Loading...
PC 1993 08 04C~~SSEN PLiM~I/NG COHNISSION REGtJL~ NEET/NG RI.~UST 4, 1993 Vice Chair Conrad called the meettng to order at 7:35 p.m. NENI~ERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, 3os Scott, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino Matt Ledvina and 3elf Farmakes · NENBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli ST/~FF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLZC HERRING: PROPOSAL TO REZONE 11.5 /~CRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD PRELIN];IN~RY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE [;~,5 /~:;::RES OF F~RTY INTO 20 SINGLE F~IILY LOTS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF HERON DR;[VE. ON THE ERST SZDE OF iMA)UBON RO~. SHENANDOAH RIDGE, SHANRQCK DEVELOPHENT. Public Present: Na, me (~;d~re~ Craig Mertz Bill & Vicky Goers Lynn Caswell Doug Barinsky 8561 Osprey Lane 1601Lyman Blvd. 580 Dodge, Elk River 8731 Audubon Road Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Conrad: Is the applicant here? Would the applicant like to make any statements? Are you familiar with the staff report?. Agree with their recommendations? Lynn Caswell: Yes. Lynn Caswell with John Alden and Associates. I've read the staff report. Conrad: Okay, good. It's a public hearing. We'll open it up for public comments. Are there any? Craig Mertz: I'm Craig Mertz, 8561 Osprey Lane. I live about 300 feet east of the barn on this property. I've looked at the staff report and the proposed preliminary plat... Conrad: Okay, thanks Craig. Any other comments? Doug Barinsky: My name is Doug Bartnsky. I live at 8731 Audubon. I have the property that lies directly south of this. I Just have two questions. Is that street that's coming to the south end there, is that a cul-de-sac or what's there? Al-Jarl: To be extended in the future. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 2 Doug Barinsky: What if that isn't compatible with how I want to develop my property? Because there's also a street coming out of Bluff Creek right now right here which would come into my property. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that further. Mr. Barinsky has been in to see the City Engineer a few times with regard to the sewer service to the property and so forth. As a part of platting adjacent properties, we're somewhat obligated to look for future roadway extensions to tie the parcels together. It's kind of a puzzle if you will to put the pieces together. Ultimately we do like to try and eliminate or reduce the amount of access points onto a collector type street. This situation though Mr. Barinsky did bring up a valid point. There is already a new intersection created directly across from his parcel so potentially if Mr. Barinsky doesn't use that access to his property, I guess it would probably become more of a permanent type solution but I guess we would encourage to see it connect to the south. And maybe eliminate that other access out onto Audubon Road depending how your parcels lays out I guess. We'd like to keep that option open for you should you require it in the future. Once we give it up, we'll never be able to get another access so we're essentially giving you two options to service your property. Doug Barinsky: Alright. Rather than make a cul-de-sac out of it at this point then, it would just be a deadend street at this point. Hempel: With a temporary cul-de-sac established, yes. Doug Bartnsky: Second question I have is, is that property line there has a total line of mature trees and I'm wondering what this development plan calls for in terms of tree protection and I haven't had any survey work done so I don't know who's side of the property line the trees are on but I think they're pTobably right on the property line. I guess I'd like to know what the developer does have planned there at this point. It bothers me a little bit because I came home from work one night last week and on 8luff Creek, right across the road, they had free cleared a huge stand of mature trees to make room for part of their development and I'd hate to come home from work some night and find out that this developer has free cleared those trees when they could be quite valuable to the homeowners that are going to have the lots adjacent to it on both sides of that property. So could anyone comment on that? And does a development like this call for a tree,plan in terms of what's already on that property as far as mature trees. Al-Jaff: The trees that are located to the south. Doug Barinsky: There's mature trees entirely along, yeah that property line there. Al-Jarl: Correct. They are all on this property. Where the road is. Doug Barinsky: It's been surveyed and determined they're all on that property? A1-Jaff: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 3 Doug Barinsky: Okay. What is the plan for those trees? Al-Jarl: Okay, the area where the road is going to go through, those trees will have. Doug Barinsky: At this point there's no reason for a road to go through though because that's not being developed beyond there. Why would one cut down trees when there's no. Hempel: The trees are being cleared to facilitate a turning radius at the end of that street for fire trucks, garbage trucks and so forth. The home pads, the trees will obviously be removed for those. The road right-of- way. That's about the extent of it. The lot, or the trees along the side lot lines and rear yards are proposed to be left as they are today. Doug Barinsky: In this process does the developer submit that, that those trees will be left and is that part of the approval process that the city has to approve control of mature trees on a piece of property like that? Hempel: I think Sharmtn can address this a little bit more with the conservation easement. Is that what's proposed? Al-Jarl: We are requiring a conservation easement. We're also requiring that additional trees be planted on the site. Doug Barinsky: At this point my concern is just the mature trees. Whatever you require for new planting. Al-Jarl: Some of them are going to go with the grading. Doug Barinsky: Well can you tell me what is going? Is the developer going to free clear that because it will be easier for him to go in and move dirt or what's the plans? Al-Jarl: On the south is going to be mainly preserved with the exception of this area right here. Hempei: The house pads. Al-Jarl: Exactly, the house pads. Are you concerned with the southern portion? Doug Barinsky: I'm concerned that somebody's going to come in there when this starts with a bulldozer and Just clear those trees out because it's going to be easier for them to work without those trees. Al-Jarl: They can't do that. Doug Barinsky: What assurance can I have of that that that's not going to happen? Al-Jarl: We will have snow fences around it. We will have a conservation easement recorded against it. Before they do any type of grading, the snow fences have to be showing them where they may grade and where they cannot. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 4 Doug Barinsky: The trees are more valuable there for the benefit of selling lots around there eventually and that's why I'm concerned about the trees. If the developer would like to comment, I'm glad to hear-what they've got to say about it. Lynn Caswell: The developer in this instance is, as most developers are aware that if you have a tree on the lot, the lot is more valuable. One of the situations in here is we certainly, in order to get the utilities extended to the south line as staff has requested, we .have to cut trees in here. In order to, we can probably on this side of the lot, we leave all of these trees alone, eut when somebody comes in there and builds their home, they're certainly going to have to clear the pads to build the house. Have to clear a certain distance away from the foundations. 'Doug Barinsky: Those trees awe on the property line so it:s not very likely they'd build a house on the property line. Lynn Caswell: This is a little bit deceivin~ in that we aren't showing any trees.south of the property line. We're only locating the significant trees on our site because those are the only ones...impact so there may be trees to the south. Doug Barinsky: I think there are, yeah. Lynn Caswell: In this particular lot, because there's kind of a ravine that goes through here...grade a house.pad in here...trees as we possibly can on the entire site because trees enhances the value of the development... Doug Barinsky: Well, as a more specific question. Is there an actual plan that has identified what will happen to those trees? Has this already been. Conrad: Yeah, there really is. Doug 8arinsky: I don't want to tie up your time tonight. If I could see that. Scott: You can have all of ours. Conrad: Yeah, but it's a good question. We're making light of it but it does detail what's. Farmakes: It is something that we're increasing reviewing. Doug Barinsky: I assume the city is or you wouldn't have hired a full time forester. Farmakes: But the trees on the property line, as you can see here, are shown for the actual property that's being developed. Not for your property. They're sited and listed as to the size and nature of the tree. Doug Barinsky: Okay. Alright, that's all the questions I have really. Is the protection of the adjoining properties. Planning Commission Nesting August 4, 1993 - Page Conrad: The concern, you know the trees are listed that are-going down or that are there. They're inventoried. I'm trying to think if there's a bottom line conclusion after what you've talked about.. You know we're concerned about the trees. It looks like we're going to replace those that are taken down. Some big ones are going to go down as they make the cul-de-sac a temporary cul-de-sac. Not a whole lot but they are going to go down. I don't know if there's a better way to conclude it. Mancino: Is there custom grading or anything? Farmakes: I think that that particular layout to access that property... the way that the tree line parallels the property. At some point to access that property you have to eliminate those trees. Mancino: Those trees. I'm just thinking about the housepads. If we can do some customs grading on those two lots to further reduce. Aanenson: Yeah, I was Just going to say. In that condition number 4 that talks about the, that Sharmin has in here that talks about the tree preservation. You might want to add a home placement plan se we can look at that and site the home such that it minimizes the tree loss. Lynn Caswell: I guess I'd just like to add that we will work with city staff the preserve the number of trees lost. Doug 8arinsky: Well that would be a great improvement over what's going on at Bluff Creek so. Lynn Caswell: This particular developer does his own grading... Doug Barinsky: Alright. I assume I can maybe have you show me sometime on the survey where your property line is there or where you think it is. That might help answer some of my questions. Lynn Caswell: As we continue on in the process, we can stake those out. Doug Barinsky: Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments. Bill Goers: Hi. Ny name is Bill Goers and I own the property to the east and to the south of that and I'm mostly concerned about access to that, also for future development. Have not talked to the developer. We talked to staff very briefly. We'd just like to get some assurances that whatever final puzzle that we put had together, that we've got access to some of our property because we would not have access from LYman Blvd the way the properties are currently situated so we'll need to get' access from either Arboretum or through the streets that are put in there. So we'd like to have the possibility to work with staff and the developer before.anything is finalized. Just for everyone's future ease of grief. Conrad: Thanks. Anything else? Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 6 Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Jeff, comments. Farmakes: I have no additional comments other than what we've just discussed here. It seems to me to be a logical development the way it's laid out for this small of property. Manctno: I have a couple of questions. Sharmin, I noticed that you stated in the staff report, on page 2, that the trees that will be removed will be replaced. As I look at the landscape plan here, I see that there's going to be tree removal in the street area and obviously for the house pads and for the retention pond that will go in on the east side of Lots 11, 12 and 13. Correct? Does the developer, when they remove all these trees, do they get us another plan, will they give you, staff, another plan to show where all those replaced trees will go on the development? Because they're not taking the place of the one tree per lot. They're not taking the place of the streetscape, landscaping on Audubon. So these are going to be over and above that, correct? A1-3aff: Actually when I calculated the landscaping, I included those trees that were along Audubon and the one located within the front yard. Manctno: Within the front yards. $o if we take the combination of what we see on our landscape that parallels Audubon and the one tree per lot, that total is the total of trees that will be removed? AI-Jaff: Correct. And we're adding an additional 10 trees along Audubon. Mancino: Along Audubon. Did we also take into account the trees that will be taken out with the Alisa Court at that south end? Al-Jarl: No. Mancino: Okay. Then what I'd like to do is just make sure that those that are removed will be replaced and we have the right count and that we know where they will be going. On a plan so that you do that with a developer. A few other questions that I have. I think Dave, I have a question on the recommendations. On recommendation number 5 about the existing wells and sewage treatment systems to be abandoned. It seems to be in conflict with · 15 as far as timing. Hempet: Yes. That's correct. We should probably rephrase, I suggest condition number 5. The two conditions, one was from engineering and one was the building department. Just to cover the bases. The wells we were talking about is the existing farm well which I assume is next to the existing farm house which is located on Lot 10, Block 1. Should that well be outside of the property lines, the new property lines of Lot 10, then it would have to be abandoned per State Codes. If the well is located within Lot lO, it meets setbacks and is functioning properly, we will allow them to remain hooked up to that. Until the well fails. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 7 Mancino: And what about the sewage? I mean isn't it 12 months on one of them you have, let's see. The sanitary sewer on Lot 10, Block 1 has to hook up within 12 months. The other existing ones need to be abandoned right away? Hempel: In this situation here, the septic site will probably have to be abandoned right away due to the conflicts with the other adjacent lots that are being created. And I question the integrity of the system right now anyway so it's most likely, it'd probably be more appropriate to have the existing house be hooked up to the city sewer within 30 days upon being available. Mancino: So how do we want to combine those two? What would you think would be the best? Hempel: The existing wells outside of Lot 10. Any existing wells outside of Lot 10 shall be properly abandoned. And sewage treatment. Mancino: Okay. Also under recommendation number 8, I would like to add the words at the beginning. The south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac because the north end will not be temporary. And then on recommendation number 22. Where access to the lot shall be from the interior streets, not Audubon Road. The corner lot, which you have in patens, were missing one corner lot and I would like to add that in to say, we have Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3. Also, Lot 2, Block 2. And that's it. Conrad: Good. Thanks Nancy. Good comments. 3ce. Scott: Dave, on I think it's Block 1, Lots 11, 12 and 13. Where the pond is going to be. You'll have to help me out with this. It falls away about I think from the middle of the lot it falls away about 30 feet or 20 feet or something. Could you, and maybe Sharmin I'd like to see how that sits in there because it seems like it's going to be fairly steep. It has to be kind of kidney shaped, elongated, something that's running with the north/ south property line. Hempel: Right. It will essentially be benched into the side of the hill because it's not quite at the toe of the slope so it will be benched or terraced in similar to like a house pad would be. Sharmin, do you have. Scott: That will have the proper slopes? I Just for some reason putting it in there struck me as being perhaps the slope would be too steep on the outside. It might be hazardous but if that's not the case. Hempel: The grades on the backyard are actually a 5:1 slope which are relatively flat compared to some other subdivisions recently subdivided where we have a 3:1 backyard slope which is fairly steep. Scott: Okay. I don't have any further questions. Conrad: Matt. Planning Commission Meeting ~ugust 4, 1993 - Page 8 Ledvina: 3ust to take off on that comment. It seems like we're removing trees to build a pond. We certainly want to provide the surface water ponding and that treatment but I guess I was wondering, this small parcel that would be landlocked by the' subdivision and the extension of Osprey Lane from the existing subdivision to the new subdivision. Is that a buildable area? Hempel: Currently it's not able to be serviced by city sewer. Sewer to this parcel would be extended from Lyman Blvd which is quite a ways to the south. Water would be available. Ledvina: So sewer is not available? $o does that mean it's not a buildable lot in it's existing conditions? Hempel: That's correct, yes. Ledvina: Well I guess, you know and I realize that we have to deal within the limits of the property that we're working with but it would seem to be a reasonable thing to try to save those trees, to locate the pond further to the east in an unbuildable area. And I mean that seems practical. Do you have any comments on that? Hempel: Yes. Ideally, it would be a much better location and even could be considered interim storm pond until sewer's brought up to this area and this parcel actually develops where storm sewer's then could be retrofitted in the street to take the drainage runoff in this area into like a trunk storm sewer system and extended further on to the southeast. Into more of a regional pondtng area through surface water management plan. There's really no indication of a regional pond in this area b4Jt given the characteristics down there, I'm sure there's some likelihood that one could be. Ledvina: So that area then represents an opportunity for a larger scale pond to be constructed for storm water in this whole area? Hempel: To take care of, yes. A couple of neighborhoods essentially, yes. Ledvina: Has that been investigated at all with the different landowners in the vicinity? Hempel: It's something that I would like to pursue with the landowners and the developer on, definitely. Ledvina: Okay. Well I don't know if, I really would like to see that done. I'm definitely going to add it as a condition or would like to add that as a condition number 23. That the City staff pursue the relocation of that storm water pond further to the east on the adjacent parcel. I don't know if that condition represents a situation where you'd want to hold up this application but does the neighboring property owner have any thoughts on that? Bill Goers: I haven't given it any thought...? Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 9 Ledvina: Okay. What do you think about that small area that would be essentially on the north side of Osprey Lane? [~o you feel that would be a buildable area? Vicky Goers: Well, since this week we've talked with Dave and Sharmin at the office and we were at that time told it was not unbuildable,' as I'm hearing now, so I'd like to pursue this with the staff. I don't even know how much land we're talking about... Ledvina: Yeah, I understand and I'm not trying to resolve anything here but I'm interested in knowing whether there's a willingness to try to evaluate this. And if there is. Hempel: Commission member Ledvina. If I could just.clarify as far as the buildability of this lot. I did have conversations earlier this week with the Goers on it and in it's present state right now it is not a buildable lot without city sewer or water there. But eventually when city sewer is available and extended up to this point, yes. This area would be a buildable lot. Ledvina: Okay i..and bring that housepad up but that adds quite a bit to the expense of that area and it looks like...At any rate, I would like to see that investigated further. That's all I had. Conrad: Thanks Matt. Diane. Harberts: Well I'm really fuzzy on the access, with traffic. I'm not very comfortable at all. I think the whole idea in terms of trying to manage growth is being able to plan for it as well. There's some issues with Osprey Lane. Do we make a requirement that the developer needs to work a deal with the owner in order to get that access. What if they can't come to terms? Where does this sit? You know we've got some access questions by the owner to, I think this is south. Yeah, to the south of it. There's certainly some questions in terms of how much access is onto Audubon Road. And it's going to happen. I guess I would be inclined to have a better understanding. Maybe take a step back and look at the entire picture here. We always try to deal with the issue of bringing these pices of puzzle in here with regards to the road system and I think we've got a big puzzle right here. So I would really encourage some kind of resolution of the access points, both with Osprey Lane. The parcel to the south. Because of the issues the owner raised. But then also in terms of, well given the fact that we've got some future development that's coming here. I'm not very comfortable with the access.points right now. I think if this is recommended to go forward, we probably want to also...that conservation language to easement. One other question I have for Dave. Did I understand on the south end of Alisa Lane, that there's going to be like a turnaround for the public... Shouldn't that be shown on the map or the site plans here to get an idea? Aren't they suppose'd to be put in right now or do they have to wait until after the road gets punched through, if it gets punched through? Hempel: The temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed with the utility and street improvements. The overall, the preliminary plat does not reflect the additional street right-of-way necessary for it because it would be a Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 10 temporary roadway easement over those lots. One of the sheets here, the utility plan does show a temporary turnaround exceeding outside of the right-of-way limits. Harberts: So is that going to impact with, I mean this is in the area of the trees with the size of the lots or with the housepads, with the grading that needs to occur. Hempel: Some of the grading for the street will necessitate removal of some of the trees. Also as those Lots 3, Block 3 and Lot 4, Block 2 are built on, the driveway and utility extension into the home will also take a couple of additional trees out of it. So the combination of it, with the turnaround. One way or another the trees would be lost due to. Harberts: I guess my comments really center around the fact that I'm not real clear on the access...ftgured out and maybe we should maybe take a step back and look at this area because we do have other development coming in. That's my comments. Conrad: Thanks Diane. Ledvina: I have a question. For Sharmin. On condition, or recommendation number 12. It says the applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary easements for the extension of Osprey Lane between Shenanck>ah Ridge and Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition. Can we require them to obtain the necessary easements? I mean can we strengthen that language? I mean is that going to put a kink in their plan totally or maybe you or Dave could comment on that. Hempel: To be honest, that was my condition. I'm not sure whether or not we can require them as part of this platting because they do have access from another improved public street. It 'comes to the issue, I hate to bring it up here again but the Nez Perce roadway extension. We're hoping, in this situation here to work with the property owners. They seem to be in favor of the project. They're in favor of seeing the roadway go through. I think we can work out and negotiate seeing .this road connect up to two subdivisions at this time. Ledvina: It doesn't require them to obtain those easements as a part of this to prevent that situation from potentially occurring? Hempel: That's true, yes. Ledvina: Okay. I guess I would be in favor of that. tf it's the Staff recommendation that that Osprey Lane go through, then I feel that's the way we should handle it. Aanenson: Make it a condition? We can't make it a condition that they buy somebody else's property to get access. Conrad: We don't have control of that. Aanenson: We don't have control over it. Planning Commission Neeting August 4, 1993 - Page Ledvina: But if they have these configurations to the streets. Aanenson: What Dave is saying is the fact that we've laid it out as a staff and we see when that property comes in, we've already stated how we see it being connected and that's why we've been working with them to see how it's going to be connected. Al-Jail: It's our preference that it happens now before those 20 parcels develop. But I don't think legally we can require them. Scott: Well we're going to see, if and when the other parcel comes up, we're going to see that and that would be a condition that we ~3uld place on that preliminary plat of the parcel in question. That the street needs to be connected for the development to go forward so I think, that's probably the best time to address it. Harberts: ...subdivision and roadway the way you want? Aanenson: No. No, no, no. Scott: In this case though. Harberts: ...take plans for it. Aanenson: No, that's what Dave did. We laid this out. This whole area out when this subdivision came in. I think that's what Dave eluded to. We've laid this whole subdivision how we feel it best accesses and that's why Dave is saying that road to the south, that the other gentleman was speaking about, that may not need to go through but this whole area has been laid out as we see how it can be accessed. Harberts: It has been laid out? Aanenson: Yes . Hempel: This parcel was, the one before you this evening was laid out with staff and there was some previous concept plans in by other potential developers. And we felt this was the only way it could really develop. This way we're providing access to adjacent parcels to the south. We're providing access to the Goers parcel which we hope to connect shortly and I think that can strongly go forward and also I think the developer would be in favor of also negotiating for a ponding easement out there. Even an interim one that would reduce his cost of ponding on site and be more of a permanent situation. Harberts: Mr. Chair, ! have a question here. So are you feeling comfortable then that staff, that the access issues raised by one of the property owners, and some of the concerns raised by myself, that they have been addressed? Hempel: Yes, I feel they have been adequately addressed. Bill Goers: I'd like to make a comment about the existing access that there is on Osprey Lane is a temporary one right now? It is not permanent Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 12 access that this original developer and I had agreed upon and they have not resolved that issue with me regarding that access. That only complicates ...and I'm not trying to do that but realistically that is an open issue still. Because that was not final access in an agreement that he and I had agreed upon. The one that he's using right now that he's calling a temporary one, calling a permanent one should be a temporary access in lieu of another one being built at a later time further south. And I've got the docmentation on that... Hempel: Are you referring to 3ce Miller's development to the east? Bill Goers: Yes. Hempel: Okay. The existing Osprey Lane that currently dead 'ends to the east of your property is the one that Mr. Goers' referring to. I'm unaware of any type of. Mancino: It's paved isn't it? Hempel: Yes. It is paved. There's no homes taktng access off of that. That was purely for the future extension basically back out to ~udubon Road at some point. And also service this parcel with the street access. Bill Goers: He does have permanent deed to that property. He's Just got a temporary deed, and again the original agreement... Hempel: The property's pretty well developed. Aanenson: And there's no other access points and it didn't show up on the title when we did development contract. That seems. Conrad: It'd be real smart for you to be talking to Dave. You've got to make yourself comfortable. It looks like, in my mind it looks kind of tight. Where the roads are going and I think before this gets to City Council, you're going to want to express a firm opinion. My only question Dave is on one point and that's the Alisa Court. By chance, if that becomes a permanent cul-de-sac, we probably wouldn't, what easements do we need if that does? You know it changes in character a little bit and have we, you know I don't know what the odds are. I'm not sure what the developer to the south wants to do and our position to require it. I don't know what our standards are off of, well I'm just not sure. Other access points into his property. But I guess my question is, if this turns into ' permanent, I don't want it designed as temporary. $o do we have the right easements to make, or the right leverage to make it permanent and make the developer more accountable to it as a permanent cul-de-sac? And .that takes me to, you probably design it. If the developer thought it was going to be permanent, he might do a little bit different 'design. We c~on't know. That's something we can't control but I do want to know that we can control it in the future if it does become permanent. Hempel: I believe we can. The thing that would be effected would be the setbacks of these lots so if it did become a permanent cul-de-sac, you would probably have a 20 foot front yard versus the 30 foot. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 13 Conrad: When the property scheme became developed, would we have the right to give it a turning radius down there? Would we be able to give it the right? Hempel: When the parcel to the south? Conrad: Well there's two properties on'the property line to the south. When they came in for, when they were being developed, would we be able to have the right amount of easements for a turnaround? a. radius that would, whatever it is. A 60 foot radius or whatever it is. Hempel: We could require that at the time of preliminary plat. If the applicant did not wish to have that road extended through his parcel, yes. We could require that permanent cul-de-sac to be on the parcel to the south. Mr. Barinsky's parcel. Conrad: What do we do right now? Hempel: Well, right now I guess I would still propose to leave it as shown. Leave the options open. This case the road could proceed. If we dead end it now and make it a permanent cul-de-sac, there's no way that road will go through. Conrad: Yeah, I don't want to do that. Hempel: So in the future we have another option. Conrad: Okay. That's my only question. And the only other comment was to make sure Dave that you can work with the applicants to the east. Or not the applicants, but the landowners and I'm sure you will. But I guess it's sort of up to you to be coming in and talking. Anything else? Harberts: Matt just noted that the cul-de-sac is 600 feet. Ledvina: The way I measured it. Conrad: That's the limit right? Harberts: Does the cul-de-sac... Ledvina: Barely. Hempel: Right, it's approximately 600 feet in length but I think given the existing Chaska brick house that's situated there, it probably warrants a variance or something to the cul-de-sac length. Conrad: Okay, who wants the power? Who wants the motion? Harberts: I will. Now we're doing a subdivision and a rezontng? I'm going to do the rezoning first. I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt, or excuse me. Adopt the staff motion for rezoning according to Case No. 93-4 dated 8/4/93 for the Shenandoah Ridge Addition. And the motion then would be as stated in the report found on page ll. And I further recommend that the Planning Commission approve Case No. 93-. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, ~993 - Page 14 Conrad: Why don't we do it one at a time. Let's just do one at a time because there may be more debate on the second one. Harberts: Oh, there's quite a bit. Conrad: Yeah, is there a second to the rezontng motion? Manctno: I second. Conrad: Is theQe any discussion? Harberts moved, Hancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #93-4 for property zoned A-2 to RSF for Shenandoah Ridge, subject to the following conditions= The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and Shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision ~93-~4. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: Is there a motion for the subdivision? Harberts: I did my duty. Well, I wrote everything down so I'll do it again. I recommend that the Planning Commission, let's see here, adopt for Case No. 93-14, preliminary plat to subdivide 11.5 acres into 20 single family lots, Shenandoah Ridge Addition. Approve recommendations as outlined in the staff report with the change to number 8. Stipulate that the south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac. That the language in number 15 state that any existing house outside of Lot 10. Is there any additional language? Hempel: Maybe if I can run one by here and see how it works. The existing house on Lot NO, Block 1 shall connect to municipal sanitary sewer and. water service within 30 days after becomin~ available to the site. Conrad: Nice wording Diane. Harberts: And that item number 22. That the correction with regard to what lot shall be included, as Nancy pointed out. Scott: Lot 2, Block 2? Harberts: Yes. And item number 23 with regard to the regional pond. Number 24 to include a conservation easement be included as a condition. And number 24, with the discussion that centered around if this shall become a permanent cul-de-sac, to make sure that we have the appropriate easements in place to cover it. And also make sure what the impact is on the lot. That's it. Ledvina: I'll second that motion. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 1S Conrad: Is there any discussion? Scott: I have just one item, and it probably would be considered a friendly amendment that we want to have the pad locations on the final plat so we can see exactly where the houses are and what sort of impact that's going to have on the trees as well. I think that was' something that we had discussed. Mancino: Yeah, I kind of wrote it as, if I could add to that. That the applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shows all trees that are being removed are being replaced by new trees. Some sort of a new landscape plan. Conrad: Is that a new condition Nancy? Mancino: Yeah. An amendment. Scott: On that conservation easement, do you want. Conrad: Is that an acceptable, amendment? Harberts: Yep. Scott: Do we want to name the lots that the conservation easement should be on or is that broad language regarding conservation easements enough to get the result that we're looking for? Aanenson: It's Block 2, Lot 3 and 4 isn't it? Al-Jarl: You could name it. Scott: Well I'm thinking Block 1, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. Block 2, Lot 4. Block 3, Lots l, 2 and 3. Conrad: Who seconded the motion? Mancino: Matt. Conrad: Was Nancy's amendment acceptable to you? Ledvina: Yes. I would also add, I don't mean to complicate this but I would like to clarify condition number 23...regarding the pond. I would like to see the staff evaluate the potential for relocating the storm water pond as it exists on the plan, to the adjacent parcel to the east. Conrad: Isn't that what you meant Diane? Harberts: Well yeah. When we talked about, because Dave had made the comment about it becoming a regional pond. Conrad: But I'm glad you added that. Ledvina: It's just to say that they'll focus their efforts in that area. There may be a possibility for a re~;ional pond in other areas but I want Planning Commission Heeting August 4, 1993 - Page that specific area to be evaluated for that purpose. Conrad: Anything else? Harberts moved, Ledvtna seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-14 for Shenandoah Ridge Addttton as shown on the plans dated July 6, 1993, subject to the follo~in~ conditions: 1. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. · The applicant shall pay full park fees at the time of building permit application. The applicant shall construct the portion of the city's comprehensive trail system previously described in this report· Specifically, from the southern curb to Heron Drive to the southern terminus of Lot 4, Block 2. This trail is to be 8 feet in width with bituminous surfacing per standard city specifications. In consideration for this construction, trail and park fees will be reduced by an amount equal to the cost construction. Said costs to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification· Current park and trail fees are $600.00 and $200.00 per single family unit, respectively· · All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise· All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed· The applicant shall provide the legal description for the easement· · The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush· All healthy trees over 6' caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. The applicant shall provide the legal description for the easement. 5. The existing wells and sewage treatment systems shall be properly abandoned and furnish proof of abandonment to the Inspections Division. A city permit is required for on site sewage treatment system abandonment. This should be done prior to commencement of site grading. 6. The applicant must obtain city demolition permits from the Inspections Division for structures that will be removed (prior to removal). 7. The address for the existing home on Lot 10 shall be changed to Alisa Court. · The south end of Alisa Court shall have a temporary cul-de-sac. This cul-de-sac shall be barricaded with a sign indicating that the road will be extended in the future. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, i993 - Page 17 · All street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates· Street construction plans shall also include a draintile system behind the curbs to accommodate household sump pump discharge. Detailed construction plans and specifications for utility and street improvements shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to final platting. Final construction plans and specifications are subject to City Council approval. 10. The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage and pondtng calculations to verify pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to a 10 year storm event and a retention/detention pond shall be reviewed by the City Storm Water Management engineer and constructed pursuant to the guidelines implemented by the City's Storm water Management Plan. 11. The applicant shall include with the street construction plans, auxiliary turn lanes along Audubon Road. The auxiliary turn lanes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with MnDot standards. 12. Applicant shall pursue acquiring the necessary easements for the extensin of Osprey Lane between Shenandoah Ridge and Lake Susan Hills West 8th Addition. 13. The applicant shall dedicate to the City, the necessary temporary roadway easements for portions of the temporary cul-de-sac (Alisa Court) lying outside the public right-of-way. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements: A. 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. B. 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement between Lots 8 and 9, Block l. C. Necessary utility and drainage easements for all pond retention/ detention areas. 14. The final grading plan shall denote the type-of house suggested for each lot. 15. The existing house on Lot 10, Block I shall connect to municipal sanitary se~er and water service ~ithtn 30 days after becomin~ available to the site. 16. The existing house on Lot 10, Block 1 shall relocate its driveway to access the new street within 30 d~ys after the new street is constructed. 17. The city will access the development for 20 units instead of the 14 units as proposed in the feasibility report for Project No. 91-17. 18. The proposed water line in Osprey Lane shall be increased to an $ inch diameter. In addition, the water and sewer lines shall be extended to the south property line of the plat on Alisa Court (south). Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 15 19. The street name, Alisa Court,'should be revised to Alisa Lane to provide continuity. 20. Staff is in support of a 10~ street grade and therefore recommends approval of any necessary variances to allow the 10~ street grade. 21. The City will not permit open cutting of Audubon Road for the extension of utilities into the site. 22. Access to the lots shall be from the interior streets and not Audubon Road. The corner lots (Lots z and 13, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 2, Block 2) shall take access from Alisa Court and not Osprey Lane. Driveway access to Lot 1, Block 22 shall be limited to the easterly half of the lot. 23. Ctt¥ staff shall evaluate the potential, for relocating the storm water pond as it exists on the plan, to the ad3acent parcel to the east. 24. A conservation easement shall be placed on the following lots: Block 1, Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; Block 2, Lot 4; and Block 3, Lots 1, 2 and 3. And that the applicant shall sub$tt a new landscape plan that shows all trees being removed are being replaced by new trees. 25. If this shall become a permanent cul-de-sac, to make sure that we have the appropriate easements in place to cover It. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: This will go to the City Council August 23rd. Craig. Craig Mertz: If anybody's going to throw away their packet... Conrad: Why don't you come up and collect them. PUBLIC HEARING: pRELIMiNARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEl. (50,44~3 ~.FT. ) I~rro 3 SINGLE FAMILY ~OTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDeNTIal, SINGLE FDg~ILY AND [,OCATED ~T 6661 NEZ PERCE, T JO ADDITION, TODD OWENS, Public Present: Name Todd Owens Jim Cosgrove Craig Gagnon Renelle Ulrich 6661Nez Perce 6679 Hopt Road 861Vineland Court 6581Nez Perce Drive Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 19 Conrad: Sharmin, can you go through the staff report then in terms of the motion and tell us which ones are no longer applicable? And which one's you'd like to change. You know I don't know what's current. This is a recommendation not based on that plan. Yeah, Just go through them and tell us if you're comfortable. Number 1 I assume still is. Al-Jeff: Remains the same. Conrad: Number 2 is out. Al-Jeff: Number 2 is out. A variance is not required anymore. The tree removal could stay the same. Conrad: Could. Al-Jeff: The grading will remain very similar. What we have done is, the grading will remain the same as it was before. Therefore the same trees could be used as was before. Conrad: Okay. Point number 4. It seems like it should be the same. Hempel: It may need to be adjusted slightly. Harberts: How do you adjust number 4? Hempel: Individual water services shall be extended to each lot. Period. Conrad: Number 5. Individual grading plans, okay. 6. Development contract, same thing. 7. Hempel: That would be revised depending on who extends the sewer and water to the property lines. If the city does it, then each lot would be assessed the $8,544.91. Conrad: We're getting into a couple changes here. If anybody feels uncomfortable, we can always table it and have it come back. I haven't hit something that makes me nervous yet but again, if somebody says they...the driveway, number 8. Al-Jeff: This has a possibility of changing. Before Ne had a common driveway between Lot 3 and 2. The area that is shared between those two lots is...7 ton design, 20 foot wide. If Lot 2 gains access off of Hopt. Todd Owens: That may be a correction. Hopi is down to the south... Al-Jarl: I'm sorry. That they woudln't...then they wouldn't need the 20 foot wide easement if they came off of Hopt. If there wasn't a shared driveway. So that now they have two options. They could come off of Hopi or they could come off of Nez Perce. If they got a cross access easement over Lot 3. Harberts: Hopi Road ts...we weren't very comfortable with having a common driveway... Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 20 Hempel: Maybe I can translate a little bit better. With this type of scenario here, Hopi is right over here. Vacation is for a strip of land up to here. We still have street access. The street is built down. to this part of the development so the option to be left open for development on this parcel...driveway access through here or also if it betters suits the builder or the homeowner, to share a common driveway through an... Mancino: Do you have a preference? Does staff have a preference whether it's one way or the other? Harberts: I think based on our discussion we had...that's what ! recall from that discussion. That's why we shied away from that common access. Conrad: Okay. As I look at it, 9, 10 and 11 should probably be the same. I see no change that the plan would have on any of those. We'll open it up for public discussions. I wanted to go through these. Somebody's got to make a motion and I didn't understand what any of the staff comments were so. They're simple but ! didn't write them down so if somebody's going to make a motion, think about it. Public hearing. We'll open it up to the developer. If he'd like to make some comments regarding the new plan or the staff report. Todd Owens: I am Todd Owens, the applicant and I'm not going to become a developer. This is my last time. It was fun when it started but it didn't progress that way. Anyway, the reason for the big change is. I had a lengthy conversation on the property with Nancy and then she had translated that conversation onto Sharmin and this is the end result. And I think we've tried all along to comply and I want to thank Dave and Sharmin publicly for their patience with a rookie here. But we tried all along to comply with everything we could. We contacted neighbors ahead of time to discuss what we were doing and in the beginning that went well. I had one neighbor who in the end who had changed what we had originally talked about and I think he's here tonight to comment to that. And then I know I have one neighbor here who'd like to ask something about a stop sign at the corner that is on Nez Perce there. The tree, which it's a concern to us and I know Nancy had the concern when we were talking. With the new change, the way I've looked at it and in looking at the tree 'survey, and actually walking the lot, if the access comes from Hopi versus the cross access, it shifts the tree. In other words, certain trees are saved. It's a trade off. The trees just shift places. So I guess on that I 'd be asking that we can work through that with staff. Our objective is to keep it as wooded, and I think anybody buying those lots, that's going to be their, that's the beauty of the lots is the trees. $o thanks and I'll comment to any questions you have. Harberts: I have a question. Do you have any comment with regard to the ...recommended to leave the common driveway? Todd Owens: I'm sorry, say that again? Harberts: Do you have any comment if the recommendation is to, it... allowing the common driveway? Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 21 Todd Owens: It would be nice if the option was open to discuss with potential buyers. We want it approved and we want to move on. Our objective personally is, I'm an Owens and you're all aware of the Owens property situation. You know we're going to buy my folks house and our objective is to, we've lived here 14 years. I've lived in that house all my life previous from the 5 year old age. I grew up there. We cross country skied through Vineland Forest and Lake Lucy development long before they were around so I like the area. We've been there. We're going to stay. We're trying to move on. We'd like to have the option open but we're flexible. Conrad: Good, thanks Todd. It's a public hearing. Other comments please. Jim Cosgrove: Hi. My name is Jim Cosgrove and I live on the other side of Hopi Road. I am very opposed to vacating Hopi Road. I'm very opposed to access there. Hopi is a dead end right now. That's why I live at the end of the dead end. That's why I bought it. I've been there for 7 years and enjoyed the solitude. The quiet. The safety for children to not have cars coming through there. I feel the time has been very poor on the developer's part. I'm very opposed to it. I'm opposed to the vacation. I have been there, ! don't like the development's that gone on the last 7 years and l don't know what to say other than I oppose it and everybody's gone all around me as far as just incredible development. I understand that. That's part of the deal but I really want to put my foot down to vacation and try to save something for myself. Small lot which I have wooded and I am really, really will push for this. And I did not receive the agenda so l am somewhat unprepared. I Just read it tonight. I don't know why I did not receive it. Sharmin, I talked to you a couple weeks ago and I was supposed to get it. I don't know why I didn't so I'm sitting here reading all this stuff and I didn't even realize until tonight that there was a possibility of access to that lot. I don't know which lot it is but the upper lot off of Hopi. I didn't even realize that was an option. So l have a lot of concerns. Here I am. Conrad: We do have your name as being. Jim Cosgrove: Yeah, it's Jim Cosgrove. Conrad: Yeah. I was Just going to say Jim, we do have your name as being something being delivered to your house. Aanenson: He got the hearing notice. I think he requested the staff report probably. Jim Cosgrove: So I'm sitting here reading this going, um and Todd did call me. He asked at one point if I opposed it. I feel like he should have written me a letter and a request. Not a phone call. Some things-like that. Yes, I did change'my mind on that vacation but I don't think I was served properly either by a simple phone call. Thank you. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Other comments. Craig Gagnon: Hi. I'm Craig Gagnon and I'm at 861Vtneland Court. I have the lot immediately to the north of this. And the Lake Lucy Road vacation Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 22 runs along my property line as does, well I think perhaps the ending part of the Hopi Road. I have not, I'm kind of a rookie to this as well and I have not seen or read the staff report. I have taken a look at some of the plans. I wonder about the Lake Lucy Road vacation and how that works. It would appear that half of that road would go to the new development. I'm not sure what happens to the other half of that road. Al-Jarl: The right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road was taken from Vineland only so, we have vacated our rights so if you would like to claim it, if you want to, you could proceed with that and the entire strip would be, the entire 33 feet would go back to you rather than half of it to Todd and the other half to you. Craig Gagnon: I see. How would I go about doing that? Al-Jaff: Contact an attorney. I think it's a small claim court or I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the procedure but it should be a very simple procedure. Craig Gagnon: I will do that and I'm interested in proceeding with that. That was my understanding that that might be an option and I don't know how to proceed but I will look into that. I would, in addition to that I would just simply like to express the concerns about the wooded nature of the land, as has been described. It is a heavily wooded lot now and given the house pad requirements for Lots 2 and 3, clearly that would impact the nature of that quite a bit. So I will look into the Lake Lucy Road vacation. Conrad: Other comments. Renelle Ulrich: Hi. My name is Renelle Ulrich and I .live at 6581Nez Perce Drive to the north on Nez Perce. And I just wanted to let you know that Todd Owens has been very professional in dealing with me. I mean he's been very neighborly I guess. He's always made us very well aware of what he's been doing and it's fine with us as far as we're concerned because I sincerely think that anybody who buys that lot is'going to try, is going to buy it to preserve the trees and to have a woooded lot so that's not a major concern of mine. Also knowing that I've got the 33 feet of the vacated property gives me a little buffer to whatever they do. The only concern I have is that the corner where Nez Perce turns into Lake Lucy is a dangerous corner and if you're going to put a driveway there, you've got to put a stop sign at the same time. Anybody, you know that's a bus stop there. There's a lot of kids in the neighborhood and I came up during the other Nez Perce extension thing to express 'concerns about a stop sign. I'll sit down when there's a stop sign there. Until then I'll just keep coming back to everything and repeating that request. But otherwise that's my only concern. Otherwise I think it should go through. Conrad: Thanks. Dave, do you want to respond to a stop sign there? Hempel: Sure. We can certainly perf6rm an engineering study. That's one of the requirements ~or placement of a stop sign or any traffic control device in a public right-of-way. I'd like to get the homeowner's name and telephone number and address and we can start an evaluation of that Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 23 intersection. I'd also like to bring up one other proposed improvement we have at that intersection. As you will notice the sight lines going around the curve is very difficult and the city was attempting at some point here to contact that property owner to see if we could work on getting a temporary construction easement and cutting back that bank that's out there. Build a retaining wall so we can open up the.sight lines as you go around the corner. Renelle Ulrich: That's going to create another concern because...they'll say hey. There's no cars and they'll zoom...At least today they are forced to slow down a little bit. Hempel: Curvature of the road also has something to do with it. You obviously can't take it too fast or you're going to go off the road. Craig Gagnon: I would support Renelle's... Conrad: Okay, good thanks. Thanks Dave. Anything else? 3im Cosgrove: When you guys'were talking about' the grading, I didn't understand that but I have some questions about the grading. If you do, if you wanted to have access off of HoPi Road, is that really a reality with the grade that's there existing? I mean that-is a steep, and I didn't really follow what you guys were'talking about... Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The grades are fairly steep on the parcel but they are manageable from a driveway construction standpoint. They will be somewhat limited as far as access. It will probably run parllel to the side of the hill. It's going to be well underneath of 10~ grade limitation. Jim Cosgrove: If that is a fact...now what would happen to my half of that with the grade if you put a driveway in there? Hempel: We just expand, or the property owner would Just expand on whatever pavement section's out there and extend it to his garage. There'd be no disruption to your driveway or the existing city street. 3im Cosgrove: Right. So if you guys put a road down there, and if you... grade that would be going to the road to my property? Are you considering that? Hempel: We would not be putting a road. 3im Cosgrove: Nell access...to the property. Hempel: A driveway. 12-15 foot wide driveway from the existing street surface out there back to the new home. 3im Cosgrove: Okay. And are you aware of the grades from the driveway onto my property? What that would be. Hempel: There should not be any, we're not, the driveway would not affect your driveway. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, i993 - Page 24 Jim Cosgrove: I understand that. You're talking about going from the end of Hopi Road, which is a dead end right now. Okay, right there. Hempel: Here's Hopi and here is your driveway entrance I'm assuming. Jim Cosgrove: Yes. Hempel: The driveway would be extended from this portion of the city street that's out there into the parcel. 3im Cosgrove: Okay. Hempel: It would not disturb your driveway access. 3im Cosgrove: I understand that but it will take, are you aware of what the grade would be off of, the right side going into the property of the road. Mancino: Right at that corner. Jim Cosgrove: ...am I making myself clear? Yeah, right there. ' Hempel: Right here. The right side of the property. Anything to there? Jim Cosgrove: Yes. Hempel: It's well within city guidelines. Under lO~ grade. Farmakes: The grade marks are on the plan that we're looking at here. Hempel: The contour lines of the property. Those little hash marks are 2 foot intervals. Farmakes: Okay, but I'm not using. Right where the cul-de-sac is there's a...what's the grade right there? Does it show that? Hempel: That elevation there is approximately. Scott: I think it's 411. Farmakes: 410. It goes from 411 up to 406. Hempel: 1039 approximately. 1040 is the elevation. The elevation in the middle of the lot is about 1036-1037 so it'~ about a 3 foot drop only. Jim Cosgrove: Are we talking the same thing? Hempei: According to the contours on these drawings. Jim Cosgrove: It's drastically different... Conrad: Okay, .,,ii make a note of that. Jim Cosgrove: That is drastically different. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 25 Conrad: Okay, good. Appreciate the comments. We should validate that and make sure that that is a possible access. Anything else? Any other comments? We're in a public hearing. Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Diane. We'll start out on your end. Harberts: I don't really have anything to add than what we've talked about here. I'm alright with the staff recommendation I guess along as everyone else is clear of what was changed. Conrad: Oh sure. Passes the buck. I'm okay if Matt's okay. There'd better not be any other contingencies. Matt. Ledvina: I guess I'm glad to see that the lots have'been revised'to eliminate variances. I wouldn't have supported any variances in this instance but as it's drawn I can see that this is a feasible plan. I think the situation with the access off of Hopi represents an acceptable option. I think maintaining the option for the shared access is a fairly simple thing to do. And I think that can be worked out. As it relates to the vacating the Hopi Drive, the area northeast of what exists now. I think that would be a good thing for the neighboring property owners because that would prevent that road from ever going through so I don't see why anybody that's in. that vicinity that's concerned about the number of cars would oppose that vacation. But whatever. I think that the property should be vacated to the homeowner there. Or the parcel owner. Dave, on condition number 4. I think can we just eliminate that condition? We said that... so eliminate number 4 then, okay. Number B then, 20 foot common driveway may be installed. Use the road may to identify that as an option or what would you recommend there Dave? Hempel: Maybe if I could just run through some of these conditions here. I'll throw them out to you and see how they sound. Delete condition number 4. Expand condition number 7 to read, the City shall extend individual sanitary sewer and water service to each'lot, (Lot 2, Block 3). Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge in the amount of $8,544.91. Both of these fees shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time. Ledvina: Can you back, I didn't get all of that. The city'shall extend. Hempel: Individual sanitary sewer and water service. Ledvina: Sewer and water to each lot, okay. Hempel: To each lot, (Lot 2 and 3). Ledvina: To Lots 2 and 3? Hempel: Right. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 26 Ledvina: Okay. And then Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed, okay. Alright. Hempel: Condition number $ modified to read, driveway access to Lot 2 may be from Hopi or a 20 foot wide common driveway across Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access and maintenance agreements. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements. Ledvina: You're on a roll Dave, Keep going. Hempel: That would be it. Ledvina: Okay. And then one thing that's not, or I didn't find within the staff report is condition number 11 and I haven't seen that before. What's going on there? Hempel: That condition came from our building department due to the slopes on the downside of Lots 2 and 3. They felt that the soils and the steepness of the slopes may require engineered foundations. Al-Jaff: We have requested it before when we've had such steep slopes. But we haven't had such subdivisions lately with steep slopes so. Ledvina: OkaY. I would like to...statement for that condition to read, a Registered Professional Engineer, or a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design etc. And then Diane... Oh okay, Diane wanted to see a number 12 condition added that staff evaluate the need for a stop sign along Nez Perce. Or let's see. I guess at Lake Lucy. At the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. If that means a traffic study... That's all I have. Conrad: Okay, 3De. Scott: Only one comment. 'It's never a treat to get significant new information on a project at the Planning Commission but in this case, it worked out fairly well but I think you know where I'm coming from. I have no other comments other than that. Conrad: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: My only comment, and thank you for the redrawing of the development so that we don't have to, as I had told you on Monday night, I would also not have voted for the variance. I do think that on recommendation number 3, about the trees, there will be different trees depending on what access we use to Lot 2. For the tree removals. $o that I would like it to read the same. That the applicant will be permitted to remove only the following trees and just so that staff and Todd get together after they've figured out what access that they will be using and keeping about the same percentage as we have here in this original one would be fine with me. So that you...the list exactly which trees are to be removed and which trees aren't. And that's all I have. Conrad: Okay, thanks Nancy. Jeff. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 27 Farmakes= ! don't like the shared driveway solution. ! like the redesign of the property. I would prefer that the access be off of Hopi. It seems to be the logical access to the lot. If there is a gap there, depending on the grade, or how you can do it of an area between the trees there with oaks on one side and basswood on the other. The oaks are'quite a bit larger than the basswood and if you can slip it in inbetween there, it seems like there'd be little tree loss there. There are several reasons why I don't like shared driveway access. It seems to me again the criteria for that would be like a variance. There's no other way to develop that. On one hand it seems like a logical good use of multi use of property but when you look at single family and how it works out, sharing that much of a piece of property I think in the long run is not necessarily a good idea. This lot and layout is very similar to what's on eR 17 .and Lake Lucy. There's kind of a goofy shaped lot with a shared driveway going to the back lot and often they have kind of trucks lined up there. That person does some pick-up truck type things, construction work and they're lined up in there and it seems out of character to me to single family area. It's more higher density type layout, although these lots are a little larger. As I said, I like the way that you've redesigned it because I would not have voted for the variance either. That's the extent. I have no objections to the comments about the recommendation changes. Conrad: I have nothing to add except a comment. When we vacate property, assuming we're just following standard procedures, right? Nothing exceptional that we're.doing here. Okay. Any other questions? If not, I'd accept a motion. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #93-16 for TGO Addition as shown on the plans dated guly 6, 1993 and those dated, or that plan dated August 4, 1993. And subject to' the following staff conditions with the modifications and additions to follow. Let's see. Condition 1 shall read as in the staff report. Condition 2 is eliminated. Condition 3, add the following language. The staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees requiring removal, depending on the chosen access. The percentage of tree loss shall remain approximately the same. Condition number 4 removed. Condition numbers 5 and 6 as in the staff report. Condition number 7 shall be changed to read, the city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge in the amount of $$,544.91. These shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time. Number $ shall read. Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopi Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross easements obtained before installation. Number ? and 10 shall read from the staff report. Number 11. A Professional Engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design the foundation of the dwellings on Lots 2 and 3. Adding a condition number 12. That staff evaluate the need for a stop sign at the intersection of Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. I think I got them. I don't know. Conrad: That's good. Is there a second? Harberts: Second. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 28 Conrad: Discussion. Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat ~93-16 for T30 ~ddition as sho~n on the plans dated July 6, 1993 and Rugust 4, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: · The plat approval is contingent upon the vacation of Hopi Road being approved by the City Council and at least 20' x 137.58' of the vacated right-of-way is combined with the subject property. 2. Deleted. · The applicant shall be permitted to remove only the following trees (as shown on Sheet 2). All other trees located on the site must be preserved and protected with snow fence located 1 1/2 times the drip line. Lot 2, Block Lot 3, Block Tree Number 10-18, 29, 37-39, 41, 42, 44, 98 Tree Number 46-68, 66, 68-69, 72, 73 The staff shall work with the applicant to address the specific trees requiring removal, depending on the chosen access. The percentage of tree loss shall remain approximately the same. 4. Deleted. · Final grading and utility plans in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and supply the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance of the conditions of approval. · The city shall extend sewer and water to Lots 2 and 3. Lots 2 and 3 shall be assessed the sewer and water connection and hook-up charge in the amount of $S,544.91. These shall be payable at the time of building permit issuance and may be assessed against the property at that time. · Driveway access for Lot 2 may be from Hopt Road or along the lot line of Lot 3 with the appropriate cross access easements obtained before installation. · The applicant shall pay a cash contribution into the City's Storm Water Mangement Fund. The frees shall be calculated by staff in accordance with the City's Surface ~4ater Management Plan: 10. Full park and trail fees be accepted as a part of the platting of the TJO Addition. These fees to be collected at the rate in force upon building permit application· Current park and trail fees are $600.00 and $200.00 respectively. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 29 11. 12. A Professional Engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota shall be required to design the foundation of the dwellings on'Lots 2 and 3. Staff shall evaluate the need for a stop sign at the intersection of' Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: This item too will go to City Council on August 23rd. all for coming in. Thank you PUBLIC HEAR)NG: PRE.LIMINARY PLAT TO SU)OIVIO[ 4 ACRES )NTO 4 SINC~-E FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 630~ CHURCH RORD. CHURCH ROAD AODITION. ~EG REED. Public Present Name AddTess Greg Reed 3im Way 6301 Church Road 664t Minnewashta Parkway Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Greg Reed: Yeah I'm the applicant, Greg Reed. I've been working 'with Kate on this and I think we've kind of settled this out the best way we could. We've kept the 3 new lots as large as possible. I will put a hydrant closer. I don't know how far you want closer to there. Because I still would like, I like the area. I want to build a house.on Lot, that'd be Lot 11 think. Yeah. So I want my access off of West $2nd Street there to eliminate a little bit less traffic on that private easement. That's all my comments. Thank you. Conrad: Okay, good. Thank you. Other comments. Anybody else? Anybody? Jim Way: I own the lot right. Conrad: Would you give us your name. Jim Way: Okay. I'm Jim Way and I have that lot to the southwest. I just found out that it's not, that house there is not 2 feet from the road but I guess 30. I don't have any specific objectives dr anything to the proposed development. That private road you kno~ does go c~n the north property line and the only thing I'd kind of like to' see some kind of tree line or some kind of something to separate it. Make it more private I guess from that, my lot there. Is that a possibility? Conrad: How do we do that Kate? Aanenson: Well we do have a, when it's abutting a street we do have a streetscape requirement. It's a 30 foot wide easement. 20 feet of that, Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 30 which we require to be paved as we mentioned in the previous report, to 20 ton design. So if the other 10 foot of easement, if engineering doesn't have a concern about putting landscaping in there. If you want to make that a condition. You might want to see if he has a concern with that. Conrad: It's a private drive. It's all on the applicant's property. Does it butt right up to the property line or what? Aanenson: Yes. Scott: The easement does. Aanenson: The easement does. Mancino: Well there are existing trees there just north of your house. will they be saved? Aanenson: Actually, well there is one tree on his lot that will be saved but the rest of the trees are actually further behind his house. Jim Way: Yeah. Most of the trees are to the east. Aanenson: Behind. Correct. They're to the east of your house. Jim Way: Yeah. There's not much along the north property line I c~on't think, is there? Aanenson: Right, they're past his home. Greg Reed: There is trees right along here and along here right now. They will be saved. Aanenson: But he's concerned about the ones closer to. Jim Way: Just to make it, you know you've got a drive~ay. You've got the Highway 7. You've got Church Road and no~ you've got another one going in on the north side so. So it's not too much of a private lot anymore. Conrad: I think, do we have any standards for that? Aanenson: We don't on common driveways. You may need something that provides a better cover like lilacs or confiers or something. I'm not sure an overstory tree is going to give him the screening that he wants. Mancino: But who's responsibility though is that? Harberts: I think any homeowner has the opportunity of ~utting in their own landscaping. Conrad: But this is a road abutting, really it's abutting. It's a private road but it's. Aanenson: It's a common driveway, yeah. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 31 Nancino: And it's going to have a name and everything. Aanenson: Yeah, for access. For emeTgency access. Scott: Is that going to be maintained? Aanenson: Between the homeowners. The City won't maintain it. Farmakes: Does that have a curb? Aanenson: No. Jim Way: Well that's all I had so. Conrad: Okay, thanks for your comments. Are there other comments? Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Farmakes: I support the staff recommendations on this application. My comments before about shared driveway I think are nullified...And my condolences to the person who's going to be building on Lot 1. I don't look forward to shoveling your driveway. On Mr. Way's house. I guess I share your concern whether they're going to be using a common driveway that goes right up to the property line. Obviously it affects the existing structure on Mr. Way's property. I 'm not sure what, if anything, the city can do about that. But I'm open for any suggestions. As stated, we don't get involved in landscaping of a private road, private right-of-way. Aanenson: Normally we don't. In this circumstances again it'd be like looking at a regular subdivision that requires the 1 tree per lot and maybe this is a circumstance where we take those, the trees that were required for those lots and put those in an area and a species that would provide a buffer. Mancino: ...trees left for the lots. Aanenson: Except that there is trees along the easterly side. Farmakes: I have no further comments then. Mancino: Kate do you have any concern about all these driveways on Church, you know when you turn off of Highway 7 and you go north. You know you've got 1, 2, 3, and now you're going to have 4 driveways right in a row and is there some sort of safety concern about how close they are? Hempel: In this situation the amount of traffic at this intersection isn't high enough to warrant I guess the concerns that normally would be associated with the little, if this was Minnewashta Parkway where we have quite a few more vehicles. The horseshoe driveway, maybe at some point that's, the southerly driveway on that particular parcel may be fairly close to the highway but the location of the proposed common driveway is far enough off where it shouldn't impact turning movements onto Highway 7. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 32 Mancino: I have no problem with a shared driveway. I live on one. Two houses are on one and they're big lots. I mean very big lots but it seems to work out fine. We have a legal easement contract that we, both residents adhere to and it's kind of nice to split the snowplowing with someone and it just hasn't been an issue for us. So I see no problem there. That's all the comments I have. Conrad: Okay, thanks Nancy. Joe. Scott: To talk about the buffering. Mr. Reed, would you accept a condition wherein you would provide some sort of understory buffer for your neighbor's property? This is purely optional for you. Greg Reed: You mean a tree line along there? Scott: Lilacs or something. Aanenson: Or conifers or pine trees or something. Scott: I don't speak that language but. Mancino: Maybe the word is, would you consider it? Scott: Yeah. It's not something that we get involved with but I figure this might be, if you would be willing to entertain that, then I would be willing to put it in as a condition. If you choose not to do that, that's your option. Greg Reed: I'm not sure if I want it in there right now. Scott: Okay. That's fine. Greg Reed: I don't know if I'm going to go into developing again either. It's kind of a lot of work and expense. But I have talked to, I'm going to live out there. I want to get along with my neighbors so...as sellable as I can to somebody that wants to buy in there. Scott: Okay. I have no comment. Conrad: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: No further comment. Conrad: Nothing? Okay. Diane. Harberts: I would just add a number 13 of the condition about locating that fire hydrant closer to the houses as recommended and as accepted by the applicant and that's all I have to say. Conrad: Good. The only control on the property line for the driveway, the private driveway. The only thing we can do is Kate what you suggested. Our subdivision is one tree per lot so we literally could move those trees. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 33 Aanenson: And we do have a streetscape requirement. You kno~ when you're on a collector. Conrad: But that's not. I'm trying to apply something that exists and not, so the option is to encourage those 3 trees that would have to be per lot. To put them on that property line. I'm not sure if I like that or not. It's probably, I guess it's up to somebody who makes the motion here. But I think that is something that we could require. But beyond that I have no other comments. Any other discussion? Questions? Greg Reed: ...where that fire hydrant be? Aanenson: I think at this point we just put a condition that you meet the Fire Marshal's concerns. Scott: Yeah, it's 300 feet. Aanenson: Well he wants it so it's, you can get it from the hard surface on the driveway. So they don't have to drag the hose from the rear of the home, because that's where it is now. So if it's 300 feet, it still may be behind the house and that's not where he wants it. $o if we can leave it to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns or conditions of approval, I think that's best. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify one condition here. Condition number 11. It was actually my condition. As far as limiting access for Lot 1. That could be deleted. Aanenson: Yeah, or I'd just put, or modify to say only the hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns. Harberts: Which number was that Kate? Aanenson: Number 11. Conrad: 11. So you're deleting the entire? Aanenson: Or modifying it to say, only if the hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal's concerns. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: So there's no 157 Conrad: Is there a motion? Harberts: I'll make it. I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Case No. 93-15, Preliminary Plat to subdivide 3.3 acres into 4 single family lots at 6301 Church Road north of Highway 7 and adopt the staff recommendation with the modification of number lZ to read as Kate stated. That the hydrant meets the Fire Marshal's specifications. That's it. Conrad: Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 34 Mancino: Second· Conrad: Any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approve! of the Preliminary Plat #93-15 for Church Road ~ldttion as shown on the plans dated 3uly 7, 1993, and ~ubJect to the follow~ng condttton~= 1. Compliance with the flag lot standards in the RSF district· · The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial security to guarantee property instailatin of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval for final plat. · Park and trail fees shall be paid in full at the rate then in force, upon building permit application. A trail easement shall be granted along the frontage of Church Road. · The applicant shall obtain and comply with the appropriate permitting agencies, i.e. MnDot, Watershed District, MPCA, Health Department, MWCC. · The developer shall construct the public utility improvements. Upon completion and acceptance, utility improvements lying within public easements on Lot 3 shall become City property except those utilities (sewer and water) lying north of the southerly 30 feet of Lot 3. Those utilities shall be owned and maintained by the property owner of Lot l. The individual house services outside of the easement shall be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. · The construction plans and specifications for the public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates· Detailed construction drawings and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. · In lieu of constructing on-site retention ponds, the applicant shall provide the City Storm Water Management Fund with a cash contribution in the amount to be determined by staff in accordance with the City Storm Water Management Plan. · The applicant shall name the private driveway and the City shall install the appropriate street signage. The cost of the sign shall be billed back to the developer in accordance with the development contract· 9. A cross access or driveway easement includi'n~ a maintenance agreement shall be drafted for Lots 1, 3 and 4. 10. The City will not permit open cutting all the way across Church Road for extension of utilities· The applicant will be required to extend the existing water stub across from Meadow Lane on the east boulevard of Church Road along the private into the development. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 35 11. Access to Lot i shall be via the private driveway access off of Church Road and not West 62nd Street, only if the fire hydrant is relocated to meet the Fire Marshal's ~peciftcations. Lot 4 shall have no access onto State Trunk Highway 7. The proposed private driveway shall be built to the City's private driveway ordinance standard which is a 20 foot paved surface to a 7 ton design. 13. Erosion control measures shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practice Handbook. Ail draintile systems disturbed in conjunction with site improvements shall be reconnected or relocated to maintain the existing drainage through the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unan'tmously. Conrad: It goes to City council August 23rd. Thank you both for coming' PUBLIC HEARING: ZON)NG ORDINANCE AHEND~NT TO SECTION 20-575 - ~0-595 REGARDIN~ LOT SIZES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Farmakes: Could you refresh my memory on how we require 2 1/2 acre lots, when one subdivides and they figure out where those 15,000 square foot lots are going to go if they do subdivide? Aanenson: You have to have at least 10 acres. It's still the 1 unit per 10 acres requirement's still in place. $o if you have 10 acres, you can take a little corner piece and make it into one lot. You can create one lot. What we're saying now is it doesn't have to be 2 i/2 acres. It can be as small as 15,000, or whatever it takes to get 2 septic sites on because you still have to provide that in the rural area. So yeah, it's in the anticipation that sewer's going to become available and you don't want to lob off a big acreage. And we've had requests for those. You've seen those. The Tich's. People that have come in and say I'm going to hold off the rest of mine until sewer becomes available. But they want to make the most sense of their property now. Farmakes: Yeah. That's usually where we get these common driveways and small lots. Aanenson: Well that's why I think we need to go through and rezone those to RSF because we have had requests from some of these RR areas to just do some splits without rezonings and I don't think we're going through the process to make...done it procedurally. Mancino: They can turn out being really funny looking too. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 36 Aanenson: Right. So again, I don't think it was our intent when we adopted this to allow those existing subdivisions to further subdivide. If someone, just because someone's contiguous to sewer, without going to rezoning, it's basically a spot zone. If you've allowed one person in that subdivision to split, what that does to the integrity of the rest of the subdivision. Really they should be forced to go through a zone change and notify everybody in that subdivision. Say do you all want to rezone, to change colors or do you want to remain the same at that point~ Farmakes: At some point in time too I think some of our...are going to find out, the property that's purchased next to them is purchased with the intent financially of developing those lots. That's how they're purchasing the property. Aanenson: And there is some of that out there but I think we need to let the whole subdivision be aware of that. Scott: There's really two things that I see as should existing rural large lot subdivisions be allowed to further subdivide if sewer and water are available. ! say no. If there is something t'hat falls outside of that, ! think we need the control to have them rezone and put them in a plat, etc, .etc. Aanenson: Right. T think what we're concerned too is that you let the whole neighborhood be on notice. You can't Just let the one person in and what that does to the other people that bought into that rural atmosphere, what it does to their. Scott: Then we have to take a look because that is, we hear a lot of people saying, well the realtor said this or the developer said that. This is a situation where people in good faith can go in and say, oh. This is zoned like this so I won't have someone doing, you know subdividing next door. Mancino: Well most of those people really fought for that. I remember when the Comprehensive Plan was going throuQh. Timberwood and. Scott: Well yeah, they didn't want to, just because they had sewer and water available, they wanted to do their own thing. It was, that was one of those inalienable rights. They have a drainfield or somethinQ. Farmakes: What happens on the large developments, that's Just fine because they dictate where the road's going to go, and we did that tonight. But that first one that we looked at, was a small parcel and the first one to develop with all the surrounding properties maybe $ times as large, it's kind of dictating where those comnectors... Scott: Yeah. Yeah. Farmakes: But that's sort of the way, I mean that's the way property developers. Aanenson: Although Lake Susan Hill~ dictates a little bit of that too I mean by putting Osprey Lane in, they did a little bit. But you're r~ght, Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 37 the first one in does dictate a lot what's going to happen. conrad: $o this is scheduled to be a public hearing and Kate your idea was to present. Aanenson: Our intent was to bring some language to you but it became more complicated and in speaking with the City Attorney, he felt like we should sit down again and try to make sure we've got all the loopholes and we've got it worded correctly and I think we Just didn't have enough. Conrad: Could I have a motion to table this public hearing? Ledvina: Are we going to see it next time? Maybe, maybe not? Aanenson: I'll try. Scott moved, Harberts seconded to table the ~bltc hearing on Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 20-575 to 20-595 regarding lot sizes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARIN6: zoNING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CLARIFY TH~ LANDSCApIN6 ORDINANCE. Public Present: Nape Brad 3ohnson Kevin Norby 7425 Frontier Trail 6801 Redwing Lane Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Is sugar maples okay for parking lots? Aanenson: Yes. These are changes that Jeff had looked at, our forester, and made comments to. Farmakes: What was his comments in regard to the property underneath? Aanenson: The property? Farmakes: Yeah. Where you had a discussion here previous. Aanenson: Nell we require the 20 x Farmakes: You control the size of the tree by the amount of property below it. Aanenson: Oh he concurred with that. He felt good about the' minimum, the 10 x 20. He felt that was a good starting point. Again, that's the minimum, the 10 x 20 planting area and we put 2 trees in those. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 38 Farmakes: I was going through parking lots in town farther. Longer established parking lots in front of shopping center. Those trees, %hey're like in a static growth pattern. That's all the taller they're going to be. They're only going to be about... Aanenson: That's one thing that Jeff did add on page 4 where we had the concern that Nancy had about the soil prep. He added somethine that we should put in fertilization or somehow that there's nutrients given to make sure that there is growth. Mancino: Maintenance. Aanenson: Yeah, we added maintenance but this even goes beyond that. He specifically said fertilization. Regular fertilization. Make sure that they did grow. Farmakes: So with that pad, how much of the trees that we're selecting here...50~ of their maximum growth? Aanenson: I don't know tf I can answer that. Farmakes: ...these species with the different crown expectations are when they're mature. Aanenson: Well we try to pull out the ones, I mean this is a pretty narrow list. That would give the best growth and the best canopy but it's pretty narrow as far as the range of possibilities. Again, there's no conifers in here and there's no flowering. These are strictly overstories but the ones that we did pick overstortes are ones that are more salt resistant and have better growth. Farmakes: But it's not expected that the overstory will expand beyond the ground pad below it. $o that's lO x 20 correct? Aanenson: I don't think that's. Mancino: Did Jeff look at that...? Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah, right. I don't think that's true. Farmakes: That was part of the seminar-that we were at'. The trees, they just don't grow beyond that pad. Aanenson: I think Jeff felt, if it was the regular fertilization and the property soil prep underneath, that we can overcome some of that. I can double check on that. Farmakes: My point being is that we're dictating, if we don't do like a percentage of that parking lot into that space below the tree, we're dictating how big those trees are going to be. No matter what we plant there. Aanenson: That's all the comments I had. Planning Commission Nesting August 4, 1993 - Page Conrad: Okay. It is a public hearing. We'll open it up for public input. Brad? I wasn't sure which item you were. Scott: I thought you were for the next one. Conrad: Yeah, I'm really disappointed. Brad Johnson: My name's Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. I have with me Kevin Norby who's a landscape architect and' is a consultant with us now in the downtown area. We normally don't get active in this type of thing but normally you also have no, what you'll call negative input normally when you're doing these type of things along with sign ordinances. $o we're here as a friend of the city but just trying to give you some other ideas. Relative to your tree ordinance, I suggest you contact legal staff. I think you're getting into an area that is an area that is not an area that you can totally do what you're doing, but I'm not sure. I've been advised by a couple of staffs that are legal people that really the city has no right to control trees. Conrad: Species? Brad 3ohnson: No, I'm talking about cutting them down. You should look into that so you don't get yourself into a, I don't, we try to save trees. I'm just saying, there are situations and I can see some developments coming that they're going to have to take quite a few trees down to make it work and you've got to kind of take an example of one. Gorra's property around Lake Ann is going to devastate. Not devastate, you know you Just have to cut down trees. And there are parking lots that you have to cut trees down, and that's Just life. If you, normally in our situation as you know, and this is sometimes you can over regulate but in the real world most of our stuff we're asking use for something and normally you get back the trees and whatever you feel is important in the design of it and a lot of our stuff is done as PUn's or whatever, and TIF districts so normally we're not adversarial because we're trying to do it. But if somebody did come in with a subdivision that meets all your ordinances and then you held up, had an ordinance that was illegal which could be trees as I understand. Ne checked and they said there is State regulations to regulate what cities can regulate. Alright. And I think if you read the rules, it does not allow you to regulate trees. So I'm not sure of that but that's what my friends at Larkin-Daly say. Harberts: Well I think that's an interpretation because my understanding of public law is what has been the intent and what has been the procedure so that cities don't act arbitrarily, so. Brad 3ohnson: Yeah. Health, safety and welfare. And then there's some guidelines but I'm just saying, you guys are getting into an area that, because I tried to save a couple trees and the city cut them down. You know whatever, so it's a kind of a funny deal. The issue at hand though that we're kind of concerned about and mainly is because we're planning Market Square Phase II and also the city, the expansion of the Dinner Theatre. Not the Theatre but the hotel and the restaurant over there is just parking lots. And I think in some areas things that seem logical to the people who look at parking lots are not at all 16gical to people that Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 40 own the parking lots. And very illogical to people that are the tenants of the buildings that are in the parking lots. Primarily delivered by the consumer and the basic thing is the consumer likes to go in a straight line to where he wants to go. The consumer, the highest incidence of, not fatalities but lawsuits and damages relate to parking lots in a shopping center of any kind. Already over at Market Square'our biggest problem is the parking lot. People driving into curbs because there are too many curbs. People wondering why the curbs are there. You know all of these kinds of things. We're having a lot of problems already over there relative to parking lots. The consumer does not like to have trees in front of them when they're trying to get to their place. Anytime you try to put islands in, the consumer doesn't like them. And when the consumer doesn't like them, they don't use the space and the merchants don't make any money. And thus when Target came in here and went through their thing, there's a certain pattern they like on parking. It's been proven. They've studied it and if you go out into less sophisticated communities, Chanhassen say to Virginia, Minnesota where they've just built a Target exactly like our's, except it doesn't look as nice. Their parking lot has no islands. That was the best and largest opening they've ever had Of a Target store recently. Better than Chicago. In other words, the business works. People can get to the door quicker. Now if you think about going to, I Just got back from talking with one of our local merchants today and the minute they move into some place, they want to know how fast can the consumer get to their spot. How many spots can they have in front of their store or they feel they're going to fail, and they do. Okay. So I'm just saying, we then start planning a couple of our projects and we found that we were losing parking if we go along with the current ordinance and that we're having to move parking away from the doors and we're having all kinds of problems. 200 square foot, lO x 20 or whatever you guys were talking about. 200 square foot island costs a developer $2,000.00 or $3,000.00 or $4,000.00 just in land. We have to pass that onto the tenant. The tenant doesn't want it. The increase in cost. Now I'm not saying, there's got to be something in the middle that works but we see some problems coming with the whole idea. Thus we've hired somebody that we felt was rational that could look at these things from a rational point of view and advise us on this. We are going to go through 2 proposals here in the next 2 months and it would be interesting to try to work both, what is the proposed ordinance into what we're trying to do. That's where we got alerted. We said well wait. We can't do what we're trying to do but I do, you have to realize that the consumer themselves are not interested in what you're attempting to do. They don't say it consciously but unconsciously they just don't use the stores that are hard to get to. And then the next thing is public safety. And then the next thing is liability. Ail those kinds of things are caused by parking lots that have trees. That have anything in them that interferes with normal passage. Now that's real life and that's the other side of the story. We can have the Target folks come in here and all kinds of people. I asked them the other day. I said where's your major problem? They says, in the parking lot. What's the problem? Curbs. You know accidents. You go over there, we've had what, 4 light poles driven right over so far. You know irrigation systems. Trucks drive through. Over the curb, rip out the irrigation system. You know. And the ideal thing, I'm not saying it's the right thing but the ideal thing from the consumer's point of view, once they're in a parking lot. Not to look at it, but once they're in it, is nothing. And we keep expanding and expanding ! . Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 41 and expanding what we're doing. ! don't know what the right answer is so that's why. I just know that that's a problem. We increase costs. We do everything sort of to drive away the trade so you have to kind of balance it all out. It's like turning lanes. Kevin, do you want to kind of add to that? Kevin Norby: My name is Kevin Norby. I live at 6801 Redwing Lane. I'm a resident of Chanhassen. I'm also a registered landscape architect. I contacted Brad Johnson probably a couple of months ago. We've lived here about $ years and I've sort of watched the development in downtown Chanhassen and as a landscape architect have been a little frustrated with some of the things I've seen and I saw some of the same problems sort of occurring at Market Square. And I contacted Brad Johnson in an attempt to maybe get involved in some of the projects that I saw he had coming up. I think Oak Hill and that sort of thing, and wrote him a letter. Expressed some of my frustration with plantings and some of the maintenance issues. Being a taxpayer and watching the guys maintaining the downtown and then seeing Market Square go up and the, what I would consider inappropriate use of plant materials. I think what the City has tried to accomplish there with the use of a lot of plant material and screening and shade trees, is a good thing. But I don't think that it's come off particularly well. And from a liability standpoint and from a maintenance standpoint, if we're going to deal with landscaping appropriately, hopefully the ordinances can be tailored to reflect those sort of issues. I think Brad's concern as a developer is that of having views to the stores and to the signage and frontage of the buildings. Also you know snowplowing which is always a concern. And somewhere inbetween there there's a good balance of using plant material and providing landscape space. And providing parking and sort of things that developers are more concerned about, t think over at Market Square for instance there was a lot of, I mean a lot of plant material that gets 6 and $ feet tall in these parking lot islands that really shouldn't be there. I mean it's a tremendous amount of, a lot of maintenance. It was interesting on my way over here tonight I stopped and I almost got hit in the parking lot over there. And just another good example of how plant material is obscuring, already obscuring people's views and I've seen the amount of dead plant material over there from snowplows and it's just a very difficult place to maneuver. $o hchmefully we can, I think just using some other sorts of plant material. I think the use of perennial plants, maybe ornamental grasses, lower, vines and ground covers. Some of the low potentellia, junipers in some cases, rather than things like viburinum and dogwood and purple leaf sand cherry which we have a hundred of over at Market Square. Those are not only full of disease and insect problems. Those particular plants but you get too tall, too much maintenance and from a safety standpoint are going to be a problem. Aanenson: If I can just comment on that. We eliminate all of those from the parking lot in this ordinance so. Kevin Nor by: Okay. Aanenson= What we're doing for interior parking, I'm not sure if you're aware that what we're looking at is Just overstory trees. Kevin Norby: Primarily trees, right. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 42 Aanenson: Right. Kevin Norby: You know on the same hand, with the trees, I think you need to be careful about use of trees like flowering crabs and maybe you've eliminated those also. Aanenson: Yep. No decorative trees. Kevin Norby: Right. Conrad: Kevin, have you been able, have you looked at the? Kevin Norby: Yep, I've got a copy right here. Yeah. (Brad 3ohnson was speaking from the audience at this point and all of his comments were not completely picked up on the tape.) Brad 3ohnson.' Our major concern... Ledvina: Have you provided written comment to the staff on specific elements of the ordinance? Brad Johnson: We just learned about it this week. Kevin Norby: I was just contacted by Brad I think on Monday or Tuesday. One of the concerns that I brought up to Brad was, you know the size of the parking lot islands and requiring a 10 foot minimum distance to the tree from the curbing. Is that right? Aanenson: No. It's the minimum planting area is 10 x 20. Kevin Norby: Right. But you also, I think you have a'minimum 10 foot from the curb to the tree. And then there's another requirement there about a maximum 350 square foot planting space. To some degree those are contrary, and maybe what these ought to be, just to make it easier to work with. mean I think it's good to provide large areas to some degree but it also needs to be a little bit flexible. Maybe they ought to be considered recommendations rather than requirements as a thought. The other thing I noticed, you talked about all the other areas neec~ed to be landscaped with shurbs or lawn and not rock. I mean I think there is a place for rock in parking lots and it really depends on the type of plant material. The exporsure. The existing trees or the location of large trees. I mean maybe that's best left up to the discretion of the landscape architect who's involved in that project to determine whether rock is an appropriate cover material or bark and ground covers or shrubs. And maybe there's a, may~ a plant list needs to be developed for recommended parking lot shrubs as well as trees. If you're going to require those in there. Because as I see it, that's as big or even more of a problem than trees. Aanenson: We do allow for rocks in certain circumstances. Rocks... Kevin Norby: Looking at the bottom of page 3. Aanenson: Page 5. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 43 Kevin Norby: Page 3 to 4. The remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover not to include rocks or gravel. Aanenson: Okay, that's interior parking lot but otherwise outsto% of it, if you had steep slopes or something like that, there may be other. Kevin Norby: So you're saying no rock in interior parking areas? Aa ne nson: Yes . Kevin Norby: I guess that's what I'm saying is maybe, I mean I think it does make sense to have rock in some instances and it depends on the situation. The character of the building. Number of trees. ~11 of those things and that will influence irrigation and that sort of thing as well. Those are my comments. Brad Johnson: . ..maintenance, liability, and those kinds of things that we feel...Market Square where we can see right away you may want to take... What happens then is that's great but that eats up all the parking. And that's what we've...1,O00 square feet of the building. You lose 5 parking spaces, that we lose in parking lot...and that increases the cost... Conrad: So do you see that requirement Brad. You know the impervious surface ratio is still the same. Brad 3ohnson: Yeah, we've thought of all that. We've worked with all these things in the past, and I'm not even sure we can't work with this one. All I'm just here because we started working with it and... Conrad: I'd like to, and I'm not sure how to treat your comments tonight to be honest with you because I want to hear more. Not that we're going to totally agree but I do want to know, you're doino the developing. I really want to hear your perspective and we probably are doing some things that are going to cost you money. We are. Brad Johnson: Not the money it costs us. It's costs, what happens is it costs the merchant business. It costs him in long term operating costs. We pass all these costs onto the merchants. We don't pay for any of this. Farmakes: Let me argue with that for a minute. I'm a consumer. I'm a consumer at Market Place. I don't have any trouble accessing nor seeing that's my opinion as a consumer. Not here as a professional. Brad 3ohnson: ...I can show you the traffic accidents on the site. Farmakes: Okay, but my response to that would be, how many traffic accidents are at Eden Prairie parking lot? When you get a concentration of traffic, you're going to get some car accidents. Kevin Norby said something from the audience. Farmakes: But there's an inherent difference here I think. There's a conflict. One is the more parking spaces you can get on a large expanse of bituminous surface, the easier it is to maintain. The cheaper it is. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 44 There's no question. That's played off of the effect of ground cover for the bituminous surface so that all of downtown doesn't become an exposed blacktop parking lot. There are conflicts, no question. Brad Johnson: Somewhere there's a balance, we don't disagree. Farmakes: At the Arboretum when we went to the semina~ and we had a room- full of landscape architects and they discussed this at great length. Kevin Norby: Parking lot seminar? Farmakes: Correct. Kevin Norby: Was anybody there... Farmakes: Well it varies as you go around the country. Some places in California that they have an incredibly high ground cover requirement for parking lots. We don't have anything near that. We were discussing, throwing back and forth a percentage, and again Ladd said, it still works out to be about the same but, and part of what you're talking about is traffic flow and I'm not sure that-the lower lighting signs and Market Square was before my time here. But some of the visual sight line obstruction that I get there is not necessarily caused by mounds or curbs or landscaping. In some cases it's cross purpose of traffic coming in. And in some cases the flags on the poles, which are quite low to the ground and it's the flag sometimes obstruct the view although I don't, I haven't had any trouble coming around there. The roads that are accessing into the highway, or excuse me the parking lot, are quite narrow. And particularly when you come around Subway, up on the 'edge as you turn around going out to Burdick's property. You basically can't see around the corner. And I'm always very careful when I come around there to go really slow and look around. $o some of this problem also is caused by minimizing the roads as I'm sure to expand the parking spaces. You aren't 'losing it. Brad Johnson: ...that whole traffic system...' Farmakes: Well I don't have a problem with it myself. I don't have a problem although I know that with any commercial development, there is that inherent conflict between maximizing your resource and community requirements to modify how that changes the environment. Brad Johnson: These meetings need to...deal with the ongoing maintenance ...the people that have to deal with this stuff are...I don't think the city personally can afford to maintain the streets...It Just gets too expensive. All this landscaping costs money to maintatn...Now beyond all that. Kevin Norby: ...comes back to a good layout of a parking lot... Farmakes: So are you suggesting that there be a percentage level or what is it specifically in the ordinance that you're? Kevin Norby: Maybe a percentage. It may be a recommendation suggesting for instance, recommending a minimum of 10 foot setback from the curb to a Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 45 tree. But not less than 5 feet maybe or something on that order. To give you some flexibility. There may be'islands that you can get a 10 x 20 area and the next isle may be 25 feet. That tree will still grow 20 feet x 20 feet... Brad Johnson: What happens Jeff is...Market Square, 'lOT every 5 parking spaces you lose, you lose l,O00 square feet of space. And for every l,O00 square feet...$10,O00.00-$15,000.O0. Conrad: Let me take you up on that though. But you still, you still have the same amount of area to work with don't you? Brad Johnson: You're putting it in areas where we don't get the credit for... Talk about green space. !'m not sure what it is. I just know that every time I 'ye dealt with islands out here with the Target deal and they were paranoid on the same subject. For example over here in front of the Dinner Theatre. There's an expanse there and I don't know why we don't have an island...but there is no island. But all those islands are rock. okay. Nobody maintains them. And now they're...and I don't like that... The only thing we were concerned with was we're trying to work with the ordinance and we can see that we're going to have some problems.:.[ also like to be able to lease space...which are being repurchased by the city because they didn't work... Ail these things are very important...and we're just speaking out on a couple of things because ! think you've got to hear our side of the story... Mancino: Brad, how are the merchants doing in Market Square? Brad Johnson: How are they doing? Mancino: Yeah, the merchants doing. How's Festival Foods? How's. Brad Johnson: Festival meets it's numbers. A couple of people in these who could probably are new to a business or doing a business... The average life of any merchant in a center is about 7 years. 7 years from now we're going to have a complete turnover in that center... Conrad: But they're doing okay? Mancino: But they're doing fine now? Brad Johnson: Yeah. They're complaining aboutl parking. Not enough parking. They're complaining about the traffic flow. Mancino: Are they complaining about parking? BTad Johnson: ...cost of maintenance. Those kinds of things. That's normal. Farmakes= All of this is passed onto the consumer. Mancino: Is part of the problem with the parking because you're just getting over crowded? More people than you anticipated coming? Brad Johnson: No. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 46 Mancino: Because I know you're doing well. Brad 3ohnson: There's not enough parking next to the door. Scott: oh yeah, there never is. FaTmakes: It looks like a consumer... Brad 3ohnson: ...because I'm having to put 5 minute parking signs in because some guys perceive that the consumer has to get in and out in 5 minutes... That's our normal time. Parking to a retailer is a major thing and so the minute you put a barrier called a curb or a barrier called an island, the consumer...Our maintenance cost is very heavy over there in planters that some people in the sidewalks...and I'm not saying we're against this thing but just that all of a sudden we've got another new ordinance. We've had no input. I don't know if it's been to the Chamber. There's only one guy in town here that does a lot of development, me. - That's all. I'm just here and I'm not saying. Conrad: Nell we're glad you're here. Brad Johnson: Yeah. And the only reason we didn't comment in writing, we never have time and the process is, you guys will have these secret meetings. You have meetings and all of a sudden there's an ordinance... and there's a couple ordinances we're concerned about. When it gets to parking. Nhen it gets to signs. Ne don't think we're always right but we should...that's all...I look at our center and I say, why c~on't we have trees that are...Now maybe there's a place to put it...and unless you're out a ways from there, it's not as big a deal. $o all We're trying to do is we're in the design mode...and now we're maintaining it and we're seeing some problems... Conrad: Okay, thanks. Brad Johnson: So we're here and we sat through 2 hours of... Conrad: Nell I'm just real pleased that you're not here for the sexually oriented stuff Brad. Brad 3ohnson: ...we've got some ideas. Maybe he can communicate to staff our feelings. That's all. Rnd try to translate it into... Harberts: Stop lights are going in in a couple of months. Brad Johnson: No, I'm just saying... Farmakes: Nell yeah. The landscaping comes too close to the end of the corner. Brad 3ohnson: But I'm just saying, the same thing can happen interior... That's all... Kevin Norby: Who in the city of Chanhassen, who reviews the plan for the landscape plans? Is it done by the City Planner or have you've got a Plamning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 47 landscape... Farmakes: The planting on the corner that he's talking about took place many years ago. You're seeing a progression. Thee rules and regulations change according to. Kevin Norby: Most recent would be Market Square. Farmakes: Well even that's what, 4 years? Things have changed a lot. Brad 3ohnson: Oh no. And what you're saying is changes is change but change with flexibility. Kevin Norby: ...I'm just asking. Farmakes: Target will be what, a year old? Aanenson: Keep what current? I'm sorry. Farmakes: Are you talking about ordinances? Aanenson: We have a city ordinance that we've had qualified people look at. Then our job is to review the plan to make sure it's consistent with that. Farmakes: Target would be a current development. Aanenson: Nell I think we all recognized there was problems with Market Square in the species and we changed that when we did Market Square. There's no flowering shrubs in the middle of the parking lot. It's all overstory trees. And the direction from the Council was, is that's where we want to be. Ne want to have overstory trees, trying to create a different microenvironments in parking lots. Kevin Norby: What will happen under those trees? I mean according to what I'm reading here, not rock but shrubs and bark I'm assuming. Aanenson: To be sprinkled, yes. Kevin Norby: I guess my concern as a resident of Chanhassen, and landscape architect, how do we keep Market Street and Market Place from happening again at a Target or another location? Aanenson: That's why we're redoing this ordinance. Kevln Norby: But what I'm seeing here doesn't rest?ict the use of purple leaf sand cherry or. Aanenson: In the middle of a parking lot? Sure it does. You must not have read it correctly then. Maybe we need to sit down but that's not what it says. It's limited to those trees that say parking only and that's only overstory trees. Kevtn Norby: I'm talking about shrubs. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 48 Aanenson: No shrubs. Kevin Norby: Page 4 says shrubs can be used in a parking lot... Aanenson: I need to take that out. Kevin Norby: ...recommended list of shrubs. Aanenson: No. If you look at it, it says the recommended overstory trees provided on the tree species list so that's limited to those trees and if it says shrubs somewhere, we'll take that out. Kevin Norby: Item 5, top of the page 4. Continued from the bottom of page 3...the remaining area shall be landscaped with shrubs or ground cover not to include rock. Aanenson: But not to exceed 2 feet in height. That's qualified, excuse - me. Mancino: But you're saying take that further and write down. Kevin Norby: Maybe a recommended...because I could pick up a number of books that show potentellias...5 feet tall. It depends on the variety so it might be a list. It might Just be somebody who looks at it say, that's not appropriate. Brad Johnson: You've probably got to realize, until you develop one of these and...two major shopping centers built in the downtown area... Kevin Norby: I think a real approprtate...for parking lots would, be the overstory trees and perennial plants such as dayltlltes or ornamental grasses Or ground cover... Aanenson: That's ground cover. Sure, that's ground cover. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or a comment. Would you have a suggested action for tonight? What would you like to see happen tonight? Brad 3ohnson: I thlnk the only issues that we, I think you're on the right track in protecting us, the developer...ordtnance is good for everybody... I think we'd like to have a chance to lay one of these out. I think we've got to lay a couple parking lots out...try to lay out Market Square II... Aanenson: This is based on what everybody felt was acceptable in the Target site plan. These standards come from that. It's based on the Target site plan. Interior parking lot of that. Brad Johnson... Aanenson: Correct. Conrad'- Okay, let's move on. ~e'11 be back o~ talktn~ to you in a ~®cond. Is there any, ~f there's no other public comments, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting; August 4, 1993 - Page 49 Scott moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing-. Rll voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I thlnk, I'm still a little bit, I'm not sure what we're doing tonight Kate. This has been in here before and we've made some comments. I liked how you outlined and let us know what was deleted. I think that's really helpful. That makes things understandable to me. 8ut this all, this is an amendment tonight. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: So if we were to go ahead tonight with this, what would happen? Aanenson: It would go up to the City Council with these proposed changes. Conrad: And it would be amended and it would go tn and be, It would be part of the ordinance. Aanenson: Right. We do have these requirements for landscaping right now. What we've done is we've Just tweaked these standards to meet the parking lot standards of the Target. Okay. We already have a requirement that ground cover. A lot of that stuff's in there already. What we've really, the major significant changes are, we want to give credit for saving trees that are in a parking lot...substantial area we want to save that and how we come up with a value. So we put a formula in and said, if there's significant stand and we can put that somewhere. Maybe it's on the end of the parking lot. Maybe it ends up being the middle, whatever. But we want to save those and we want to give them credit as part of the overall landscaping value that they have to do so there's a mechanism for that. The other thing is, we've tried to define overstory trees in the parking lot so we've tried to generate a list, what we feel. Now again, we don't want the tall dogwoods. What we have on Market Square. Agree that those aren't acceptable. We do want some low grour~ cover, not to exceed 2 feet in height. There's always going to be a possibility something's going to grow taller. Just like trees are going to have shoots that are going to come off that need to be trimmed. It's a maintenance thing. That's also a requirement. It has to be maintained. To say something can't be maintained, that's just, they have to be. There's going to be storm damage, whatever. That's a reality that they're going to have to be maintained. To say something's not going to grot4 over 2 feet, I 'think that's, that may happen but our goal is to try to have it maintained to that level. So really those are the changes. We already these in here. We already have a landscaping value that they have to meet. They already have a parking lot requirement they have to meet. What we've done is we changed what we want in the parking lot and give credits for trees that maybe hay9 value. Conrad: Okay. Before we go around, and I guess I'm just going to ask the Commission. If you want to entertain Brad and Kevin to come back with written comments or with a plan as they see it, to see how this works. Or if we're comfortable to react to it right now. If they came back, you know I guess I'm not sure I'd want to extend our, you kno~ we've spent an bOUT on it or something like that right now. What's the feeling? Do you want Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 50 to react? Do you want to get more Input? I think, I'm sure we could get more input from Kevtn and Brad. Mancino: Well they certainly have the possibility to bring that back to the City Council. Conrad: They could do it at the City Council level o~ we can have them come back here. It's whether we want to see it. Kevin Norby: How urgent is this? Aanenson: Pardon me? Kevtn Norby: How urgent is this? Aanenson: The direction from the Council is they, it came from them. They want to have it done so I would say it's urgent. They wanted it done 6 months ago so. Brad 3ohnson: We are...an ordinance is an ordinance...Ltke he said, give us a little bit of... Conrad: Okay, what's the Commission's pleasure? Do you want to react to it tonight and move it on and Brad and Kevin will have a chance. Brad Johnson: ...because by the time it gets to Council we're going to have input... Conrad: Right. We know that you'll follow it and I'm glad you are. I guess I'm Just trying to figure out tf we want to see tt back here or if we'd rather just sort of let you talk to the Council and that's what I'm posing right now. Ledvina: Well Ladd, I think it's always good when you have a new model that you test the model to see if you get some decent results and it's excellent if you have a real world situation. And if they're willing to work through it and talk to the staff about how things fit. Aanenson: It is and it isn't because the expansion of Country Suites with the restaurant, I mean the parking lot's already been, it's not like taking a Target site plan and. Ledvina: I understand that. It might not be the perfect situation for testing it but still. Aanenson: It's going to be tough, yeah. Ledvina: There's concerns that may come up that will come up in the future and if you can make the changes now, it's certainly, much easier. I think if they can do that inbetween the time of now and the Council. I'm always sensitive to sending stuff up to the Council that's somewhat unfinished but if it's the Council's desire that this stuff be worked through on a short timeframe, then I would support moving it tonight. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 51 Conrad: Well if we get it right and work with them, it typically goes through Council much better. Right now there's a good chance, if they poke~ some holes in it, it will stop. Mancino: It's going to come back anyway. Conrad: Well it takes time· But you know, Kate you're tellin~ me they want to see it fast. Aanenson: Well you know, this came from Councilman Wing and again, it was based on a model· It's based on the Target model. Yeah, there's going to be problems retrofitting onto an existing center with a large parking lot. Where the hotel is. Country Suites and that expansion is a large parking lot that the city has behind there'too. I mean this is going to be a unique situation to try to implement that but. Kevin Norby: The other one is... Aanenson: Yeah, I've seen that and there's a lot of impervious surface on that one too. Brad 3ohnson: Yeah, that's in a PUD... Aanenson: It goe~ way beyond the impervious surface and we've seen the expansion and there's very limited landscaping· Mancino: So we already have a model. We have Target as the.model here. Aanenson: Right, that's what I'm saying. It wasn't pulled out of the sky. It was pulled out of, and we went through that last time we looked at it. What exactly the Target site plan had and. Ledvina: But this is a new ordinance and it's there's new elements here , · Aanenson: Well, no. Farmakes: It's kind of an argument, grab bag argument though. It's an argument of many different things. One is the cost of simply putting in an island and maintaining landscaping. The other is the design itself. Is it too rigid of what we're doing, which has nothing to do with what I Just mentioned previously. The type of trees that we're using, tf we're going to cite examples that are circa 5 years ago, 10 years ago of development here, that's why this ordinance is being revised. Aanenson: Again, I think you have to go back and look at this. This was tweaked. I mean originally it used to say the minimum area of a planter strip was 64 square feet. So we've increased that size saying, you know nothing's going to live in that. A lot of the stuff that's in here we've just changed. Modified. Farmakes: In talking to City Council members, it seems to me pretty clear what the intent. Kate, do you feel that...I mean it seems the intent of what they wanted to do with this was fairly clear· And the question is, how do you go about always achieving it in an ordinance· Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 52 Conrad: Well what do you want to do right now? Do you want to react to it tonight and send it on or do you want to bring it back? Farmakes: I'd be comfortable with doing that. Your comment that you made, they prefer that we work this out first. So I'm kind of split on that. Harberts: I'm a little confused in terms of what can we work out right now. I mean we're trying to guess what the. Council. Farmakes: Well to give a reaction to whatever their solution. I'm comfortable with passing it up I guess. There are conflicts, no question. Conrad: I guess my only comment would be, with Kevtn here, I'd literally go down line by line and have him organize his thoughts so I could see what he's saying versus what we've got. That's what we haven't done tonight. He's sort of given us some thoughts but I don't know, I can't react to them. Whether I buy them yet. They're not, there just isn't anything to react to yet. Farmakes: ...comment in some cases and on others, as far as the rigidity goes, that would be a concern. It is a problem that occurs on occasion here with the rigidity of what we're requiring. On occasion what our intent is isn't always what winds up happening. Mancino: Is it a rigidity or is it a baseline? Farmakes: I'm comfortable with the way it was but I'm not out there designing road traffic into our islands. I'm comfortable with Market Square. I think the problem with Market Square personally has more to do with how the traffic is confined rather than parking lot. Whether the traffic is confined into close proximity to the stores-so people all will want to park right there and then the trafftc is running up and down in those areas. So they're backing out onto the oncoming traffic lanes. So there's some inherent problems there that have nothing to do with tree islands. Conrad: Nancy, what do you want to do tonight? Mancino: I couId go ahead and pass it on. But I aisc wouId Ilke to hear or read Kevin's suggestions. So I'm spItt too. Conrad: Anybody? 3ge? Scott: I'd like to see it again. ! thlnk this is a good sanity test. You know the difference between having a Target where it's pretty much the sky's the limit. Here's the property and having plenty of opportunity to tweak versus a retrofit. We've got two retrofits, major retrofits. I'd kind of like to, well I would definitely like to see it again. Conrad: Kate, for some reason I just have a feeling that our upcoming agendas are full. At least the next one. Aanenson: Well you're going to look at the revised landscaping ordinance in general at the next one too so. My only concern is, you know you want Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 53 to go back and look at the whole landscaping because we just made modifications to reflect specific concerns that Target raised. $o if they're going to look at it, basically it sounds like they're going to look at the whole. Scott: Well no. I would just, Kevtn I'd rather see, I didn't sense that you had a problem with the ordinance the way it existed but mostly with the changes. So if you could just specifically address the changes, because I think that's the thing that I was reacting to. I took it as a given. It was working fine. Now we're a little bit smarter about what we're doing so here are these tweaks, as you like to call them. Kevin, if you just go after those and you know, I'm simple minded so keep it to a page. And then we can just go. This is great. This is silly. You know. You know bring the issues forward so we can react to them. Or I can react to them. Conrad: Yeah, but literally based on our report we'd like you to go down and say this doesn't make sense. This does make sense. Scott: Yeah, and why. Conrad: And Brad, I still don't understand the cost in terms of taking away your parking spaces. That's an issue to me but I don't understand it because there's still enough area there. We've taken 200 feet to put a tree but there's still 200 feet. Brad Johnson: Sometimes, the parking all has to be out in front of the store. Conrad: I understand that. Brad 3ohnson: Personally we just, I've just gone through this...and it always comes down to we need 4 more parking spots. I don't know why... Therefore we lose $100,000.00 in... Conrad: But I don't think. My assumption was, this is not taking away those 4 parking spots. That you've still got them there. Brad Johnson... Conrad: Now that I buy but. Well, no. I don't buy exactly the way you. term that. It's not maybe where you would want to have put them but. Farmakes: But in the end, the consumer' always bears the cost for any of this. Brad Johnson: Here's what I'd like to do. We can go, I can have Kevin... make the plan...and see what problems we have... Conrad: Well yeah. That's what we'd like you to do. Brad 3ohnson: ...a concept and I toId you, I wish I could move... Conrad: Well anyway. If you could be back in 2 weeks or whenever this gets back there, and we'll walk through it with the 2 of you. We'd like to Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 54 understand a little bit more any concerns and then hopefully we can move it out of here. Is that agreeable to everybody here? To bring it back? Okay. Aanenson: He'd have to have something to me by the llth to get it in the packet. The packet goes out. Mancino: Did you hear that? Aanenson: To be on the 18th, you'd have to have something to me by the l~th. Harberts: That's next Wednesday. Aanenson: Or if you Just want to put something in the packet without any staff input, that would then at least a day to look at it so that would give me Thursday to look at it. The packet goes out Friday. Harberts: I don't think it's smart to rush it through. If we're taking time, let's take a look at it appropriately here. Scott: Because it is forever. Aanenson: Well, if you wait until September 2nd, we're looking at that site plan on your agenda anyway so. Conrad: What? Aanenson: The hotel expansion and the restaurant is on for September 2nd. Mancino: And we want to have this in place to look at. Brad 3ohnson: Well we assume we're...the new ordinance to be quite honest with you. Harberts: Then that site plan is going to be subject to delay, I think in all fairness here. Aanenson: Unless you can work it out the same meeting. Conrad: Well, I'd like to see them back here in 2 weeks. Brad 3ohnson: From a practical point of view... Harberts: I think the attempt will try to be made in 2 weeks. Conrad: Okay, let's try to do that. -Any other general comments about what was in front of us tonight? Mancino: I have one comment about the calculations. And that is that they be done by a specialist. An arborist, professional. Harberts: Horticulturist? Aanenson: Qualified. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 55 Mancino: Qualified forester, etc. And that also they, not only would they do the formula. That person do the formula but decide if the significant trees are worthy of preservation. Conrad: My only Question Kate is, where did this formula come from? Aanenson: I attached it on the back. Conrad: It was in the attached? And that's, somebody's logically gone through that. Aanenson: Minnesota Extension Service. Conrad: Makes sense to you? You like it? Aanenson: Yeah. That's what you'll be seeing with the new landscape ordinance, the tree preservation aspect. That same formula. That's what our forester is using. Conrad: See I've really not thought about how this all works. Aanenson: It's how do you give value if there's something out there and you think it's worthy of saving but how do you know. You have someone inspect it to make sure it is worthy of saving and then how do you give it a value, so that's what that formula represents .... . Conrad: Is there a motion to table this? Scott moved, Hanctno seconded that the Planning Comisslon table Zoning Ordinance Amendment to clarify the landscaping ordinance for 2 Necks. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING:' CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 10, REE~RDIN~ SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. For the record, it was noted there was no one in attendance in the audience for this item. Harberts moved, Manctno seconded to close the public hearing. All voted favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Harberts: I have no other comments. Ledvina: No. Scott: I wanted to ask something. On Section 10-162 for lOcation. I'd like to add number S where it says. Ledvina: What page are you on? Scott: Page 12. Where it says within 500 feet of. I'd like to add as number 5, a city owned or operated facility. And also, city owned or Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 56 operated facility or property. Maybe that's too, city owned or operated facility. Number 61 City owned property. Harberts: Rather than city owned, how about publically owned because I'm thinking transit facilities. It's not city owned but it's publtcally owned. Scott: My intent is to have so many oflthese 500 foot radii things around the city that it's okay, you can be in the middle of Market Boulevard. Okay, this is where you can do this. I'm sorry, it's a right use so that's my intent. Aanenson: So city owned is like the bus shelters? Scott: Yeah, or public facility. Roger can do. Harberts: Public facility. $o that would also have to include like a school district building and things like that. Scott: Well yeah. So you know what I'm getting to. Public. Yeah, public owned facilities. Or property. So if we own a lot. Harberts: Or a tree. Ledvina: But we talked about this a year and a half ago Ladd. If we do that, we have to make sure that that doesn't totally eliminate. Conrad: It has to be possible someplace. Ledvina: 500 feet from a road? I mean you're going to have a long driveway. Conrad: It would not be legal is that was. Scott: Well that's what I mean, Roger can.. Aanenson: The facility thing may work. Scott: Yeah facility. That makes sense. The facility or building. Ledvina: Public building or something. I don't kn~. Scott: Public parks adjacent to it. Ii'd Just like to see something, because City Hall. Public... Just have him take a look at that. If he can do something that's enforceable. Ledvina: City Hall or whatever. Or library or. Scott: Yeah, facility. Aanenson: We'll get a definition of facility. Scott: Facility I think would work but. Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 57 Ledvina: 3ust so we don't effectively kill the ordinance. Conrad: See the trouble is, they could take you to court and-you could declare the whole ordinance invalid if you can't find a spot~ If somebody came in and because of that they couldn't fine one location that was possible. Scott: Well that's why, I mean. Conrad: But if they can't find a location that's possible, then we're discrim. Scott: Well Roger won't do it. Roger won't put that in then but I think we have a legitimate reason to use a city owned facility as another one of these. ... Ledvina: I agree with that. Aanenson: The public works building, that's separate. Scott: Yeah, it's a publically owned facility. ExcePt I'd like to see it expanded just a little. Aanenson: That's a good comment. Conrad: Nancy anything? Mancino: My only other one, that was church. Why he didn't pull out church or religious organizations. I think we have a lot of public sentiment about that. Scott: And also too, there are churches who rent space. So it's not just a church but a. Aanenson: Well that's the same with a daycare. Sometimes a daycare.is in the middle of a shopping center, which may have an arcade or something next to it so. Scott: That's a good point but then not only 3ust limit it to a church, physical building, but. Aanenson: It doesn't have to be in a residential zone, right. Conrad: Okay, anything else Nancy? Mancino: No. Conrad: 3elf. Farmakes: No comment. Conrad: I have nothing. Is there a motion? Who wants to take credit this? Planning Commission Heating August 4, 1993 - Page 58 Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed ordinance as amended to include in Section 10-162, to include as item $. City owned or operated. Or excuse me. Publically owned or operated facilities and/or property. Number 6. Church property, whether physical. Mancino: R meeting place of a religious organization. Scott: There you go. A regular meeting place of a religious organization subject to city attorney's input. Conrad: Is there a second? Ledvi na: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Scott moved, Ledvtna seconded that the Planning Comts~ton recommend the City Council approve the proposed City Code amendment to Chapter 10 regarding sexually oriented businesses, amended as follows to include in Section 10-162= 5. Publically owned or operated facilitie~ and/or property. 6. A regular meeting place of a religious organization subject to City Attorney's input. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Farmakes: I have some new business. I'd like, Kate if you would review the meeting Minutes in regards to Target, when the architect was in here. I forget what her name was but. Aanenson: The architect? Yeah. Farmakes: They had the architect making presentation to us With the charts and so on. Ne discussed lighting and as I recall, we discussed colors of lighting fixtures. As I recall. I don't know if we did that before the meeting or if records were taken or not. As I recall it was a natural colored lighting and she was referring to the rust color that we have on some of our lighting out here. They're fire engine red. They're even a brighter red than what they've got on their building. I don't know if that's a primer but I would suspect it's an attempt to create an attractive parking lot. Scott: That's the finished color. I was out there two days ago on site and that's. Farmakes: It's a brighter red than what they've got on the building and that falls in line to what we're talking about on Highway 5. Creating, Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 1993 - Page 59 using architectural features and we're accessories and creating a color to attract a situation. This bright. Conrad: Okay. So what is Kate going to do, look at the Minutes? Farmakes: Well I would like to see what the commitment is or what our expectations were on that. I don't know whether the City Council changed or...to that request or what. Looks wise I think it's a real departure from what we have going down In street lighting to that area. Mancino: And I would like to. Farmakes: I think it's contradictory to the Highway 5 intent...of the architectural requirements. Manctno: And I'd also like to add the height, tt just seems unbelteveably, when you're on Highway 5 now you're going to be blinded by the light. Farmakes: Harber ts: have? Mancino: Aanenson: Harberts: Farmakes: Aa ne nsc n: We also had a discussion on the height. Don't they have the down turned ones like we were required to Yeah they are. Yeah, and they have to be off by 10:00. They have to be off at 10:007 I know it's been a long time and... You know I don't recall the discussion on color unfortunately. Farmakes: We had a discussion on the street lights. I remem~r we had a rather long discussion about that. About the light leaking out and so on. Aanenson: We did talk a lot about the candle foot level at the property line. Scott: And the lighting element does protrude below the bell of the reflector. Farmakes: Well at the time she was here they were still working o~t some of the specifics. Materials and so on. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 21, 1993 as presented. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim