20/20 hindsight, if we could do the whole project over again, not just this phase, it might be done differently knowing what we know now, 6 years later. But the fact is, there's a lot of dies cast and there's a lot of obligations real and tangible and legal and otherwise that are already in place. Farmakes: Getting back to my comments. I think we should be more aggressive with that. I think there's a 'difference between "87 and times change. I'm no lawyer and we certainly have somebody on staff to deal with that but I don't think that this is following .in lines with what we had discussed at great length what we were going to use the PUD for. And it seems to me that we've been discussing that for certainly a number, at least a few years now. I don't think that this proposal is where the current city's at. Like I said before, I'd be real remiss to give approval to it. Batzli: Do you have anything else? Farmakes: No. ! think that I've addressed them. ! had some questions and again, I would like to table this until we can get some of these questions answered. And I also would like to reiterate that we not. accept any further presentations that do not address the heart of the issue that we know is going to come up. For an example, I don't think Opus should have been in here making presentations showing parkland that isn't part of the development on their presentation. That was a major issue of that presentation. However, it kind was brushed over that they didn't own that. And the issue here is again, tree removal and a lot of numbers with very little visual impact being shown on the presentation. Batzli: Do you think that's the responsibility of the developer or staff to show us that? Farmakes: Well again, I'd defer · I know-that you can use some of your suggestions to direct that or maybe we should address that issue. I mean I really see this as a Truth in Housing t)q~e of situation. We should be seeing these things we're making decisions on and it should be relevant information. Ne shouldn't be getting what I would call a directed statistical review or if we're leaving something out of here hoping we're Planning Commission Meettn~ March 17, 1993- Page 19 not going to notice it. It's not overt but I think it's leaving information from us that we need to make prudent decisions. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Joe. Scott: I'd have to agree with Jeff. I'd like to see a legal opinion on updating or amending the PUD to current standards. Also with regard to trees, I sat down and colored in with magic marker all the trees that are going to be removed and that was very striking visually so my personal opinion is that this project needs more work and should be tabled. That's the real extent of my comments. 8atzll: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Well I had a couple of specific things that I'd like to ask some questions on. One of the conditions discussed is the oversizing of storm drainage improvements. Has the city staff been able to resolve any of this with the applicant at this point? Hempel: No, we have not. Ledvtna: If you haven't, what ~ould be the schedule for doing that? Hempel: We would hope to get together, we were just talking about it here late this afternoon. They're trying to get together with Carver County Highway Department to discuss this project as well as the next development on the agenda tonight. So I would hope that ~e could put something together or meet at least within the next 2 weeks here to discuss right- of-way situation and trail location. Ledvina: Okay. And I was wondering also if it might be appropriate to define which lots we ~ould want, or which lots we would allow a reduction of setback limit to 25 feet. I think we don't want to blanket this across the development. I think that where ~e feel it's worthwhile, we should specifically identify that. $o I think that should be done. Also as it relates to the landscaping I ~ould support updating the provision for landscaping to provide a requirement for $750.00 per lot. I think that just should be done. And I guess overall, this site, there's a lot of grading that's going to have to occur. Just almost every, well a large percentage of the area has up to lO feet of cut or fill on it and again, we talked about bringing back the Opus situation and we were concerned about the grading on that property and comparing that to what our PUD standards mean in terms of evaluating sensitive parcels and I think if we can, I'd like to see that amount of grading be reduced. I think the other issues with the tree loss are also very important. $o I would support tabling this item. Batzli: Conrad: area? Okay. What do you think Ladd? Dave, how much grading is there? Is there a lot for this type of Hempel: The site is somewhat difficult. It is very rolling terrain. There's wetlands and there's the isolated groups of wooded vegetation so Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 20 in order to follow the street grades set by the City of Chanhassen, up to a 7~ grade, which they're doing. They're falling within that guide. It comes to the point of balancing the earth ~ork too. So you don't have to import dirt or you don't have to export dirt. I don't know if the applicant has done final numbers on the earth work yet. I think they've just pulled together some preliminary numbers. Maybe they can address it a Iittle bit more whether or not the earth work actually balances or not. But I'm sure there's probably some fine tuning that can be still done to make street grades and buiiding pads less cut and fill maybe. Conrad: I'm just a general sense that the lots for this ~ooded land are too small. It doesn't seem right to me and I think for a perspective. If the numbers are right, and the developer is telling us maybe I out ot= 3 trees are going to go down, that's probably what happens in a typical development in Chanhassen. In fact that may be even good. On the good side. Even our better developers that are doing, !'m not saying, I'm not making a comment that this is a good or bad' development but the more expensive developments, when they're going in and saving trees it Still ends up taking out significant trees. So no matter what, unless you preserve it as park, it's going to be tough to make a big dent in the number of trees that Ne take down. Even though I said that, I'm not comfortable with this. It just doesn't ~eem like it's the right size properties. There are more, it appears based on the concept plan that we saw 5 years ago, there are more lots on Lake Susan than there were years ago. I counted, well it just looks like they're cramming a little bit more in there. Rnd ! don't kno~ that we're going to make a big dent but I'd like to see what Ne can do. And again I think the only ~ay to Solve that is by making the tots bigger. I'm not comfortable with smaller lots in wooded areas. My feeling is that's how you save trees. How many we can save? I think that ~ould be up to staff amd the developer to tell us. I'd like to see what we can do. I don't have a better design here except the fact that I think the lots should be bigger. $o Ann, right ~o~ maybe they're a little bit over 20 lots that are under tS,000 square feet? 20 out of 90. Is that a mix that ~e've followed in the other additions? Is that typical and what were our guidelines when .~e allo~ed the PUD? Nhat did we? Olsen: Well the real guidelines were that you had to have at least, that half, more than half could not be under 15,000. Conrad: More than half. Olsen: And generally the other phases had I think a higher percentage of the smaller lots than with this one actually. The lots are, even though these are small, the whole PUD had a lot of small lots. Conrad: Okay. Well, I'll just wrap it up on my comments. Again, for this type of area, I'd like to see larger lots. I think for the trees and for the nature of all the grading and the rolling area, it's just not what I 'm use to approving over the last 10 years here. Batzli: What do you think about the $750.00 issue? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 21 conrad= That has to be done. But there's some negotiating in this too. This is a PUD. The developer's coming in here with a perspective of what he can do and what we kind of led him on when he signed a contract like this so we have to respect his rights in this process. $o when I say that has to be done, I think there's some give and take on the. tree issue. If they can be saving some trees, and again it's quality trees that I'm talking about. When I see the pictures here, I'm looking at some 24 inch plus trees. I'd be real disappointed if we're cutting down a big percentage of, 67~ of the trees ~e're taking are of a real quality nature. That bothers me a ~hoIe lot. Right now I don't know. I don't know [f ~e're cutting down 10 inch trees or 24 inch trees. That's ~hy I kind of need to know ~hat it ts that ~e're ta[k[ng about here'. Rnd again ~e're not going to save all of the$. I think we just have to make a best effort to save the, to keep the essence of ~hat we've got there. I think Nancy had a good idea. If we could be trading some land ~[th the park. But that's not ~hat the developer ~ants. Your Iand ~[th trees, even though you cut a few down, ts still worth quite a blt more tn the marketplace. So I'm not sure he ~ants to do that. Batzl t: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I just want to flag Just one comment. Everything else has been covered. Page 4. Jo Rrm, this is the second paragraph. It talks about how the lot lines have been adjusted with regard to...trail so the lots were not within the park property. So I guess the only thing I wanted to flag is, as I'm reading this that the ponds are not on city property yet. So it's something that still has to be worked out or has that been addressed? Olean: I think you're reading it kind of vice versa. What happened originally with the ponds were shown within the outlot that's going to be right here. Technically that's taking away the parkland that was supposed to be dedicated. So now the plans are showing the lot lines to cover, or they're encompassing the pond and your question was whether or not that was taking away. Harberts: Well the question was, so what you're saying is that'the ponds are now within the single family lots and not on the city lots so it has been accomplished? Olean: Right. But what we're trying to verify is'whether or not by them extending the lot lines, have they taken away parkland. $o if the pond really is still on. Harberts: Right. So ! guess like I said I'm just flagging it. That's it. Batzli: Would you be in favor of tabling this to look at trees? Is that why you're not commenting on anything else? Harberts: I would agree with that. I guess my primary concern was with the 25 feet setback. The idea of having it apply to the entire subdivision here. I like trees but I guess it's the balance of with development. I have to agree with Ladd that with some of the trees too, I Planning Commission Meeting March [7, [993 - Page 22 don't have quite a handle on the size that we're looking at. [f we can save the more larger ones, [ would be in favor of tabling it until we did have a little bit higher comfort level... Batzli: Okay. And how do you feel about raising the requirement on the amount of landscaping to $750.00? Herbaria: I would support that. Batzli: I have a couple of technical questions Jo Ann. I had a comment on the first condition. Rather than limiting it to a number of lots, my recommendation was to say at the end of that sentence, but only preserve mature stands of trees or to reduce grading. In other words, it would be limited to what we're trying to accomplish here. Preserving the natural features of the land which is what the essence of the PUD was originally intended. The condition 6. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading. What I ~ould prefer to do is that they ~ould somehow review that in connection ~ith our engineering department as well. In other words, tell them that they should look at it. I guess I'd rather have them look at it and tell us what they find to see if we think that it's reasonable. On number 1[. When they're going to oversize and I know Matt asked and I don't think I understood the answer. Did we decide that they're'going to try and oversize? Or haven't we decided? Hempel: There's really no preliminary design really yet for County Road 17 so it's difficult to say whether or not we can incorporate runoff from future Powers Boulevard through this development but we'll certainly take a look at it and if ~e can, we'll negotiate with the developer to do that. Batzli: Okay. I guess I would like to see a finessing of that condition then regarding compensation. In any event. On number 13. Has Mallard Court already been renamed? Olsen: Not on the plans, no. Batzli: Okay. ! would prefer that it reads, Mallard Court shall be renamed to either Drake Court or some other street name acceptable to city police and fire officials. I believe that's who reviews it, isn't it or does Paul review it and just pass it by them? Okay. On 14. Are we going to want 5 foot concrete sidewalks? Is that right? Olsen: Okay, that can be removed. Well, you're getting Dove and Drake mixed up. Is Dove the one that was removed or Drake? Batzli: Dove is the one that's still in there next to the park. Where you're putting a 5 foot concrete walk from the main drive through the development to Dove Court so they can get into the park without walking on the street. Is that what you're intending to do? Olsen: That's still sho~ing up on the plan so. Batzli: Out of curiousity, which side of West Lake Drive would that be going on? Planning Commission Meeting March i7, i993 - Page 23 Hempel: The existing sidewalk along the existing West Lake Drive north of Dove Court. There's a small segment sidewalk heading southeasterly along West Lake Drive and deadends south of Dove Court. We'd like to see that sidewalk extended. I believe it is shown on the plan 5-10 plan sheet. On this drawing. Previously it was not shown. 8atzii: It's shown on plan $? Hempel: The dashed line I believe represents the sidewalk. Batzii: Oh. And it deadends Just at Dove Court. That's the one you want to extend? Hemps1: Previously the plans did not show that sidewalk extending up the proposed West Lake Drive to Dove Court. They do now so that condition probably could be deleted. Batzli: Out of idle curiousity, why do you want it on that side of West Lake Drive? Isn't the access to that totlot is going to be through Dove Court? Hempel: That's correct. That would be an on street walkway with there's a trail between the, at the end of Dove Court. Batzli: Right. But then, so you have to cross the street and walk up Dove Court to get to the tottot that you're putting the sidewalk on that side? Hempel: No, the sidewalk is on the southerly portion. South side of the proposed West Lake Drive. Batzli: Okay. Okay. I'm looking at it now. That makes sense. On your condition 18 Jo Ann. Olsen: Right. It should be 18(a), (b). Well go on. Batzli: And (c)? So numbers 19, 20 and 21 would become a, b and c? Olsen: Right. And then everything...before a station plan. Batzli: Okay. (b) I think needs to be changed a little bit to reflect your discussions with the developer regarding the primary species list. It doesn't sound like there's disagreement. Obviously we don't want to require the developer to put in trees that can't handle the overspray from the County Road there. Those are my comments on the conditions. It sounds like to me that the Commission would like to see this come back with a, in order to get a better handle on what trees are being lost and if there's a way that something could be done to-further minimize that. Whether that be site specific grading. I don't think, do we normally put the requirement for snow fences around the trees in the conditions Jo Ann? I think we have in the past. Olsen: It's always in the development contract and then the conditions. I don't usually point it out as a specific condition in here but it can't Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 24 hurt, you know to put it in here but it always is covered in the standard conditions. Batzit: And it sounds like the Commissioners, at least right now, would like to see the monetary amount for landscaping increased. Olsen: Per lot. Batzli: Per lot. Which according to my rough calculations is increasing it $600.00 per lot times about 90 lots is $50,000.00 with one stroke of the pen. I guess I would like to give the applicant, if we choose to table this, an opportunity obviously to respond to that and I'd either you or the applicant, if we choose to table it, to provide us some detail. A little bit more on the tree loss. Have you, I assume, maybe I shouldn't assume. Have you gone out there with the Forester, any of those kinds of people to look at which trees might be worth saving and whether we're trying to protect the right ones? Olsen= No, I have not. The Forester is just now coming back after an illness so I have not dragged him out onto the site yet. We visited the site but I haven't, but that's something. He's back at work now and we can, I'm sure he'd be glad to do that. Conrad: I'd like to see a list of the quality trees that are saved and the quality trees that are not. And I don't know what the word'quality means Jo Ann but I'm really not interested in some of the scrubbier kind. That's inmaterial. I don't want that to count. Olsen: They're mostly high quality. Scott: I noticed that the trees don't get any bigger than 50 inches. Is that a limitation of the caliper that they use? Olsen: I don't know. Did you have a limitation on the size? ...I'll see how he is about that. He's recovering from a heart attack so I don't want to push him too hard but probably next week we could probably get out there and get those details for you. Batzli: Well okay. I would appreciate having that kind of expert input as to whether we're doing a good Job of, obviously if we have several hundred quality trees, we can't save them all without buying the lot. Some of them are going to have to go in order to develop this but I'd like to think that we're making a good effort at preserving the natural features of this which includes kind of Wetlands. A little bit of rolling and some trees and ! don't know that the commissioners have a whole-lot of comfort level, at least from their comments so far. So having said that, is there a motion? Is there a motion to table? Conrad: A motion to table Case 87-3. Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second it. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 25 Batzli: Discussion. Have we made it clear enough on the record what we are tabling this for and what we need to see? Is there an uncomfort level by the Commissioners that their particular concerns haven't been made clear so we address those at the next meeting? Conrad: Well the direction to staff is strictly on trees right now. A little bit on landscaping cost but is there anything else besides trees? Scott: PUD amendment to bring it up to the standards of the comprehensive plan that's in place now. Olean: A legal opinion. Scott: Yep. Conrad: I don't think speed on Powers is an issue that we're dealing with right now. Batzli: No, although I'd like to see that addressed by the City. Conrad: And I guess I would like staff's opinion as to, I don't know how it's coming back other than just looking at trees and I suspect we're going to see the same plan. I guess I'd like staff's opinion as to when it comes back if there's significant tree loss, the quality of trees. If they have any further recommendations. Batzli: Meaning? Conrad: What's going to save it, yeah. What's out within reason. And I guess I go back to lot size. Batzli: Okay. Yeah, because your concern was that you thought that with an increase in lot size. Conrad: It's going to save more trees. Without just totally changing road systems and what have you, lot size will do it and again lot size, within this property. With the number of trees and the rolling nature, I think lot size is the only thing that will make a difference but I'm curious what staff's opinion is. Batzli: Okay, is there any other discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning. Commiuiontable Preliminary Plat No. 87-3 for further review. Ail .voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzlt: This matter is tabled to our next meeting? Krauss: Well Mr. Chairman, we were going to propose that you cancel the April 7th meeting since there were no other items on it. But if you want this one to be on that meeting, then you have an item on that meeting. Batzli: Yep, let's do it. ! suppose Jo Ann had already scheduled vacation. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 26 Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that gives us time to come back with what you want. If the reports have to go out next week, you won't get it. Krauss: That's a fairly short turn around. We also should contact the, speak to the developer. Why don't we agree that we will re-notify everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know. Batzli= Okay. So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in April? Krauss= Which is the 21st. Olsen: It most likely will be. Otherwise the report would have to go out next Wednesday and I don't know what I would get the answers that you want. As far as like the tree inventory. Wayne Tauer: We'd like to comment on that. We would like to have it done in 2 weeks. You know we're on a, we're in Minnesota. We have but a few months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring to · get it done. So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in this thing, we'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be back on the April 7th, or whatever the date was to get back and go. Batzli: Okay, what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we'll obviously make every effort to schedule the meeting. Okay, thank you very much everyone for coming in. PUBL;C HE~RIN6: PE-LIMINK~Y PL~T O~ A PL/~D UNZT DEVELOPHENT ~ SIT[ 'PL~'TO CREATE 27 TO~a~HE LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD RND LOCATE DIRECTLY E~ST OF POHERS BOULEV/~RD. ~D3~I[NT TO L~d(E ~ HILTS PUD. PR~IRZE CREEK TO~NHOI~S. J~SPER DEVELOPHENT. P~blic P~esent: James & Jay Jasper Greg Holling Mark Jeffries Don Patton Scott Montgomery Andrew K. Olson Tom Nilsson James Domholt Gary Kassen Tom Dotzenrod Pete Kurth Kirby & Sandy Paulson Ron & Ann Kleompken Tom & Pat VanAsh Jasper Development Jasper Development Minnesota Landscape RC! 8260 West Lake Court 8290 West Lake Court 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8251 West Lake Court 8270 West Lake Court 8280 West Lake Court 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive 8410 West Lake Drive 8311 West Lake Court 8320 West Lake Court Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 27 Thomas R. Rasmussen Nam~ 8531 Merganser Court Chris Miller Gary & Mary Nussbaum Don Wisdorf David Flaskerud 8401 West Lake Drive 8391 West Lake Drive 8639 Chan Hills Drive No. 8411 West Lake D~lve Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzii called the public hearing to order. Greg Molling: I'm Greg Holling, representing the applicant, Jasper Development. James Jasper and Jay Jasper are also here if there's other questions that come up. As far as this plan, what's been done is there's two units that were dropped out. If you look here, there was a 4 unit building in the center of Powers Boulevard. Close to Powers Boulevard we took one unit out there and spread these apart. And then we also took one unit off from the 4 unit building which was closest to Lake Susan Hills Drive and Powers Boulevard. And in doing that then we pulled the drive over approximately 20 feet to give more green space between the units that were tight between units 22 and 3 is what's shown on this plan. Rs Jo Rnn mentioned, that reduces our coverage down to actually we figured 42.9~ or approximately 43~. When we first submitted these plans we had somehow gotten our information twisted as far as how much coverage we could actually have and thought we were meeting the Code when we submitted our initial plan. And when Jo Ann notified us after we had submitted them, well then it ended up being just too tight as far as the timing to get revised plans. Get ail these plans revised. I think the report covers pretty much most of the other things fairly well. It is very important for us to get these number of units to make the project feasible and essentially what's being proposed I think makes a much nicer development than trying to get a larger number of units and having to stack them up. This is a typical, this is a 75 foot berm...from 1 to 3 feet high and as you can see it's planted very heavily. I also have a list of plants that will go on this berm. Would you like to see the list of those plans? Batzli: Sure. Greg Holltng: So if you have this, this is a deciduous tree on the berm right here that rolls into'these 3 evergreen trees. And this is somewhat typical of harms around the project as'is this one. Even though they're all a little bit uniquely different, I think it gives you a pretty good picture of what...project. $o there will be substantial screening all the way around this project...and we need some sight' lines into the project obviously but most of these harms are. very close. SomettmeB...dectduous trees ~e'll be able to see under to see the project and other times the sight lines will be pretty much restricted by the harming and the planting. The plants generally on the berm are large, ranging from 3 to 4 feet to as high as 15 feet at maturity. Batzli: What do you think about salt spray? Greg Holling: From roads? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 28 Batzli: Yeah. Greg Holling: Well that's always something'that can happen to plants... 8atzli: $o the Amber Maples and those kind of things are hardy enough to withstand that? Greg Holling: I don't know how close we are to the road. Ho~ close are we to the road? This is kind of arbitrary as to where..that path is going to be so all we have to work with was putting that path inside the property line and there's a fairly small area inbetween buildings and the path to get it landscaped so. We're taking all this into consideration... probably works the best. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Have you had an opportunity to look at the conditions in the staff report? Greg Holling: Yes. Batzli: And do you have any disagreement with any of those conditions? Greg Holling: I guess as part of the original report, the main objection we would have would be the losing of the 3 or 4 units and I think...did address that. Staff felt comfortable dropping out 2 units. Otherwise I believe...that was a real problem. I guess, the one thing would Just be tabling the project. If that's a consideration, when we had originally been talking with Jo Ann, we were led to believe there would be another Planning Commission meeting in 2 weeks. And from what I understand, there isn't going to be now so we'd certainly appreciate it if it would be possible for you to consider the project. Batzli: Would you prefer a negative recommendation to table? Greg Holling: I guess it depends. I guess we're really in a sense expecting a negative one on how the plans were originally submitted. As far as if you would consider a recommendation on going down to 25, would that be what you're referring to? Batzli: Well I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel but I'm just' saying, if you need us to act on it tonight, would you prefer that we give you a negative recommendation than to table it to study it? Greg Holling: As far as the 27 units, I guess ~e would probably prefer to be tabled. I guess either one of them we'd prefer to be tabled rather than turned down because we do feel that we have a project we can work with and that the staff supports the project and that ~e can ~ork that out. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Greg Holling: Thank you very much. Conrad: Before he sits down, can I ask him a question? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 29 Batzli: Sure. Conrad: Thank you Mr. Chair. Really our district standard for R-8 is 35~ impervious surface and you really haven't made a compelling argument to change it other than it's not financially feasible but I think in the PUD you should. So I think why don't you take a few seconds here and tell us why we should change it from the 35. Even though the contract says 31, I think we could all rationalize a 35 because that is our standard. You're coming in at 45. I think you should be telling us why We should consider that. Greg Holling: Essentially what we are doing is building a project that we feel is a very high quality type project. The types of units that we'll be building are in the range of 1,200 square feet per floor and we're looking at 2 floors but not 2 stories so we're still looking at a lower type building. The basic units that are being proposed are in the $150,000.00 type range for the sale price and these are units that are to be lived in. They're not rental type units. They will be, I'm sorry not lived in. Of course they're all going to be lived in but owner occupied. And I think perhaps history would show that these types of projects, townhome type projects are better maintained ~hen they're owner occupied than a rental unit. So we are looking at building very nice units that are we think fit in quite well with the neighborhood. Each unit will be individually designed. They'll have different textures on the front of the buildings. Stucco, brick and some cedar. We are...I don't know how much more landscaping. Do you know how much we're exceeding the minimum standards? Mark Jeffries: It would be at least 2 1/2~... Olsen: That's commercial/industrial. Greg Holling: A big reason that we're exceeding the minimum percentage of coverage is because of the size of the units. Each individual unit that we're building. And so in order to build a nice, larger unit that's very attractive for the type of people that are being marketed, it takes on more coverage. And as was mentioned by Jo Ann, it was allowed to go up to 9.3 units per acre but with a lesser coverage essentially the only way you can do that is by having 2 story above the normal grade in order to get that and try to get your square footage stacked on top of each other. And so that's why we're at the percentage that we're at. I would say that's basically the Compelling reason that we exceed that percentage. Conrad: Thanks. Jay Jasper: Excuse me, I'm Jay Jasper with Jasper Development. I just make a clarification of that? Could Batzli: Sure. Why don't you come up to the microphone. Jay Jasper: When we were looking at this piece of land initially, it has a very unique shape and we were looking for a piece of land not to do starter family or entry level townhomes, because there are a lot of builders doing that out there and obviously you could stack them in there Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 30 and do that. We've done this project before in other communities and there's a strong demand for professional people and empty nesters. I think the trade-off between higher coverage is lo~er number of units and the higher selling price. The overall value of that project. You're not going to see rental units. You're not going to see lots of cars outside' You're going to see well maintained improved projects and you'll see over a period of about 3 to 5 years that these projects typically improve upon themselves. They'll be adding landscaping. They*Il be keeping up the painting. They'll be a~oing all those sorts of things. T think you'll find that in the long run the trade-off for coverage or number of units, lesser number of units will be well worth while. Manctno: 3ay, I have a question. You said that they won't be, you won't be able to rent these units? Jay Jasper: We can't prohibit someone from doing that but because of the market price, we've not seen any of them that we've built previously rented out. I suppose if someone's living here 6 months out of the year, they could rent it out to somebody for 6 months out of the year. We're not targeting investors. We're not keeping any of them as rentals and the past sales history on the other projects we've done has been professional people and empty nesters. Mancino: Okay, but your covenants do let the owners know that they can rent? 3ay Jasper: They can rent. The rent would be awfully high on a $150,000.00 townhouse. Scott: Jay, have you developed properties similar to, not the land but built townhomes similar to this in this area that we could take a? Jay Jasper: Actually with the neighborhood meeting I went through this, we could all maybe get a bus and go out there. We did a small 10 unit version identical to this in Waconta. Scott: Oh where? 3ay Jasper: Where in Waconia? Scott: Yeah. Jay Jasper: It's on East 2nd Street. If you come up from Main Street, you go over I block and you go as far east, it deadends at this project. And it's a combination of single family and multi-family. We had both these types of units. We have the small and the large and it was a mix of them. We sold just as many small as large. And it's virtually, they're all sold out. Half are completed. You could see color schemes and all those sorts of things. We're going to be duplicating that identically as far as exterior, floorplans. There will be more landscaping because Waconia's ordinances doesn't have as much requirements as Chanhassen's does and the market's a little bit different. But we're going to be using those actually as, after the project is approved to help us with pre-sales because most of those people will let us in. We do have a model left Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 31 that's sold, or on contingent that we can use and so that would be a good project to go look at. I don't know if anyone tn the audience went to look but that was discussed at the neighborhood meeting that I'd be happy to meet anyone out there to take a iook at it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did you have anything else? Greg Holling: No. Thank you. Batzli: This is a public hearing. Is there someone in the audience that would like to address the Commission? I ask that you come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Pat VanAsh: Are we allowed to do this as a team? Batzli: Sure, you can tag team. Tom VanAsh: My name ts Tom Vanish. This is my'wife Pat. We reside at 8320 West Lake Court, and if I can show the map here. We're one of the more affected homeowners in that this is our property right here. $o you can see that the back side of our property lines up with 3 townhomes. Well 3 complete townhomes and a fourth one right behind it. One of the proposals that was set forth at the neighborhood meeting was that this was going to be done in two phases. With the initial phase being done out there towards Powers Boulevard and the second phase to be completed in approximately 2 to 2 1/2 years, and that being the phase that adjoins our property. We would ask that that proposal be reversed to allow the homeowners, especially along here to see a more gradual change and not such an abrupt change in the landscaping. And that we would be under total construction for 2 [/2 years. With that proposal reversed and this would be completed right away, which by the way we were told the townhomes would begin at about $110,000.00 and go up to $150,000.00 to $155,000.00. We're assuming that those, all those in the back here that are walkouts. Which are right at the 25 foot setback, so they're very close to our home. But with these to be completed originally at the outset, we feel it would give anybody becoming a potential homeowner, a townhome, a better idea of what the flow will be between neighborhoods. So that is one of the things that we are concerned with. Overall I'm very comfortable with the developer and the builder from what I've seen in Waconia. I do think they did do a nice job over there. We do have some cosmetic ideas that we'd like to suggest by some of the other neighbors. 3ay Jasper: Just a clarification on two points he made. The ones in Waconia were $110,000.00 to $150,000.00. Not a representation that the Chanhassen ones would be $~0,000'.00 to $150,000.00. And the other ones, the 2 1/2 years represented the other outlot that is available across the road in Lake Susan Hills and that is a future possible development...two phases but that would be 2 to 2 ~/2 years dough the road. Just a clarification. Batzli: So you envision constructing this all this summer, if it was passed? Planning Commission Heating March 17, 1993 - Page 32 Jay Jasper: We didn't...doing it in two phases because by the time we get roads and grading and ali that stuff done, we're going to be, to start work our goal would be to have a unit ready for the Parade of Homes. I mean that's pretty optimistic but we're not going to get [t all done in a year. So we would probably try to split our construction... Batzli: You'd be splitting it right now with the one that isn't approved yet that you haven't brought in front of us? Jay Jasper: No. This, we would Just spItt into t~o kind of phases of construction. Batzli: Oh, okay. Pat Vanish: Okay, so then...ho~ long expect for this particular development that's before us tonight from beginning to finish? How long do you expect it to take? Jay Jasper: Probably one year ~ould be realistic. It could take a little longer and then it could take a little less than that. It depends on how long it takes to put the improvements in and what' the...conditions are. But the comment was 2 1/2 years for the parcel across the street. Pat VanAsh: Okay. So then what you're saying is that at this point you would expect to have this entire development finished by the end of the construction season this year? Jay Jasper: No. Next year. Because we're not going to be able to barely start construction...until probably 3uly. Pat VanAsh: So basically what you're saying then is if you start this spring and go through until the fail, or whenever, that next spring you'll begin again. Batzli: Well I think what he's saying, if you can try to address me a little bit so that we don't get into an argument back and forth here. I think I'll paraphrase what I think he's saying and then I'll give him an opportunity later to clear it up if I'm saying it wrong. 8y the time they get done grading and putting in the improvements, they're towards the fail of this year. They would expect then to in 1994 to build the units. The majority of the units and then be completed by the end of 1994. Tom VanRsh: Excuse me. The original model home that he talked about was to be out towards the front of Po~ers Boulevard... We're asking that they reverse that and build that back in here instead of this area, and develop between the existing homes. Batzli: You want them to build in your area first? Is that your major concern there? Tom VanAsh: ...two phases that he was talking about. The first phase was this portion and the second phase would be this portion. We're Just asking them to reverse that since the streets and the grading all have to be completed prior to the first units going in. Planning Commission ~leeting HaTch 17, 1993 - Page 33 Pat VanRsh: Basically that will allow us to have the prOperty, thair property that adjoins out 's, that area k~ould be finished first so that from our point of view we wouldn't have to look into the entire development and see the entire construction process starting in the outlying areas and working toward~ us. Instead it ~ould be reversed and that would provide somewhat o~ a buffer bet~en us and the construction zone ~ it were reversed. I~ they started on ~r pro~rty line and... Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanRsh= Yeah. Rs fat as landscaping, that was somewhat addressed and that was another concern that we felt the landscaping between their property and cuT's on the lot line wasn't heavy enough. That it didn't provide or because if the 2 story walkout...are right across the back of out house, that we felt the landscaping wasn't heavy enough there to provide a buffer. I also was concerned that the type of landscaping because it isn't, they ate 2 story, that the type landscaping that they do in there would provide for some, instead of the smaller evergreens and what not, to provide taller trees that eventually would provide a nice deep umbrella. You know further than 15 feet off the ground. That was another thing. Rs fat as the number 'of units. OuT initial reaction was the number of units was too high. ~nd they have proposed to-lo, er that but at the same time, you kno~ it may be something for whatever is do~n in here but it doesn't help us out any. Ns'ye got a solid wall... Farmakes.' Excuse me. Could you place that. We've got too much of a berm here. Ne can't see that. Pat VanRsh: There's a solid wail of units right across out back yard here and if the number of units is to be lowered, which I personally ~outd like to see that happen, that one be taken out of here. Originally my suggestion was to take one off of here and one off of here or something. Or somewhere, somehow or in other words they did rearrange a little bit but if did that, it may have allowed these units also to be moved in further because they ate...back yards, which I thought was a~Wully close. ...awfully close to the back yard. I mean not only for us but for the people who ate going to live in there. Batzli: Okay, anything else? Pat VanRsh: Yes. I had another question concerning the exteriors. With the stucco exterior. The solid, and he addressed the front of the units, which we personally did go and view them. Everything always looks g~eat on paper, which your initial sketches did, but when you see them in person, you know like reality check. They were attractive from the front. They were, I felt they were not attractive from the back. The back is solid stucco with no detail. They basically on the four units that ate connected that I saw, they all had basically the same decks. ~nd then I also had a question concerning the stucco material itself. That it requires higher maintenance. My experience with any stucco that I've ever seen is that it looks great when it's freshly painted. ~fter it's weathered for a year or two, it ends up looking dingy and dirty if it isn't maintainecL To me it seems to be a high maintenance type thing and I guess I'm also questioning does the stucco and what not fit in Planning Commission Heeting HaTch [7, [993 - Page 34 aesthetically with the rest of the neighborhood. That's another concern. We also have a question concerning the drainage pond. It seems that it was unresolved exactly where that was going to be...and I think that needs to be determined before the plan goes any further. Ne need to know exactly where that's going to be placed. Nhether it's do~n further in the swampland or whether it's going to be done on the... Olsen: It's definitely in the parkland, not on their land but Dave can give you more details on that. Hempel: Staff is recommending that with this development that a temporary sedimentation pond be constructed Just to the north of this development within the city parkland on a temporary basis until the permanent regional pond is developed further on downstream in the Lake Susan Hills Park, which is further on to the north in an area that is yet to be designated exactly. We've got to go out and look at the areas so we're not destroying any wetlands or removing any trees. So out overall comprehensive storm sewer guide has shown a regional pond in that area to the north of this development in Lake Susan Hills Park. Timeframe is unknown at this time though. But there will be a small sedimentation pond at the end of the storm sewer that they're extending to the north property line of this development. Pat VanAsh: And then a point that was brought up in the previous meeting was that... Hempel: All the retention ponds in the city are maintained by city maintenance, public works crews so they do take periodic cleaning and there ate easements for access for ponding areas for city cre~ to provide the maintenance. Batzli: Is there anything else? Pat VanAsh: I think that's it. Tom Vanish: Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. I'll let 'you comment after everyone's had their say. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Please come up to the microphone. Sive us your name and address for the record. Andrew Olson: I'm Andrew Olson, 8298 ~est Lake Court. I live 3 doors down from Va~sh's and I'm the one that took the pictures of the. Waconia townhomes. They look nice from the front. I don't like the back add the back side is what we'll be seeing from Powers Boulevard, from Lake Susan Hills Drive and from our homes along that West Lake Court. I would like to see something changed for color or material or something in the back sides because then it's not as attractive as they might be from the rear. It's just a solid wall of stucco with a few colors in for deck. If something can be done. And then I would also favor that less density. I don't like the 27. I don't like the 2S. I would favor 23 or 24. Just for that little more greenspace to get that greenery in there and a buffer between existing townhomes and trails and whatever in there. And tbs pond is also an issue for me. I don't want to have a temporary pond there and Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 35 then find out that there's no Nay to get that water to a permanent pond someplace because of the creek going through there and I don't know ho~ you can legally change the course of a creek or how would you get water downhill and over that creek to another pond without a culvert system or something. That creek is in the way. $o getting it to a regional pond is something I'd like to see covered here before any permanent approval is given. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I'm almost afraid to ask Dave but, we've had a couple comments about pond and I know you responded to that. Do we have, can you put a map up. Can you explain to us where the temporary pond... sedimentation basin is going to go? Hempel= Rs a part of this development, or I should point out first. There's an existing storm sewer line that discharges approximately 75 feet north of Lake Susan HilTs Drive. It...runoff from the wetlancfs across the street. That pipe would be extended as a part of this project to outlet to the north end of this development. The. developer ~ould be extending a line off of that proposed storm se~er to serve the internal development, the storm runoff from the interior streets and housepads, and that would be conveyed then through the pipe system down to the north end. ~nd we felt that some sort of treatment needed to be done to try and collect some of the heavy sediments that ~ould be collected throughout the year from the sand on the roads and so forth, instead of just discharging them into the grass meadowland. It's much easier for us from a maintenance standpoint to clean out sediment traps than try and collect sediment as it is washed further downstream. On top of that, without sediment traps there, it could also lead to future erosion problems like...washout condition all the way down to the stream that was spoke of earlier. ~s far as the regional pond, the permanent regional pond in the area, again we do not have the specific location of it. I have a feeling that the existing stream area and some particular area may be modified and widened to adapt for the additional ponding. We also want to treat the stream and water coming from the upstream into this regional ponding before discharging into Lake Susan. ~gain, once our comprehensive storm water plan is developed...will be taken care of but in the interim measures, ~e felt that a sediment trap would be very ueefu! for collecting sediments from the street. Batzlt: Who owns the property that we're dumping the water on? Hempel: That is city land, it's the park property. Batzii: ~nd will it affect the neighbors' land? Have you taken a look at the impact? Hempel= It is somewhat treed and wooded up in this area...sediment trap is a dry pond system. Within a few days after a rain it' becomes dry. Batzli: But you're going to be taking whatever the size of this development is and right currently it has' over 40% impervious, if I'm not mistaken. You'll be dumping a lot more water over there. Planning Commission Heeting Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 36 HempeI: That's correct. That's another reason for the sediment trap. To also disperse the energy generated in the storm sewer so you don't have the washout and erosion problems. Batzli: What's the impact of going from 43% to 35% coverage on the amount of water being dumped over there? Hempel: I've not seen the overall draina~ae calculations yet but it would reduce it somewhat in the rooftop area and in the' driveways so it would be a small percentage of the overall impervious... Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Before you start talking, can you take that down? Thank you. Tom Rasmussen= -Again, my name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court. ' The reason why I'm interested in this property is because kitty corner from this lot is another strip of property that's zoned exactly the same way. And I guess what I don't want to see come happening 2-3 years from now is someone saying, well gee you allowed them 43~ impervious. What are the current standards? Gee, are you going to let me do that? So on and so forth so ! guess my main point is, I would like you to be consistent from setbacks, percent impervious or whatever because otherwise if you allow this development to do it, what's to stop another developer from coming in and saying hey, they did it. I want to do it too. On the other hand, I did live in a townhouse for 5 years and ! agree with what they said concerning the market value. The market value of our homes were about $100,000.00 to $110,000.00. Hy next door neighbor to us, it was rental. It turned into a HUD. It was a disaster so'I came out to Chanhassen to buy a single family home. So I agree with what they said and they are going after the proper raarket for that and stay away from the $100 , 000 . 00 townhomes. You're asking for trouble. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to clome the public hearing? Oh, I'm sorry. One more. Gary Kassen= My name is Gary Kassen and I live at 8270 West Lake Court and ! just wanted to expand a little bit on the temporary holding pond. There are several trees in the area and I'd like to see a little bit more information on how many of those trees we lose and the size of the holding pond... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. That was staff's recommendation for the developer to incorporate the sediment trap pond. We did give him an approximately size of the pond that we would need and it's based on the .amount of contributing drainage area. That pond size is between .3 and .5 acre feet. The sediment pond that we intended, we don't foresee removal' of any of the existing trees. The Park Department won't I'm sure let us do that. So it will be an area that's pretty much void of significant trees. There may be some underbrush of course that would be removed in those areas outside the major tree areas. Gary Kassen: How long is this temporary pond going to be there? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 37 Hempel: I knew he was going to ask that. Batzli= You danced around it very nicely up til now. Hempel: Well, part of it would dictate on the development pressure around the areas as it becomes developed as it slowly but surely is. That would be a priority area to look at. Part of our surface water task force, or course we've prioritized some areas in town to construct storm water improvements. We are limited, very limited in funding. I-don't know where this area plays in the order of storm water improvements however. As this area develops, the developer will be providing the city a cash contribution to put towards this regional pond[ng area. So this developer and the developer across the street and upstream will also, if they cannot provide on site a necessary retention pond from both the quality and quantity standpoint, will be required to pay a cash contribution into the surface water utility fund to help pay for the downstream podding. Batzli: But that money that they 'donate is not earmarked for this particular problem. It goes to the overall surface water quality fund. Hempel: That is correct. Batzll: So the time is indeterminate. Gary Kassen: Alright. I guess the second issue I.wan~ed to talk about a little bit more is the appearance. I guess I do like the front of the townhomes. I think they look very nice. What I'd personally like to see is maybe some of the cedar or maybe even some of the brick be added to the back side because that's the side most of us will see driving by on County Road 17 and driving on Lake Susan Hills Drive and also from the homes... Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I promised you a moment of rebuttal. Did you'have something in response to some of these comments? Jay Jasper: More clarifications than anything. To address the concerns, one of the evils of having people look at a project to see what units are going to look like. The project in Waconia is very new. The landscaping in the backwards hasn't been developed yet. Some of it isn't in and so to take a look at 5 or 10 units and say gee, that looks starts. Well yeah, we don't have any landscaping in there. It's in a totally different setting than this is and so I don't think that's really a fair analysis of that project. When you look at single family back, the backs of single family houses, we don't talk about brick and extra cedar and those sorts of things. I don't see why this project's any different than that. If anything, we've got a consistent, well maintained, uniform, color coordinated backward as opposed to 10 or 15 different colors in various states of repair and if anything, that's going to be an improvement. The other thing is stucco is very maintenance free and it isn't painted, it's just more a point of clarification. Satzli: Let me ask you two questions though, because ! think they may be fair criticisms and you can maybe convince me otherwise. But you have a self contained development here so that the entire, and it looks nice from Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 38 the internal side but the people driving along Lake Susan Hills and the county road there, they're looking at the backs of every unit. They don't see a single front of a unit. Jay Jasper.' If that were single family, you wouldn't either. You wouldn't put fronts along Po~ers Boulevard because I'm sure you can't put driveways there. You wouldn't put fronts on Lake Susan Hills Boulevard because that's ! gather a collector street. ! don't think there's driveways allowed on there. So what you would see with single family would be all different backyards. Batzli= But you don't see the mass. Jay Jasper: But these are broken up into small group~. I mean ~e could do 2 story manor homes, vinyl siding, crank the density. 0on't worry about the impervious surface.. Batzli: I don't think you could crank the de~sity anymore but, okay. ~ut so you're reply is really that you're no different than single family. We're not worried about it. We're going to sell these babies. Jay Jasper: No, it's no different than single family and you've got a controlled maintained backyard and back o1= the units. Color schemes all coordinate. Not house x, house y, house z where it's pink, orange and blue. You've got something that all blends. ! think we're going to be very attractive. Plus we've got a lot of landscaping. Batzli: Thanks. Okay. Pete Kurth: Hy name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive. This addition doesn't come as a surprise and I'm not opposed to townhouses being put there. I guess I ~ould like to go on record as being opposed to the density and I've got a question as far as, ~e've talked about runoff water. That's a real ~et area out there. I kno~ that we have got a drainage problem in our back yard. Of about 4 or 5 properties there on Lake Susan Hills and on West Lake Court there's also a water problem there. I notice that they did some cordingly out there in this area that's going to be developed. Is there something subterrean there as far as a higher than average water table or an underground stream or, is there something in that area? I mean it's between t~o lakes and there's a lot of water problems that Ne seem to be addressing per addition, t~e talked about it in the other addition earlier and now we're talking about it again. Is there something there that is affecting the entire area? Hempel= Hr. Chairman. Chanhassen in general has very ~et conditions sporatically all over. There's a lot of draintile s~s'tems. This particular site did have some soil borings taken on it. There was 3 borings that did show a very high water table and whether they're seasonal or not, ! think that's part of the reason why the low 'area to the north up there is why they're filling 5 to 8 feet of material. Rlso to build walkout type houses but also to build the house pad up above the water table enough so they avoid any kind ol= future water problems. Yes, that is a low lying area. There's a natural drainageway. The ag fields used to drain that Nay forever. There is a drainage system on the west side of Planning Commission Meeting HaTch 17, 1993- Page 39 Po~srs Boulevard that conveys drainage via. a culvert underneath Powers through the site which they'll be addressing with the site grading. Further to the north is the major ! believe Bluff Creek tributary. CT excuse me, it's a tributary stream anyway that goes into Lake Susan so it is, the surrounding neighborhoods all drain to this way so it just was that characteristic will give you the wet soil co.alit[one. Pete Kurth: Ny concern would be that we address maybe the worst case scenario for drainage. Maybe put in some kind of drain tile or mandate some type of drain tile to handle let's say the worst case scenario. I know we had a lot of problems in our back yard after it was landscaped and everything else. Bringing it to the attention of the developer was kind of like well, too bad. Batzli: One of the condition~ in the staff report currently, and you're at a disadvantage is that these things need to be addressed and run by our engineering department. I don't kno~ that we can do anything else right now because we don't have the data. We have to do that but that type of information will need to be given to them and they'll take a look at that. Pete Kurth: Okay. ~gain, my concern was I guess is that, are we looking at this as an individual project or are we looking at it globally for the whole area? It seems to be, and again I as a resident out there for 3 years, the whole area has ~ot a drainage 'problem and so the water table is very high and maybe we need to take a look at something other than 3ust surface drainage for the area. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. Do you have something new that hasn't been discussed? Jim Domholt: I do. Batzli: Okay. Jim Domholt: Jim Domholt, 825! West Lake Court. Just a comment. The comment was made that the reduction as far as the units, part of it was going to be at this end and shift everything. It was Just a comment that ...look at in the placement of this road in terms of where it e~ties right onto the...so it doesn't empty right on a curve and might become a hazardous entrance out there onto Lake Susan Hills. It sounds like it's going to move cl(~ser towards the cro~n of the curve. I don't kno~, I'm not an expert on road designs but I'm concerned' of moving that outlet right on the curve. Batzli: Okay, thank you. ~nd that would bs looked at as well. These plans are so new, I'm not sure that our engineeri~ department has had a chance to look at that. But that would be one of the factors looked at. Does anyone else have any comments for the Planning Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvlna moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted favor and the mot[on carried. The public hear[rig ~as clo~ed. Planning Commission Heettng Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 40 Batzli= Ladd, you've had a long history of looking at. development, of this particular PUD. Conrad: ! can't remember any of it. Batzli: What do you think about the late breaking developments and what do you think about the overall density and the water problems here, tn no particular order. Conrad: there? In no particular order. 30 Ann, the 31~ density. Why was that Olsen: I don't know. I went back through the whole file and we've got different percentages for all the other outlots. They're unusual. Conrad: Impervious surface. Olsen: There's 29~ and some, to be honest where the 9.3~ came from, I can't answer that. That's one of the few things I went to look at. Conrad: The higher density on this parcel, was that based on a comprehensive plan that began and the developer incorporated it into their overall PUD? Or was that based on the developer coming in here many years ago and saying here's our PUD and we want some higher density areas? Olsen: You mean the 9.? Conrad: Yeah, when we put in the three outlots. We knew they were going to be higher. Olsen: Nell we knew that these were going to be medium density and we had another one higher density but yes, because it was part of the PUD, they were also looking at it having higher than the normal density within that R-8 district. Conrad: But was it our initiative? Was it our lead or was it the developers? Olsen: I'm sure it wasn't our lead. Don Patton: Jo Ann, can I address that? ...me to give the background? Olsen: Sure. Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. I worked, I remember Ladd was on the Planning Commission when we brought this thing through in 1987. The plan was done incorporating a comprehensive plan with, the comprehensive plan usually uses some common sense. You don't want single family up against a road if you can help it. You want higher density. That was R-8 in this case, which is the case really of both sides of the road. The single family, again you've looked at the comprehensive plan. It's really a very abstract guideline. The plan that we took on that, there were several things. As a part of the plan we could have had lake lots. We could have taken the lots down to the lake. There wouldn't have been lakeshore. Planning Commission Heating HaTch 17, 1993 - Page There wouldn't have been a city path along there. We chose to go with the PUD to accommodate the city. When [ went through the numbers, again [ realize tonight we're looking at two projects. This was 300 acres that was planned in conjunction with city park and the people that were here at the time. As a part of that we gave over 50 acres of the 300 to the city for parkland, which is certainly a lot more generous than is normally requested. We thought that we had worked out issues to give the city pathways along the park, to get densities. As a part of this particular project we, at the time of that, one of. the, you've got to build what's going to sell. At that time manor homes were very popular. We were looking at stacking. If you look at the other outlots, as we've called them on the PUD, they're 2 and 3 story units that were planned with a lot higher densities. Lot lower coverages. The thing that's happening today, and if you'll look at your market, the society is aging. People ate going back, Tether than two story units, multi-story units they want one level living. I think we've got to live with the time. I think the proposal that's been made tonight with 25 is reasonable with the market and the intent of the PUD that we worked out with the city and the staff back in '87 and I think it's reasonable that you approve it. Conrad: So Don, was it your lead on the high density or was it the City's lead on the high density? Don Patton: The City's. Conrad: Basically we've always been trying to find, and when I say high density, it may mean medium density or high density. It's Just greater density than single family. We're alwa)*~ looking for a place to put it. This area seemed to be a likely place to put it and we were, 'I really don't have a problem with higher density as getting, it's closer to the city. Downtown area and I think we were probably leading the way in terms of finding some places to put medium and high density housing. But always thinking it was to satisfy needs for affordable housing..Affordable is a real key word. Always under pressure from Met Council to do that. And I think we all feel in Chanhassen to some degree that it's good to have affordable housing for the mix of people that we want in OUT City. This, I'm looking at, I see some contradictions of the 31~ obviously versus what they came in at with what our standard is. And I also know that we don't want to set a precedent unless we're willing to set that precedent. Whatever we do here will be done on the other outlots. There's no doubt about it and [ think what Mr. Patton is saying is they're responding to market conditions here. It's probably not achieving what we originally thought would be achieved on this parcel. $o anyway, who cares? Well, I guess we've got to, I have some reactions to it. ! like the design $f the units. I think the stucco is just fine but I do have a problem with the density and I do have a problem with the impervious surface ratio. I'm looking, I would really like the developer to .persuade me, they didn't come in and really do a very good job tonight in persuading me. Not at all. If I wanted to go beyond a standard that was in a development contract, which was 31, which everybody knows you've got to come in and tell me why, and I didn't hear that. We kind of said we're going to upgrade the units. It wasn't a compelling case so until I hear that real compelling case, other than profit, I really have to, I can slip a Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 42 development contract but I can't really at this time slip our zoning standard that we have. I don't have any comments on the drainage. Batzlt: So what would you like? Conrad: Well I guess, I look at this and it Just looks like there is no open space. It looks like we've got a lot of pavement and that bothers me. That's not what we're trying to do. And again, I'm guessing and I'm not looking at numbers and sometimes little sketches are deceiving but it's just, again I think the density is, it seems like a contradiction. wanted higher density but I guess I want higher density with open space or where we're not really cramming people on top of, you know I'm looking for areas that people can go and be and I don't see that in this. So again, think the developer to me didn't make that case tonight and maybe they'd like the opportunity to make a better case for it but I guess the only thing I see right now is to reduce the density. Farmakes: In 1987 was there an issue made with the, the claim is that higher density is what was being asked for that was adjacent to single family homes. Conrad: And we were thinking stacking. We were thinking of putting, we were thinking affordable housing. We're thinking put more units up but we're thinking, make sure there's some green space around. Now I can't. Farmakes: ...affordable housing at $150,000.00 a unit. Conrad: Well it's not. $150,000.00 a unit. Farmakes: That's what the developer just said. Conrad: Right. Farmakes: But in 1987 that wasn't part of-the presentation, is what you ' r e saying? Conrad: I don't know what the presentation was. All I can tell you is that back in that time we were concerned with where can we put some higher density housing and how can we make housing more affordable. Batzli: $o you don't like the fact that there's a totlot going in down the street at Dove Court here, that doesn't count for open space? You want open space on this site, not as part of the overall PUD concept? You know what I'm saying? We're looking at this under a microscope as opposed to the larger overall PUD which is what this gentleman suggested that we're not really doing here. We're focusing in on the tree rather than the forest here. Conrad: And it's a real valid, yeah. Absolutely. We've got to look at it in context of the overall thing but then if we are doing that, then we hold to the 31~ impervious surface that we had in the development contract. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 43 Hancino: Well also across the street from it's going to be'high density so it will even be more dense plus you have industrial on the north side of the high density. So we've got park, medium, single family and a lot of high density there too. Batzli: See I guess I've long possibly been the strongest advocate of open space in the most nebulous use of the term on this commission for the last several years and yet I didn't get that feeling looking at this that that's what I wanted more of. It doesn't help me to put 3 units on there with 3 stories and having a little bit of grass around there. You're going to end up looking at a parking lot or something. Conrad: Back 5 years ago we negotiated a development agreement and the developer has the right to go up to 9 units per acre here but also has to stay in at that 31~ impervious surface. Batzll: But do you want to see, you know assuming there's a market for a 3 story townhome deal, if there is such a thing or 2 stories and you cram them close together and get some grass growing around the 'edges. Is that what you'd rather see? Conrad: Brian I don't know but I do know that when you want to change the agreement, I think a key. All of a sudden, when you do want to change what the agreement is, I think you should make a .compelling case and all of a sudden we're focused right on this parcel. So again, if we want to change it from a 31~ impervious surface ratio, then Z think the developers have to persuade me that this is a much better plan and that we're getting something for going up to a 45~. $o in other words, I think I don't have to look at the rest of the parcel right now because that was already negotiated and they have their rights to do a high density. Batzli: $o you would kind of make this equivalent to Lundgren Bros coming in and saying we don't want condos up on the Summit area. We're going to put in single family and make a compelling case to change the development agreement, because they're changing it on this particular lot. Conrad: And I think in Lundgren's case they did and we Itstened and we changed it. But here it, I didn't hear a good case. Batzli: Would you like to address the Commission? Don Patton: Well if I could just, Don Patton again. If I could just ask. I think the homeowners, ask them. Would they rather have a 3 story unit with 31~ coverage in their back yard or-what's being proposed like this, which is one story. Which, most of these I think they could probably see over because of the change in elevation. Pat VanAsh: I'll respond to that. When we were talking about this earlier and we said, if I understood you correctly. To start with, that you were proposing to lower the number of units or that you were agreeing with the fact that the number of units should be lowered. Conrad: Because, to open up the space. To get the impervious surface ratio that we agreed on. Planning Commission Heettng ~arch ~7, 1993 - Page 44 Pat VanAsh: However, lowering the number of units, I ~uess somewhere along the line you lost me. When you were talking about lowering the number of units yet you're increasing the density. Conrad: You increase density by going up. You increase density by either making houses smaller or putting them on top of each other. So this land, absolutely when this was thought, when you ~ay this is zoned for up to 9 units an acre, that means they go up because only 31~ of the land could be covered by impervious surface. $o the intent $ years ago was to go up. That was the agreement. You know there's a mi'x. When you put in a PUD there's just a mix. As Mr. Patton said, they gave up some rights to put some things on the lake and the city gave them rights to go into smaller lot sizes so it's a whole combination of stuff. But now they're asking us to change that. And then it gets kind of. Pat VanAsh: So what was good 5 years ago, good today? That's the question...as far as Brian saying that he felt that they should...become more aggressive as far as saving those trees and more. aggressive on whatever pushing the law or whatever it takes to do that. Okay, that same point to me would hold true in this case. 3ust because it was good 5 years ago...$ years ago we decided this. It's too much work to change it or whatever, and just streamroll ahead with it regardless of whethe~ it's good for us or who it's good for. That doesn't make sense. Conrad: I don't know that we've changed our impervious ratio. In Chanhassen we kind of like open spaces and we sort of strive for that so that's a standard that we have set for the entire city. So that one kind of is something that I don't like to give up a great deal. Yeah, there's a negative out there and you're obviously approaching it. Instead of having 27 families as neighbors, you could end up with 45 ~amilies as neighbors, you're right. Pat VanAsh: Right, and that's what I'm saying. Conrad: And you don't want that. Pat VanAsh: Exactly. No. Conrad: And I'm not willing to set a precedent' to change a zone. I guess that's the other thing. There's a potential to set a precedent here, especially within the PUD. It would be hard to tell the next developer no. Pat VanAsh: And there's also another point to make here as far as if you go higher you know and less land coverage or whatever the term was that you use the 31~, whatever that was and start going up. Okay, that's going to reduce the price of each individual unit or whatever. That is not in keeping with the property values in that surrounding neighborhood. In our neighborhood. Batzli: Okay. Your point is well taken. You need to keep in mind also, and think about this, in case we table it, that' your comments earlier were directed towards forcing them to do what you're now saying you don't want. That's something you've got to keep-in mind too. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 45 Pat VanAsh: No, I understand. I understand what you're saying. However my comment Nas, that we would like to see less density. I did not say that ! wanted to see it go up. Batzli: But by reducing units you're going to end up increasing density, reducing impervious. Pat VanAsh: However that part of the point was not being discussed in my previous comments. As far as the units going up. You understand what I'm saying? 8atzli: Yeah, I know. Farmakes: Is there a height limitation in medium density? Batzli: I don't know. I'm sure there is. Mancino: Do you know what it is? Batzli: We've closed the public 'hearing. These were all Ladd's comments. Ladd, are you done with your comments? Conrad: I'm done. Batzli: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I'll give it a shot. Self contained is a very good word for this development. You know I guess as long as the developer feels he knows his market, he's going to bear the risk in terms of if he's going to sell this. My former residence, I came from a.zero lot line. I didn't care for it and I'll never live in there again. In a zero lot line. I guess my comments are going to be directed towards, in looking at the landscape, it looks like there's trees on each one of the front yards. Is that correct? Olsen: With the individual ones? Harberts: Yeah. That's how I'm interpretting that. Olsen: Yeah. Harberts: We've got signage going in. We've got evidentally some lighting will go in. It's quite a bit of stuff for this area. I guess I question, you know trees are nice in the front yard but are we getting too much? I have a concern with some of the site. Sitings you know with the 2 way traffic. If you're putting trees all over. You've got your light poles. You're going to put your signage. Are we getting too much in something like this? Olsen: Within the park and drive area...? Harberts: Yeah, for the internal traffic control. I have a little concern. Evidentally Safety must have looked at it. This one driveway. Let's see over by unit number 25. I'm trying to envision how a car will Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 46 back out trying to maneuver itself if at the same time we've got a car coming in. Making sure again the sighting so I guess I'm really concerned with the amount of landscaping, our stgnage, our lighting. ~li of that that's going to be put into this contained area. My other concerns again with the internal traffic flow. If you look at units number 7 and number 18, from the fire safety and I guess I'm looking at it from the. transit perspective...goes down the wrong way, how does it turn around? I'm guessing they're going to have to back it up around. 01sen: They designed that so the trucks don't even have to go down it. They can back around in there but also that's why they have the loop street now...so all are within 150 feet where the truck can be 150 feet away and still service that. Harberts: Okay, so there's not the concern about the... I guess it's Just really directed towards everything that's going to go into this area with landscaping, signage, lights, of that nature. This is getting, are we going to start affecting some of the siting for the internal traffic. Some of the safety things. Trees are nice but maybe a bed of flowers is just as good considering how tight this is. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry. With regard to item number 15. They talked about the revised site plan shall include one visitor parking space per 6 units. Boy I'd like to know where you're going to put that 1 parking spot per 6 units. Olsen: Their revised plan. has shown 4. Harberts: Is it on there? Olsen: Yeah. Harberts: Oh okay. Okay, I missed that one. Sorry. Olsen: Well you obviously haven't seen it since we just got it this afternoon. Harberts: Well I can tell you that the coloring of the, I guess the open space provided me a little bit more comfort level. You know I came to Chanhassen and I live just off of Frontier and I have 3/4 of an acre and as far as I'm concerned it's not enough space for me. But I guess it helped me with the comfort level but if this is zoned for-medium density, that's what it says and I guess I like the plan from that perspective. But again, my issues are really run along the internal circulation and safety with everything that has to go in there from the city perspective. Batzl i: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I'm going to be brief here. I agree with Ladd's assessment and I would support this proposal if we reduce the impervious surface to 35~. We could move it along if we changed condition number 2 on the recommendations to read that. ~nd the other thing, as far as the conditions are concerned would be number 3. I think that is really not the developer's issue as it relates to our interaction with Carver County and I would suggest that we handle that on a separate basis. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 47 Batzli: Has anything been done about that? Olsen: Nell we're hopefully going to meet with them next week. The reason we added that as a condition was just so as this goes through the process we could see if the Council and Planning Commission is in support of petitioning that. Ns'r® going to meet with Carver County again hopefully next week. They're going to discuss whether or not even just the trail can be located in the right-of-way. How much right-of-way is necessary and if the Unnecessary'right-of-way can be vacated. So nothing's been done at this time. The City has the ability to petition such a request. Batzli= Nhat does it do to their impervious coverage if they eithe~ vacate some of it or remove the trail? Olsen: Oh it helps. Batzli: How big of a percentage? Are Ne talking Olsen: Nell you'd have to measure it by the length. I think I asked you to look at that didn't I? You were going to work that out. The trail has. already been removed from the impervious coverage percentage. It began at 49~ so we're not including that. Batzli: Okay, so they're not going to gain anything? Olsen: As far as the trail, no. But if they vacate right-of-way, then that land that's vacated becomes, they have the potential of up to 15 feet time, whatever it is. The distance on Powers Boulevard. Batzli: Is there a likelihood that that's going to happen? Olsen: I don't know. You know nobody's ever very anxious to give up right-of-way that they might use. Batzll: Okay. Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina= That's it. Batzli: 3os. Scott: I think the points are well taken and I would concur 'with the other commissioners. One thing, just to comment for city staff is that, I don't particularly like to see the negotiation situation where it's, a developer says this many units and the city staff says no, this is what we're looking at and then they come in here. I mean you're in a situation where you say hey, this is the deal. If you want the deal, this is the number. And if you can't get the number, it's no deal. Okay. And I'm seeing this over here, over here. I mean but anyway, no more comments. Olsen: So you're saying 35~ max or 31~ max? Scott= Nhat I'm saying your recommendation which was not 40 but 35. Actually it was stated at 32 in the original PUD but 35 I think is, ! Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 48 think 35 will work. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes= First question I have is, this is part of the 5 year agreement like on the previous development? Olsen: Yes. Farmakes: The major question I would have again ts, it would seem to me that we certainly should be consistent on how we treat that. If' we get a legal opinion whether or not we're dealing with 1987, which I am very uncomfortable with, versus 1993 which we're all here and now. I do not understand why we would enter a development agreement of-that length. If we look at the city, 50~ of our population' has increased in that amount of time. Certainly the world is a different place in half a decade and our standards have changed. We've held elections. Several elections since then. I'm sure half of our commissions have Changed since then. We have a difficult time remembering the history of these projects and what. the motivation at the time was. And certainly from the aspect of real estate, I think the applicant himself said that what sold then isn't ~hat sells now. Times change and so do governments and so do applicants. I would certainly recommend that we get that sorted out as a first block and until we do that I would recommend tabling this. It seems to me that we would not want to soften our position on that until we know what that is. By selectively approving a part of the PUD on '87's terms versus '93's and vice versa on another part of that development. [ am going to continue on the basis that we're going on '87 on my comments, just to give you my opinion. The level of density that I'm looking at here, whether it's fitting or not, seems to me to be' more high than medium. At least from an appearance of an overhead... I would certainly expect at least if we go ahead with this to follow Ladd's comments in regards to the impervious surface. I also am uncomfortable looking at these plans with a couple of units scribbled off on my plans that I'm looking at and so on. It's difficult to assess that. I'm also very concerned about what the thinking was on the part of the property units, I believe they're listed as 4, 3, 2 and 1. Possibly 5 that are adjacent to the single family homes. It seems to me that very little thought there in softening the connection there was given to the adjacent property owners and they have legitimate concerns there. It seems to me that if you're looking at softening that type of thing, the detail on the back of these homes, flower boxes, shutters, awnings, da, da, da, anything would at least conform to help these homes in the rear which there's a lot of in these type of developments. Would help them conform better to the front of the home. And I don't think it's our place here to start specifying what that is but I think that if you can soften those issues where it looks like the front of your building is well developed, well thought out, and you get to the back of it. Well, that's supposed to be where nobody's supposed to see it or that's next to the trash dumpster and not a penny goes into that. Certainly the consideration against the properties that face the single family homes and I believe actually following all the way around, the properties that would face to the rear along the walkway of Powers Boulevard, certainly would be a visual impact of the development. And coming back again to the philosophical question here. I was not sitting here in 1987 and when I Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 49 look at PUD's and I ask myself, what are we gaining here. And it seems to me that I'm having a hard time buying the argument, although it may very well be true, in 1987 that we wanted more higher density homes. That hasn't been my experience sitting here. I can't recall ever sitting here and hearing the Commission saying, we really want more density. Give it to us. It's always been the opposite. And in looking back at that, I'm asking myself what are we gaining here from a PUD? We aren't saving any trees. We're not, we're perhaps offering an alternative form of housing which is being brought forth. The older population, although the average age is going up into the 40's I believe which is certainly not immobile yet. At least that ! know of. And the other issue of course is addressing the price of the-home. Now we're looking at the price of $150,000.00 for these houses so ! don't see us serving, that's above the medium price home I believe in Chanhassen. So I don't see that we're serving any range there. So I'm asking myself over and over again, what are we getting here and although it may be frustrating for the applicant that in 1987 he heard something else, the world changes. I'm looking at this in 1993 and I think that's the way that I should be looking at it. Batzli: If it comes back, what do you want to see? What do you want to see addressed? Farmakes: The issues that ! listed. ! believe ! categorized which ones that if this does go ahead, which ones we'd be lookin~ at. I think there should be less .density. Less impervious surface but in the end result I'd have to say that I have a real problem seeing the need for this as a PUD. As part of that PUD and that commitment and ! go back again, is this a commitment that the city has still made because I think if it hasn't, we should take a long hard look at this in 1993. Conrad: Excuse me Jeff, but just remember when this is part of a big project. Farmakes: No, I understand that. Conrad: And we negotiated other stuff that the city got, including parkland and things like that. Farmakes: I understand that but it had a finite commitment as I understand it. I'm awaiting a legal opinion on that. Certainly in real estate you do have finite contracts and the issue of performance, we have a lawyer here and I 'm not going to get into that with my standpoint but the question is, how open ended is that commitment? 20 years from now do they come forward and haven't developed a chunk of land and are we still going to be developing by '87 standards? I'm not suggesting that we be unreasonable here but it seems to me that that requires a legal opinion here before we start doing that. And how this affects the other development. Mancino: Mr. Chair I have nothing new to add. Batzli: Okay. Tom Reese: Mr. Chairman? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page $0 8atzli: Yes sir. Tom Reese: I appreciate the house and I'd just like to make a comment. My name is Tom Reese and I'm with Lake Susan Hills Partnership. I've been at this since 1972 and I 'va seen a lot of different faces. I recognize Ladd. [ appreciate ali your volunteer work. Believe me. I think I can add something of credibility that might help some of you with your thinking at the moment and that is very basically, this could have been a single, total single family development. That's what the mode was in the 70's. I could go back and give you history, which I won't for time but at one time U.S. Homes had a contract on ali this for single family homes. And part of developing, ~1Klingelhutz, and I can go back but for the sake of conclusion, the PUD was put together with the city in concert and they insisted on high density. I underscore insisted high density. You probably remember some of that. So this land was planned accordingly so the City of Chanhassen would have high density. They were emphatic about it. There was no two ways about it so this planned unit development has been progressing for a good number of years. Revised again in 1987 and as each addition to the Planned Unit Development continues you see what happens. We're tonight talking about a unit that has a density requirement far greater, as you know than what's being proposed tonight. Now once the single family's put together and you're trying to bring together something that would form continuity as best you can. You've talked about what could be zoned. If someone were to bring a project here that would be 36 unit density with the proper space and stacking and so on, you would approve it correct? Given it met all the rest of the requirements. Is that a correct observation? Batzli: We're not going to say yes for fear that we might see it next week. Tom Reese: ...with threatening discussion, it's hopefully eniighting some of the folks that are asking for what happened in the past. Is that understood? Batzli: Yeah. Tom Reese: Okay. I don't think that that has. in continuity with what the neighborhood as it was developed. When it was developed and while we're trying to put it together so I'd like to consider some of the history. I'd be happy to talk in detail at another time if anybody would wish. But it's difficult to work in a partly cloudy scenario and I think that's what some of what we're hearing tonight is bringing up all those partly cloudy's when it was really emphatically demanded by the city. The concessions given to the city to go along with it to make the PUD as it. is today. I hope, I've tried to enlighten a bit about it and then you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Farmakes: Could I make a quick comment to that? 8atzli: No. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page $1 Farmakes: Real quick? Two seconds. I think that the issue that I was talking about was with several points that weren't relevant to what you just talked about. Although I agree with what you said. I think that the points that I was making went beyond that. If you want me to clarify it further I will, otherwise I'll withdraw it. Batzli: No. I think we need to move on here. I have several comments but I'll agree with what Ladd said and that ~as, they're changing what's in the contract currently. We can argue whether we should look at that contract or not. ! personally believe that we need to take a look at what was done in the overall scheme of things, and not focus so intently perhaps on one density. But the fact of the matter is, they are changing the density here. I don't believe they've made a compelling case to change that and the fact that they're changing it means, that's why we've focused in on this particular piece of property. So what I would like to .see done is bring this back and give the applicant a second whack at it to tell us why they should increase the impervious from what was agreed originally. And they may be lo~ering the density do~n, whatever, but the impervious is really I think what kind of bothers me. Going from the 32 or whatever it was agreed, up to I don't know where, somewhere in the 40's. 35's our current standard. We've not really heard a compelling reason other than profit motive and this is what's going to sell. Well, you know, we're concerned here about setting precedence in other parts of this PUD or perhaps in other parts of the city and we're trying to do what the residents want around us want. We're trying-to get a good development. We're trying to do something that will sell because i.t doesn't help us to build two units and then it just stops right there. -But the problem is that we're faced with 'a couple of different issues and one of those.things is in fact setting a precedent that we're, the next guy comes in, we can't stop him or her from doing the sa~e thing. So what I would like to see is potentially a motion to table this. I kno~ that me Just spent an hour and a half and it seems like we're putting off the decision but I think we need a couple of things. One is, for Jeff I think we need a definitive answer from the attorney regarding whether we can just start from scratch and use '93 standards. I think probably a majority of the people on the commission maybe don't feel like they need to impose the brand new standards but they would at least like to hear a more compellin~ case as to why this development makes sense and it's not in compliance with the agreement from '87. So is there a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Co~ission table Case No. 87-3 PUD until a later date. Mancino: ! second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Hancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat #87-3 PUD for Prairie Creek To~nhomes, 3a~per' Development for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 52 F~IC H~ARIN~: HON-C(~ORMING .USE PERMIT FO~ SCHMID'S /~:RE$ R~CRE~TI~ BFJ~CHLOT. PubItc P~esent: Neme Gary Car lson Dale Keehl 3831 West 62nd Street 3841 West 62nd Street Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman BatzIt called the public hearing to order. Gary Carlson: Good evening. My name is Gary Carlson. I live at 3831 West 62nd Street. I live in the original homestead on the Schmid's Acres Tracts. It was built in 1895 and I've lived there for the last 23-24 years. I want to wish you ail a Happy St. Patrick's Day, although I don't know if he'ii forgive you for not celebrating with only an hour left in the day. I appreciate the work that you do for the city. You do a good Job. I Just wish there was a way that those that just want to go for quick swim could have an earlier meeting and let the large problems of the city be worked out in the later hours. The Schmtd's Acre beachlot was established in 1914. We simply wish to co~ply and obtain a non-conforming use permit for Schmid's Acre recreational beaohlot. We describe the nature of the use in our application, so if you would look at that, I'll go through the application quickly. The number of homes is approximately 25. The length of our shoreline is 50 feet wide and we're SO foot wide from the shoreline all the way to Minnewashta Parkway. That's the new improved parkway that you're adding. That you're improving. Our useage, which you want us to define to you, is one dock and the length at times is, or whenever it was made in '81 but we do have extra sections and the legal limit for Minnewashta, we've never used 'the full length. We're only asking for the one dock unless the lake goes low, and then we may put out the full whatever. I think it's ZOO feet on Lake Minne~ashta but we typically only put out about $0 feet. But we may put out more feet. We've had one dock since 1914. It's a pre-existing use. It's a grandfathered use. We just simply want to let you know what that use was and we want to, we understand the City's interest in restricting the use of the lake. We want to, that is also our interest is to continue. Batzli: Can you comment on two or three particuIar things. Gary Carlson: Yeah, run down quickly. Batzli: On our survey we have very little use made in 1981, which is the year that we have been attempting to limit your use to that level of use in 1981. You asked for several things which go over and above that use and maybe if you can just comment on these 2 or 3 things. One' is you'd like to add a canoe-rack. You want to increase the number of boats which are docked and you want to put a couple of the boats on land. Were those things done in 1981 that you had boats on land and a couple on the dock? Gary Carlson: Like I say, it's a lake access that's been there since 1914 and some years it's used more 'than others. Some people that have the use Planning Commission Heating March 17, !993 - Page 53 of it have never even set foot on it. Some people that have the use of it are down there every weekend. But it's a very limited use and there is no, hardIy any physical evidence that it is a lake access because it is, the creek is entirely enclosed within that $0 feet. Batzli: But in the past has there been 2 boats on land, 2 on the dock? Gary Carlson: Okay, let me run again down these. One dock. $o that's only one dock. We're not saying. Batzli: We're going to give you the dock. I don't want to talk about the dock. Gary Carlson: Okay. Number of boats, I or 2. The reason for that is not to continue. We never have continually moored boats there. We're not asking to moor any in the lake as other accesses do. Other accesses you look at their access, all you'll see is 12 boats moored out from nobody's home. Aanenson: Maybe I can make a clarification. The ordinance Only addresses if you're going to put them .overnight. If you're going to launch them at the boat launch and store them during the day, run to the house and get lunch, that's fine. We don't care about that. The ordinance only addresses if you're going to leave them there overnight. Gary Carlson: Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask you is the boat launch, canoe rack of exceptional size or parking lot. Those would all require us to come to you and ask for a building permit. If we were to build a parking lot or build... Aanenson: No. You have existing. You can drive onto that right now. Gary Carlson: No, existing is, the reason we're asking for 1 or 2 docks is okay, if we want to leave the boat there overnight and usually. Batzli: The ones on the dock you want to leave there overnight? Gary Carlson: Well we have in the past at the dock but it's not a full summer's dockage. You know what I mean? Batzli: Right, but there has been use during the summer of you leaving boats there overnight? Gary Carlson: Yeah. Ne have left boats there overnight. And it's only, if you and your brother are going to fish today and Sunday. Batzli: I leave my boat there overnight and then I pull it out. Gary Carlson: You leave the boat overnight and then we pull it out. Batzli: And how many have been on land during the summer in the .past? Gary Carlson: Because it's a non, it's next to undeveloped land and the one owner to the right, you don't have any security there. We haven't in Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 54 the past and we don't want to in the future. We just, if the occasion runs that we're going to go waterskitng Saturday and Sunday, and somebody in the association elects to leave their boat there, we don't want to be out a permit or we don't want to have a citation. Batzii: So you're looking at boats that are fishing boats and/or boats that you can puli a skier with? - Gary Carlson: Small ski boats, yeah. Batzli: And in the past have you launched from that property or is this something that you would want to build? Gary Carlson: No. The reason I have a canoe rack is because traditionally we've chained it to a tree and as the lots on either side of us develop into a home, they might say a little stand that you can lock your canoe down. And that again is just if the kids are on summer break or they're going to canoe for the full two weeks or one week. 8ut if anyone leaves their canoe there for a month it will be gone you know. Batzli: So there have been canoes left there chained to trees? Gary Carlson: Chained to trees', yeah. Batzli: But how about launching your fishing boats or your small ski boats. Gary Carlson: Okay, that's the next point. It also states in the history report there was no swimmin~-beach but you know. Aanenson: The ordinance doesn't address that. That's really a moot point because we don't regulate that. We're not goi~ to stop anybody from swimming there. Gary Carlson: It's a hard sand beach so we swim there and that's the only reason we go down there is to swim there and so it does have, has always had a swimming beach. The boat launch, if you've looked at the access, it's a straight little gravel road and it will have a new approach off Minnewashta Parkway. They'll be improving that approach. And the little gravel driveway goes straight into the lake and it's not an improved launch and we don't want it to be a launch where 12 boats launch there every Saturday or night. The only reason we use the launch is if the public thing is full. You know they only all'ow 40 some boats over there. And like I say, it's a very small access and there's only 25 or so people that have the right to use it. I have yet to see more than 3 people, 3 different families there at one time in all the 23 years I've been there so it's very limited useage boat area. The only thing is if I'm going to have waterskiing and I didn't get up by 9:00 and get over to the public to launch and there's no place on Minnewashta to launch, the-public I can't leave my, so then I back in. ! put my boat in. We have a little gravel driveway that goes straight into the lake. It's not an improved. We're not going to put in a cement boat ramp. Batzli: We probably wish you would but okay. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, i993 - Page 55 Mancino: How long has it been there? Ho~ long has the boat launch been there? Gary Carlson: The road has always been there since I've been there. Mancino: Okay, but according to this .inventory, there isn't one. There wasn't one in 198i. 1986 or 199l. Gary Carlson: It depends on the lake level. It depends on what the ice heave is that year and unless I go down there with my skidster loader and remove that ice heave, then you can't make a smooth launch. So only a person with a 4 wheel drive would launch there. Batzli: Okay. Do you understand the position we're in here. What we're looking for actual documentation of increased use over what our survey said was there in i98l. And we have your best recollection but we don't have anything we can kind of sink our teeth into. Gary Carlson: Well I can bring, a lot of the people that use it in the 70's and 80's have retired and moved off of the lots. We have new families in there and they haven't launched there yet. $o we have always launched a boat there but we're not going to be a launch for 25 homeowners and then they're calling their aunts and uncles and friends and relatives. If I can get into the fact that it can only be used and we .ouid like that use to continue, it can only be used by the heirs and assigns of Schmid's Acre Tract. And by the way, can only be used for the private use of the heirs so that means I can't invite the public. In fact the City of Chanhassen owns one of the $chmid's ~cre tracts and so does the City of Shorewood owns one. Batzli: Do you have covenants amongst the tracts? Gary Carlson: The thing is on .this particular parcel. We're coming in as a courtesy to the city to get this permit. It's grandfathered number one. Number two, it lies entirely within a private person's property. It's as if Kathryn owned a lake lot and she gave us permission from now on for the other people who live across the street from her to use and come onto her property. This is privately owned by a private party, not me. So it's not like the normal lake access where the p~ple hold it in common. Batzli: I believe it. Gary Carlson: We have the right to come on to Kenneth Durr's property, the 50 feet wide strip to ingress and egress the lake and that was set up by $chmid and his heirs in 1914 when. he platted. So that his relatives that owned off lake could use that and we now live on his properties and we don't want to expand it beyond the 25 families who now use it. Batzli: Okay. We may have questions for you when we, thank you for coming. It's an interesting one. Gary Carlson: We want to leave it with it's current nature and there's no improvements we can put on it without going throtLgh a permitting proce~ of the city so it's basically so that you can have that defined and not Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 56 let it get expanded. We don't want to expand it. What we're asking for is just the minimum. I mean you've got to be able to put one dock there occasionally and you have to be able to go swimming there and you like to, if we need to launch a boat, the road goes right into the lake. Batzlt: Okay, thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Yes please. Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street. I Just purchased the house last fail from a Mr. Gelsich who I've worked with for the past 24 years. -As far as I don't, I 'ye never used the access. It was one ot= the reasons that I bought the house was because I have two young boys and we like to fish and stuff and I thought it would be a nice way to get to the lake and not necessarily use it as a boat launch. I don't need that or to leave a boat on the lake. I just like a place I can get to the lake. Like I said, I've known the Gelsich's for 20 some years and how they used it with their boys and as far as leaving boats there and that, it was Just an overnight thing and that, I was on the access a couple times with them and I ~ould just like to see it kept so I could use it with my boys. Thank you. Batzti: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Scott moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Okay Jeff, why don't you start. Farmakes: I've been cons[stent on this thing and [ want to remain consistent. Batzii: I know. I really shouldn't have started with you should I. Farmakes: I think the ordinance is pretty clear and I'm really not going to go on. The applicant kno~s apparently from discussing it here what the ordinance, the intent of the ordinance is to do and what we're arguing about here perhaps is not access but expanding the use. If the city took a survey there, was down there and one of the boats happened to be missing from the dock, I could take that as a plausible event, and I don't think that that's being inconsistent. The City's tact with that survey was not totally inclusive and I think that there's some reasonable leeway there. The di1=ference o1= what you're askin~ seems to me to be pretty slight and I would be fine with the extra boat versus the survey. The issue of storage, I don't think that we've gotten sttoer critical with the issue o1= storage off of the dock itself. The issue of access though, ! 'm not sure if I, that would seem to me to be an expansion o1= use. I1= you were to improve that and utilize that for a true boat launching and that would seem to me to be inconsistent with what we can do. That's it. Batzli: But you would agree that they should have a boat launch?' Farmakes: No. That would be an expansion of use. ~nd that would be inconsistent with what we've been doing. Planning Commission fleeting Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 57 Batzlt: Let me ask one question. On the Issue of launching. You can still launch your boat over at the public launch. You just can't park over there. Or do they actually cut it off after 45 people have launched? Gary Carlson= I think after so many boats and trailers have gone through the gate. Otherwise they can't...or you have to watt for a boat and trailer to leave the park. I supposed, I don't 'know If at the gate you explained to the person at the gate that you Just wanted to launch and take the boat somewhere else. I'm not sure on that either. I guess I didn't cover the parking either. We don't all go down and park our cars. If it's the 4th of July and he has all his relatives, all 14 of them. In other words, if there's a little family picnic there andyou park your cars...and they park all the way to the driveway out, there will be 10 cars there but we're not asking to have any cars parking. We're not asking to expand on the parking. So if there's 10 cars down there...but we're not asking for a 10 car parking lot either. Batzli= Did you have something? Dale Keehl: I do think you can launch over there and drive out. I used to know the guy that took care of it over there and I do think that is possible. Aanenson: I think that's what a lot of the other associations do too. They can't dock overnight. Batzii: Right. 3ce. Scott: I don't know. This ts a personal comment and'not necessarily made as a Planning Commissioner but this ts my first shot at a lake situation. I don't know. Has there been any problems with how these people have been using the dock? I mean it seems like we're trying to go back into the history and nobody really has a good-beat on it and the one day survey'e not an indication of use I guess. Has there been any reason to, or any indication that these people have not been utilizing this piece of land for whatever it's supposed to be utilized, I mean has there ever been any problem with these people? Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. Scott: Well, and I don't expect you to know fuI1 knowledge. As far as I'm concerned, I think Ne should just, they don't .have a tremendous amount of space to work with. It doesn't seem like there's heavy use. I think we should grant them their non-conforming use. That's'the end of my .. discussion. Batzli: So do you feel comfortable with what they've asked for tn view of what we think they've had tn the past? Scott: We don't really know what they've had in the past and I don't think you can determine it from a one shot aerial photograph or somebody wandering down there so I'd take them on their word and let it go with it, Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 58 Batzli: Okay. That's a fair assessment. I think Matt may present the opposing viewpoint here though. Go ahead. Scott: Which is fine. Ledvtna: You know IfeeI that we do have to evaluate the survey and take what we can from that survey. I agree with Jeff's position. A boat can be out on the lake. We've gone over that many times. I don't need to do that here. So I would be in favor of allowing one boat to be docked overnight at the dock. The other conditions are fine but I would draw the line at the boat launch because I think there's other issues that are associated with a boat launch that relate to environmental effects and control and things like that. So I would not support approving the boat launch. Batzli: Parking's okay? Boats on land are okay? Ledvina: That's all fine. Everything 'else is fine as far as I'm concerned. And again the major issue that we've been dealing with is boats docked and I would see that 1 would be a reasonable situation for this beachlot. Farmakes: Well it's i or 2. Batzli: Well we've got to come up with a number eventually. Ledvina: I would support Farmakes: There's a 50~ difference. Batzli: Or lO0~ if it's 1. Okay Ladd. Conrad: I don't believe the boat launch is acceptable. I think the other requests are okay. Boats docked can be, well it's not docked. Boats on land. I think we're asking how many can be on land., right? Aanenson: Yeah. Some of those associations, I think it was like Pleasant Grove, they had actually boats for fishing that they left on land and they just brought the motors down. So it's question of should we qualify that' They're always there. That's kind of what they do here. They tie them up or chain them up to a tree. Conrad: So again, ! think !'m okay with everything other than the boat launch. Batzli: Do you want ! or 2 boats? Conrad: Batzli: Both cases? On land and on dock? Conrad: I think we're only, I was responding to a recommendation that, I didn't think we were making a recommendation on the dock. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 59 Aanenson: Well you have to decide if you feel it's consistent. They're saying that they had one dock. We're saying, whoever did the survey in '81 saw one dock. The 45 feet again, that can fluctuate with the level of the lake. What the ordinance says is 50 feet maximum or to get a depth of 4 feet. So really if you feel like that's consistent that they had a dock, and he says they had a dock, if you feel that's. Conrad: The dock's fine. Boat on land. One boat on land. Boats on dock overnight, no. Swimming beach is okay. I find 'a conflict between the one 1981 inventory where we showing off street parking of 5 to 6 and on our inventory in 'SI, '86 and '91 showing no, no, no. I don't understand that. But on the other hand, I'm not hearing any neighbors complaining so I guess I could accept the off street parking. Batzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: Just no to the boat launch. Everything else I agree with. I'd like 2 boats so I know where he's coming from. Batzli: Okay. Mancino:. Well after hearing you wise people, I'm for the dock. street parking. No boat launch. 1 canoe rack. 1 boat on land. docked. Is there anything else? I think that's it. 10 off I boat Batzli: Okay. I think what you're hearing so far is that we don't have a problem with your use other than the launch and what you need to do is, what we're going to about to do, I get the feeling, is we're going to make a recommendation. If you can present evidence to the City Council that your property was used as a launch back in 1981, you will probably convince them to also include the launch but you haven't given us enough evidence to feel comfortable giving that to you here tonight. If you can find pictures. If you can have people come in. Whatever. What we've been trying to do. is put the burden on the applicant, if it's above what we thought was there, you have the burden to prove to us that it was used in that way. We're not trying to take it away, something that you've been doing but you need to give us something so that we can hang our hat on it and say yeah, go ahead and continue to use it that way. $o between now and when this goes to City Council, if you have a picture of somebody launching their boat,'whatever you know. Harberts= Can it just be a written letter? Batzli: Well we've gotten those from people as well. We've gotten affidavits from people saying. Aanenson: Pictures, yeah. Batzli: Pictures, whatever. But we didn't get-really much of anything and I think there was Just a level of discomfort that by making it a launch, you've increased the intensity. Whereas a couple boats on there, fishing boats, things, that's not a real intense use. -And that's what this whole thing is intended to do is to keep these small beachlots from Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 60 becoming real intense and irritating the people around them and over crowding the lake. Okay? Gary Carlson: I think we should accept your recommendation... Batzl i '. Okay. Gary Carlson: Because two things will happen. First of all,' when you say launch, a boat and trailer...If someone sees that it's a, the only people who wll! launch will be my neighbor...but if you say launch and I tell everyone there's going to be a launch. Batzli: Well we're going to say no launch in a minute so don't worry about that. Gary Carlson: If you say no Iaunch, fine. Batzll: Okay. Do we have a motion? Ledvtna: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot permit application by Schmid's Acre according to or consistent with the request and speclfically with these exceptions. The number of boats docked to i. Number of boats on land being 1 and an exception to the request for a boat launch. No boat launch. Batzlt: Is there a second? Manci no: Second. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Manctno seconded that the Planning Comml~lon r~nd approval of Non-Conforming U~e Permit for a Recreational Beachlot for Sch~id's ~cre~ aith the continued use of one dock, 1 boat parked at the dock, i boat parked on land, off street parking for lO, 1 canoe rack, and no boat launch permitted. Al! voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Batzlt: When does this go to the Council? Aanenson: It should be on April 12th. p~BLIC HE~IIN6: CONCEPT PLaN TO El[ZONE PROPERTY FEO~. SS. ~EJ~E~L BUSINESS TO'PUD. PLANNED [INIT DEVELOPMENT FOE EXPANSION OF ~ OFFIC[ ~ ~~CTURIN6 F~ClLITY LOC~TFp AT 7900 NONTEFa~y DRIVE, WEST (3NE EXPANSION. DOU6 HRNSON. WEST ONE PROPERTIES_. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I live in Minnetonka. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 6! Batzli: I'm sorry. Before you start in, I have one more question of Jo Ann. Are you done with the rest of your staff report? Olean: I was just going to finish to say that there used to be 5 users in this building. As Chaska has expanded, they've pushed them out. He, Doug Hanson who will be explaining that he is proposing with this expansion that he will locate his own construction business there also and I believe a plumber. So I think we need to have it clear exactly who would be using that site. Farmakes: Can I ask for some additional site plan, ! guess this isn't site plan review but some concept on how this is in relationship to the Burdick property that still remains behind Target and that road going in. I believe we might have a few drawings in the back of there of Target, but we 'don't see that on any of this. The relationship of this building to the area behind Target and the drive in, the service road that goes back behind there. Olean: Right here is...Market Square... This is Pica Drive and this is where you get into Target... . Farmakes: But there still are some lots I believe behind Target. There's 2 lots. Olean: ..·where the trees are? Farmakes: Okay, down there by your stomach. Batzli: But is this contingent upon, I mean looking at Don's comments here. Is this all contingent upon, rezoning this ~UD can be made contingent upon the HRA selling this hunk of land? Olsen: Nell they have, they own it and they have total control now. Batzli: Yeah but I don't want to rezone this PUD.. Olsen: If the HRA. Batzli: Nell it says here, isn't this hunk, is this a proposed expansion? Is that going on land that's owned by the HRA right now? Olean: Correct. Right. Batzli: So can we make this contingent, because I don't see in any of the conditions that this is contingent upon them getting all the property under common ownership. Olean: Sure you can. Batzli: If they don't do that, then there's no point in us rezoning these individual little parcels PUD. Olean: Exactly · Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 62 Batzli: Okay. Please, go ahead. Doug Hanson: I'm Doug Hanson. I was one of the builders, the partner of Tom Klingelhutz back in '78. We had about 5 previous people as tenants in there. It was office/warehouse. DayCo Concrete.was in there. Vernco Maintenance. Frontier Meats. There was an auto body shop in there and there's another one but ! can't think of what it was. But eventuallY Chaska Machine has taken over the whole operation and they're in a position to expand. They would like to stay there if they could. We would, I have a company, Hanson Hometech. We do residential remodeling. work with my two sons. Steinkraus Plumbing would be another tenant and we would share a small area in the very end of this building. Rbout 2,000 square feet. We would share the office and the secretary/receptionist. That type of thing. Otherwise it's mainly for Chaska Machine. Rnd the future expansion area would be for them also as they grow. There's 5,400 square feet in the proposed expansion... The highway is here and the railroad tracks is here... BatzIi: Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Harberts: I have a comment. Chaska Business Machines as well as the Target area, if you recall when Target came ~fore the Commission there was a transit element involved and it's simply because of the amount of traffic and trips that would probably be generated in the Target area. Chaska Business Machines is one of the businesses that are being targeted for reverse commute opportunities. Basically bringing people from the inner city out to a possible location such as Chaska Business for employment. And because of the location, and what could potentially happen with these other areas, my comment is that I would like to have Southwest Metro involved in the, if this thing goes forward, to add that transit element in here because I see a potential high demand for public bus service to bring potential workers out to this area. Especially with Target...and what I'm seeing right now is basically maybe Just adding like a bus shelter or a bus stop or something in that turn around area. That circle, that cul-de-sac little thing. So I'd like to encourage that Southwest Metro become involved with this conceptual site plan design to insure that it's transit friendly and that it continues to fill that reverse commute strategy. OIsen: By transit friendly you mean that a bus can get in there or a van? Harberts= More a van but Just basically putting maybe a bench or a bus shelter or something. Simply, you know with Chaska Business Machines is expanding. They're going to expand their work force. They've already been identified as a company out in Chanhassen to promote reverse commute. So I just think that they're a top candidate to really focus in on making sure that this facility is transit friendly. That would be basically the same concept that you see presented to you when you looked at the Target site plan. Batzli: Any other comments right now? Okay. Did you have anything else? Doug Hanson: I'm here to answer any questions. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 63 Batzli: Okay. We'll probably ask them in a minute. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to address the Commission? Okay. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to clo~e the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing km~ clo~ed. Mancino: I have one question· Batzli: Go ahead· Mancino: My big question is, is that the comprehensive plan that was done in 1992 designated this property as commercial even when Chaska Machine and Tool were there at the time. I'd just like to hear the rationale behind that. Why did they not, when Chaska Machine and Tool were in there at the time in 1992, designate it as industrial? Or light manufacturing. 8atzli: Because we're trying to get all the manufacturing out of the city and we assumed that once they were ready to leave or we'd buy them out, it would be commercial property. It's downtown. Farmakes: But the ensuing developments that occurred basically boxed in that property from any reasonable access or for potential client, retail client to see it. It just isn't going to happen. You're going to have to know it's back there because you're not going to see it from anywhere else. Mancino: $o commercial, is that only retail or could that be office? Farmakes: Well it possibly could be office. Mancino: It could be an office. $o it could still be commercial and not be retail but be. Farmakes: That's correct· Batzlt: And that's the big issue. Farmakes: Except most of our office buildings are retail. We've heard arguments about that before too. That's what they wind up being. Harberts: But isn't the office industry also telling us that it's going to be another lO years before that market comes back around?- Farmakes: That's how things progressed in development of the city. Eventually come the lawyers... Mancino: The industrial is an anomaly there. The way it looks right now and to keep adding onto it and make it even bigger, it just doesn't fit. That's all I have. Batzli: Jeff. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 64 Farmakes= It would depend on how they would revision that building. I have I think real sympathy that that particular piece of property would not work as a retail and I'm not sure that the foreseeable 'future if it's feasible to consider it as a business area. It is sort of a little hold over pocket from a failed development many years ago of, ! remember seeing, I will build on this site your company sign, I don't know a decade at least. I never saw one of the properties being sold. I'm not sure that this is going to be something that's going to be easy for the City to deal with as to what they're going to do with this. This may be a reasonable alternative. It isn't very low impact area. It's going to be basically surrounded by other buildings and the only way you're going to be able to see it is for a very brief time as you drive over the bridge. Certainly one of the possibilities is giving it a facelift and eliminating any of the types of objectionable industrial use that'd be incompatible such as on site storage of machinery or materials that would be objectionable. Expanding that type of useage I think would be the wrong' way to go. But I think from a conceptual point of how we're looking at this, I wouldn't turn it down flat and say that's not a reasonable alternative to use this property. I'd leave that up to the applicant as to how they would soften that connection of an industrial use with what is on the plan that designates it as a commercial area. In.other words, the more you could make it look like a business building, office building, the better off a case could be made that that was being done as a solution. That's my comment. Batzli: So right now you'd be willing to look at it as a PUD or ~ouldn't you be willing to vote on the concept and rezoning? Farmakes: As I understood it, what we're looking at here today is just the concept itself...correct? Batzli: Right. Farmakes: We're not voting to make this a PUD today? Conceptually yeah. Harberts: What message are we sending to the HRR though? Batzli: Yeah. Farmakes: Well we really don't. Batzli: If we vote on it conceptually that we like it, then they're going to get the impression that we'll approve it or something soften do~n the road. Harberts: Or we cave in on something. Farmakes: That's difficult to do here because we're really looking at a very preliminary concept. What ~e're looking at here. We're not looking at any detailing or what they're planning on doing with the building other than expanding the connection use. Batzli: But it sounds like, I've heard one person say this isn't appropriate. You say maybe, if it's done right. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 65 Farmakes: Correct. Batzli: Okay. Doug Hanson: Could [ say something? Batzli: Sure. Doug Hanson: I plan to follow the building that's there. It's a 20,000 square feet building there and I Just, all you're seeing is another 30 foot and a turn and another 60 foot. And so there's really not much different on the front so I would follow the same site, the same architecture that's there right no~. Farmakes: In long term use for downtown and if you're looking at where in the long term in the market developed for business/office type market, which is not, I don't believe here yet or we haven't seen that demonstrated by our developers. We do have a fairly limited amount of space downtown where that would go so that's another thing for consideration in reviewing this. !'m Just saying that it's how far down the line you wish to look for this type of useage. This is a possible solution for the existing building and ! don't think that !'ye got enough information to go one way or the other. Scott: If from a manufacturing standpoint, could you tell us, and especially me, what happens in that building? Nhat do you do in there? When you manufacture. Manufacturing... Doug Hanson: Okay, it's Chaska'Machine and Tool and punch presses and they make parts for machines. They're shipped all over. Scott: Custom fabrication. Doug Hanson: Yeah. 3ust small, mainly small parts. Scott: $o you guys basically take, your raw materials are metal? Doug Hanson: Yep. Scott: Metal castings? Doug Hanson: No metal, sheet metal. Scott: Pretty much sheet metal? Doug Hanson: Stamped parts and machine parts and things like that. Scott: Okay. So as far as any sort of, and then the scrap, basically a scrap hauler takes it away and recycles it or something? Doug Hanson: Yeah, it's recycled. Right. Scott: Okay. And then as far as, is there any sort of hazardous material that we could probably get some fumes? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 66 Doug Hanson= No. Scott: You know when I was down there, it was hard for me to tell but my opinion is conceptually I don't have a problem with this at all. Granted there's some architectural features on some adjacent buildings that need to be considered but I figure, it seems like this property is probably not that useful for something else and if these guys happen to grow out of it or, I mean office warehouse is pretty useful space. But then you've got an industrial, a couple of things in the TIF district that have some of that empty space anyway. So I mean you're right, the market isn't there. But conceptually I don't have a problem with it and from a. standpoint, they've got a business running here. They're looking at expanding. It looks like a logical alternative, so that's my opinion on it. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I share the same sentiments as Joe here. I think this seems to be a reasonable extension of the existing use. I guess in looking at some of the conditions in the staff report here, we have on number 3 the expansion of the building shall match the architectural design of the existing building. Rnd we looked at, recently we looked at, was it...and we changed that building to, or ~e suggested the developer change the building to include some pitched roof elements and ! think you could easily do the same thing for the expansion and make it work. Because much of the building is, you know has a flat roof and then you can have an entrance or something like that that has a pitched element to improve the architecture or increase the standard or whatever. So ! think we could change that to say matching and enhance the architectura~ design. But [ guess other than that, ! agree, it's kind of a weird little corner and if it can be expanded to an increased use by...use, [ think it should be done. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: ! saw an interesting figure tonight. Rn acre of commercial land sells for $130,000.00 in Chanhassen. An' acre of industrial land is a little bit over $40,000.00. And so what's the implication of value. Rs you talk industrial, there's a gap between that and what commercial property is valued at. How does this impact our decision? Olsen: Well in the value of it, and all of that kind of gets back to the HRA. It's their final decision whether or not to meli it, and that's ~here ~e got involved in this because of the HRR wanting to kno~, is this an option. What were the options and so the Manager's comment is right. Which one goes first. If they choose to not sell it and feel that they could seii it commercial and receive more money, that's their decision I think. As far as us, I don't kno~ that we're involved in that. Conrad: OkaY. From a planning perspective, I have no problems with that at all.. Batzli: That's it? Conrad: That's all there is. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 67 8atzli: Okay. Diane. Harberts: I have no problem with it. Rgain, I just want to recommend there be some transit planning, and that's for the future. Batzli: Okay, is that it? ...Ladd's remark that from a planning perspective I have no problem with this at all: I'm more on Jeff's wavelength. It probably could be done if it's done right and I guess I'd give it a shot at a conceptual stage and let the HRA determine whether it's a smart move to sell it for a third of the price that they could maybe get doing something else. Given it's location. Maybe they can't. I would add one condition that any approvals that we're doing tonight is contingent on the applicant's purchase of the land, which it's shown on. The plans we're looking at. The additional lands. Olsen: So you would not like to see this proceed until he's actually finished that deal? The conceptual plans. Batzli: Nell, I find it difficult to move too far down the road if the HRA isn't willing to do it. Olsen: Right, I agree. Doug Hanson: I've given them a purchase agreement and they're just holding it until it goes through here. Batzli: Right. But I'm just saying that if the HRR at their next meeting, after we approve this says they're not going to sell you the land, then one of our conditions was that they sell you the .land. .. Doug Hanson: Yeah, I agree. I can't do anything otherwise. Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Concept Plan Request to Rezone Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdlck Park from General Business to PUD with the following conditions as outlined in the staff report subject to the followin~ modifications and additions. Condition number 3 should read, the expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building. The addition of condition 7 which would read, prior to rezonin~ and development, the applicant shall purchase the property in question. And condition 8, that transit planning be incorporated into the development. Batzli: Is there a second? Harber ts: Seco nd. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvlna moved, Harberts seconded that-the Planning Commission recoee~nd approval of the concept plan reclue~t [o rezone Lois 3, 4 and 5, Burd[ck Park from BG, General Bustne~ to PUD, Planned Unit Development .ith the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 68 1. The applicant shall receive and meet the condition~ of the following approvals: a. Preliminary and Final Plat approval combining Lots 3, 4 and 5, Burdick park into one lot with appropriate easements. b. Comprehensive Plan amendment changing the land use designation from commercial to industrial. c. Site Plan approval for the building expansion. d. Rezoning approval from BG, General Business to PUD, Planned Unit Development. · · The site plan shall have to maintain'the proposed concept plan, with the proposal being an expansion of the existing building for use by the existing use, light manufacturing. A higher intensity industrial use will not be permitted at this site. The expansion of the building shall match and enhance the architectural design of the existing building. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted· 5. Ail rooftop equipment shall be screened. The hard cover surface of the site (the three lots) shall not exceed 70~;. 7. Prior to rezoning and developaent, the applicant shall puTchase the property in question from the HRA. 8. Transit planning 8hall be incorpoTated into this development. All voted in favor and the aotlon carried unantaousl¥. PUBLIC HE~RIN6: ZONIN~ ORDI~E ~E~NT TO THE CITY CODE TO DEFINE DOCK SETB4~ Public Present: N~me Jeff Kvichang 6681 Horseshoe Curve (The following people signed the public hearing sheet'but had left by this point in the meeting·) Randy & Rayma Smith Greg & Barb Hedlund Donald & Beverly Hanson 429 Pleasant View 748 Lake Point 8516 Great Plains Blvd. Planning Commission Heeting Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 69 Batzli: Do we want to tackle the dock setback? Aanenson: I've had a lot of phone calls on this. Everybody on all the lakes in the city. Batzli: And we have one person. And we made him stay here until midnight. Aanenson= I took at least 50 phone calls on this. If I notice it again, we have to notify everybody on the lakes again and go through that whole process, what happens? I 'd really prefer. Batzli: Commissioners, are you up for one more? I hate to do this. Scott: Just as long as it isn't a filibuster. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Farmakes: How does this conform to the DN~ criteria for lot extensions beyond the high water mark? Aanenson: Well in this instance, as far as the 1OO foot. Farmakes: But the angle of the property lines as they extend into the lake. How does that? Aanenson: There's no jurisdiction there. Farmakes: The DNR has no jurisdiction there? Aanenson: Below the ordinary high water mark? ~ far as the dock going out the ICC foot, that's in compliance with this. The jurisdiction ~oing iCC feet. Above the ordinary high water mark is our jurisdiction. guess I'm not really clear what you're. Farmakes: If the angle of the property continues, in other words, that property line, does it continue beyond out into the water. Aanenson: 1OO feet. That's all they care about. They don't care how we measure it. That's really based on the complaints that we've had of people that have descending lots, pie sha~ed lots. The people that have lots that are increasing in size, pinching off the neighbors. It's really Just to make a good neighbor policy for the city. That's where that came from. It's driven by us. The DNR really doesn't care ho~ Farmakes= This isn't conflicting with their's? Aanenson: No. No. What we're trying to do is make a good neighbor policy is really what it's about. And we really want to get this in place before we get into the summer months and boating. Before people put their docks out. Another reason why we wanted to get it forward on the agenda. By the time it gets through Council and we can have it adopted, people putting their docks out this spring will be able to comply with this. Planning Commission Heating Hatch 17, 1993 - Page 70 Farmakes: Is this going to be enforced on a complaint basis? Aanenson-' Yeah. We've never, to my knowledge, the City hasn't gone out, although [ volunteered, to go out and boat each lake. To make sure they're all in compliance. To go out and actually take a transit and go out and try to survey these, it's pretty difficult but Ne do try to do them on a complaint basis. I had 2 or 3 of them last summer where I went out and checked. And again, Ne just try to work with the neighbors to be a good neighbor kind of a policy. Batzli: Explain to me on the one where you extended the lot line then on the little inlet there. Why the person gets, no to the left. Yeah. Why that person gets such a narro~ line and the other guy has such a big line. Aanenson: Weii if you do that at a right angle like this, the... The same with this one here. Rctually this lot goes all the way around... Batzli: Okay but, if you draw the line straight from the house to the north, you get that small pie shape. Shouldn't the actual line then be, so there's an area of overlap on that particular case. Aanenson: Yeah. What it does is split the difference between the over 1 ap. Batzli: Yeah but it doesn't look like you split it at all in that case. Aanenson: I didn't show... Batzli: What I'm saying is that particular lot, if this is the result, that particular lot is getting the raw deal compared to the guy to the north. Aanenson = Yeah. Batzli: Well, it looks to me like those, if this is what happens, then I don't like it. If the dock setback is a little bit less of an angle, then I agree with what you're doing. ~anenson= See this... Batzli: I know. I'm just saying, this doesn't go far enough if that's the result. Because if the guy to the north can put his boat closer than he should to the person to the south from Just a fairness aspect. ~e haven't gone far enough then. Aanenson= Yeah, there are a few instances. ! tried to find some that have real anomolies on the lake. There are a fen instances that are even more severe than that. Nhere people have very narro~ frontages and they're in a...or something like that. Batzl t: Okay. Jeff Kvichang: You still can't block access. Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page ?l Aanenson: No, you still can't block access. Batzli: You can make it very uncomfortable. Aanenson: And enJoyin~ the other person's right when they're using their beach property and swimming and you're cutting back and forth to get to your dock. Batzli: My father's situation, which has absolutely nothing to ch> with this because he's in Tonka Bay. In yeats when the water is up they put a sailboat with a big keel so that you have to kind of wind your way between · his dock and the sailboat. .And so you just pray for water that year. Anyway, this is a public hearing. Would you like to comment on this? Jeff Kvichang: Just pass it. It makes sense to me. Batzli: He stayed the whole time to say pass it. It makes sense to me. This is a dedicated Chanhassen resident. Can we have your name for the record. Jeff Kvichang: Jeff Kvichang, 6681 Horseshoe Curve. Batzli: Thank you. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? (Ladd Conrad had left the meeting at this point and was not present for the voting on the remaining items.) Ledvina moved, Mancino ~econded to clo~e the public hea~lng. All voted in favor and the motion ca~rted. The public hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Diane, any comments? Harberts: No. Batzli: Okay, let's do it. Our one public comment, let's pass it. And how many negative phone calls did you receive? Aanenson: No, I just had a lot of questions and interpretting it and they wanted a crack at it because they want to make sure that they're in compliance in the summer. Batzli: Okay, do I have a motion? Scott: I move that we close. Batzli: How about a motion that we recommend approval of the dock setback zoning ordinance amendment in accordance with the staff report dated March 8, 1993. Scott: I'll move. Mancino: I'll second. Ba'tzli: Any discussion? Planning Commission Meeting March 17, 1993 - Page 72 Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Comml~ion Tecommend appTova! of the pToposed amendment to Section~ 20-1, 6-1 and 6-22 of the Chanha~en City Code conceTning dock ~etback~ as pzea~nted by staff. voted in faro; and the motion ~I~7V~ OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 3, i993 as .submitted. Scott moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 a.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim