Loading...
PC 1993 08 18REGULAR :-~NG AUGUBT~ .18 ~ 1993 · Vice C~air conrad Called 'the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. rmak'Dtane. H~r'.',ber. tS~'~"~ Conrad, Joe Scott, Nancy e,'~' 'mi~ '~rtan' Ba~zl~ Members~ A~aent: Mat'~'~dvina . . stafg ~r.a~en~ Paul' ~~," p~,~,%~...D~rect.~,l ~~tn Al~aaff, Planne~: i~ {D~ H~pe~%~s~.~~'~!~-~ ~r~f~n, Park and Re~,.Coo~ator ~ and ~1It~ ~e~, 'City Attora~ Sharmin. ai-JafT.,presi~t~""tbe'":staf~"*~6rt on"~'iS' . -. -. .-. , , f. -~ :'-: ,9'~ -...... ...:,.. ,:. Harber. ts: I haWe a-cou, pte.-.~.~t'~'o"ns?~of'~ta~f. Wi%h-' .th~..i'.Proposed' expansion, when I was out there today, as I see it,-you really won't ~ee any of this fr~m the street. And w~'ll the buffer be in the back of it? A1-Jaff: There will' be-~o~ i~'the;" ~';'bA~k. Harberte: But it'w~d"prO~/~de 'e~6ugh'~f a"-scr'e'en? A1-Jaff: Yes. Harberts: Okay, thank you. .... -. ~-.~--, ,~r.e~: ~:. ;~'~'~ for p~.:.k'~ .~' Conrad: here f~r~~ ..... · -..~ . : ~ -', >~ ' .- . voted ~ favdr :~ ~ ~~ ~rio~. 'T~"p~lto h~ing was Conrad: Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 2 Mancino: I have a couple questions and one is, that I notice on page 3 of the staff report that there will be no rooftop units exposed and I wanted to ask the developer, how is the new space being heated and cooled, especially when it's going to have people inside assembling? In assembly jobs. Applicant: The current heating in the substantial part of the building is done with the gas hung heaters inside. The current rooftops that are on the building include two air conditioning and heating units for the office area and the rest are inside the building and this addition currently has no air condition slated for it so it has the inside type furnances. So there's no rooftops. Mancino: Thank you. Applicant: There is a provision for a later time to possibly put air conditioning in but there's no slated timeframe for that. Mancino: Thank you. Dave, I have a-question. Kind of a comment, a suggestion. In your report you stated that you wanted to eliminate the curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote the sheet flow across the parking lot. Hempel: That's correct. That's the conversation with the Watershed District, with Bob Obermeyer. The site originally came in, we had concerns over the...onsite ponding they have down below but...necessary to require the curbing and storm sewer. We also probably did more damage by flowing down into the wetland areas, installing storm sewer and also maintenance of it. But the sheet drainage effect you have a buffer strip area to the parking lot...minimize erosion. Mancino: Okay. My question was, you were a little concerned that we might get people parking there and that we. might have some erosion. Could we ask for shrubbery to be planted there so that number one, we don't have erosion. N~mher two, it will stop people from parking off the outside the parking lot area? Would that help? Hempel: That would help, sure. Mancino: Then I would like to make that recommendation.. That we do ask for some shrub plantings along that south side of the parking lot. So that we won't have any erosion...off parking lot parking. That's it. Conrad: Thanks Nancy. Brian, do you have a voice' to talk? Are you going to nod or anything? Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 3 Batzli: I'll talk a little. Conrad: Okay. Batzli: Since the applicant indicates that they may have a plan to put AC in later, would we normally require screening on the roof for that? A1-Jaff: Yes. In fact we could add a condition that should in the future they have the need for rooftop...adequate rooftop screening, rooftop equipment screening should be used. Batzli: The retaining wall in condition number 2. Who decides whether that's required? A1-Jaff: Engineering. Batzli: When does that happen? Hempel: Based on contours...it's required with construction of the building. Batzli: So when do you look at it? When do you get it? Hempel: I would look at it again when the building permit came through, before I would sign off on it. Batzli: Okay. I just, the wording is fairly vague I guess. SO contour lines of the grading plan will be submitted to city staff to determine whether a retaining wall is required. Is that right? And do we need a rationale in this case for why we're providing variances? Other than the fact that we asked somebody and they said okay. A1-Jaff: Staff is comfortable with the variances. We don't feel that it will impact the street. Batzli: I understand that but what's our justification for that?' Krauss: The variances...from newer interpretations...This is an industrial subdivision that was platted over a decade ago. The existing building pretty much has a similar setback. The DNR regulations are established on the presumption that we do nothing to treat the water quality, which of course is not true here. We of course require that. And we exceed the setback from the creek for the DNR but not the hard surface coverage. The DNR regularly allows, you know they have a review authority where they regularly allow those kinds of variances to occur. For example, Rosemount exceeded the hard surface coverage but because all the Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 4 water goes the other way into a retention basins so we could save the trees along the lake, they had no objection to that. We felt the environment was... Batzli: But in this case it flows towards the creek. our justification? So what's Krauss: Well Dave if you want to, where is the water intercepted? Hempel: Downstream there's two retention ponds. One on the west side of Park Road... Batzli: So we don't need a skimmer? We don't care? We figure if somebody's car leaks a bunch of oil and it drains, it's going to get trapped somewhere in the 100 feet? Hempel: Within 200 feet. Batzli: There's been two separate variances. The 100 foot one and then the surface, impervious surface and what's-our Justification for the 100 foot one? A1-Jaff: There's a limitation where the applicant asks that that- variance be... Batzli: They're going to adjust it? Applicant: The 90 foot, it really, and it wasn't an intention to go under 100 feet. In drawing scaling, or it's hard to determine where this creek really is in this area and we have no problem with the 100 foot setback. We're just having a bit of a time figuring out where it is. Our intent is to just need it if it's ...of any consequence. The vegetation between the parking lot and the creek is quite thick and well protected. In fact we've done repairs on it, if any of the sheeting area has been damaged. Since we've got the location in the back. Several locations that a truck for example would damage the sheeting area and we would resod that and take care of that as we have. But that 95 foot thing is kind of a...kind of a scaling thing to try to determine where the creek middle or side is or whatever. And regarding the retaining wall. We've gone through several alterations there from the original plan where we had some water problems again to substantially redirect, regrade that back area of the building. And 2 years ago we had to put, do soil in there to repair the runoff situation from our neighbor's property there. We feel, if you look at the elevation as the building moves back, that soil actually goes down. The building is substantially buried on that side. Our hope is, just for reasons of...is to continue that type of arrangement going through and around the corner there and Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 5 having natural runoff through vegetation and grass. If you look carefully at that, and that seems to work best on that particular site. I don't know how closely you examined that but we've done, had to do some more than 2 years ago to redo that particular area. And it seems to work real well right now with the runoff. Batzli: So do we need anything in the conditions regarding granting the variance for the impervious surface or amending the plans for to eliminate the 100 foot? A1-Jaff: Amending the plans to eliminate the 100, to achieve the 100 foot setback. Batzli: Okay. So that's in your condition 7? A1-Jaff: Correct. Batzli: Okay, but we don't need anything .in there about granting a variance? A1-Jaff: No. Batzli: Okay. Nothing else. Conrad: Okay, Joe. Scott: I don't have any additional comments. Conrad: Okay, Diane. Harberts: Nothing. Conrad: So we don't have the variance on the 100 foot setback. The impervious surface, Dave you're comfortable with that in terms of runoff? Hempel: Yes. Conrad: Okay. Rational Paul is that it had been platted before? Krauss: Well it's a few things. We have a DNR shoreland regulation that they moved the entire state'of Minnesota and works just fine if you're on a little...but it doesn't work very week in the metro area, and they acknowledged that but they never changed their regulation. You also have a pre-existing development that is largely completed. We're just adding onto a building that was never designed to accommodate that fully. Thirdly, the primary thrust of what the DNRwas trying to achieve is protection of the creek corridor. Physical protection of the Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 6 creek corridor. We've done that. We're maintaining a bigger setback or bigger setback than they would like and it's not the... And the final thing is, it's to make sure that water quality is maintained and we already have that in place and operating. Conrad: Okay, good. Any other questions? Discussion. a motion? Is there Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review $87-9, the variance to hard surface coverage shown on the plans dated July 14, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Condition 1 reads, no outdoor storage of trash shall be permitted except at the location indicated on the plans. Condition 2 shall read, the applicant shall submit grading plans to city staff to determine if a retaining wall is required along the north propety line between the proposed building and adjacent property to the north. Conditions 3, 4, 5 will remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 6 shall read, delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, or if, do you want shrubbery in there automatically? Mancino: Yes. Batzli: Okay. Let's read condition 6 as follows. Delete curbing along the south side of the parking .lot to promote sheet drainage across the parking lot. The applicant shall add shrubbery along the south side of the parking lot to eliminate runoff and erosion and to control parking along this side. Condition 7 shall read, the design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed District setback. 8 to remain as in the staff report. Condition 9, read if rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be required. Conrad: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Mancino: I'd like to add a friendly smendment to condition number 4. I would like to add to the first sentence to say, from the city's approved tree list so that the complete first sentence reads, provide 5 additional overstory trees from the city's approved tree list along the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 7 installed until vegetation is re-established. Batzli: I'll accept that. Conrad: Anybody else have a problem with that amendment? Okay. Otherwise we'd vote on it separately. But we'll include it in the original motion. Any other discussion? Batzli moved, Soott seoondsd that the Planning Cosmission reoommend approval of Site Plan Review ~87-9 with a variance to the hard surfaoe ooverage, as shown on the plan dated July 14, 1993 and subject to the following conditions~ X. No outdoor storage of trash shall be permitted exoept at the location indioated on the plans. 2 The applicant shall submit grading plans to o~ty staff to determine if a retaining wall is required along the north property line betweenthe proposed building and adjacent property to the north. The Surface Water Management Fee Currently charged to the parcel will increase accordingly when the site expansion is completed. · Provide 5 additional overstory trees from the oity's approved tree list along the north portion of the site and all disturbed areas shall be seeded and erosion control blanket installed until vegetation is re-established. Financial guarantees for landscaping shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. Also, provide Type III erosion control around all distrubed areas of the site, especially along the creek. The site should be restored with two rows of sod behind the curb line with the exception of where the drainage outlets in the parking lot. In this specific area, the two rows of sod should be required as well as seed and erosion control blanket on the slopes toward Riley-Purgatory Creek. 5. The applicant must demonstrate that there is no more than .5 foot candles of light from the fixtures at the property line. · Delete curbing along the south side of the parking lot to promote sheet drainage across the' parking lot. However, if this creates a parking nuisance or abuse, the applicant shall add shrubbery along tho south side of tho parking lot to el~minate runoff and erosion ~nd to oOntrol parking along that side. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 8 · The design of the southerly edge of the parking lot must be adjusted to comply with the 100 foot Watershed District setback. · The triangular shaped areas located within the westerly parking lot shall be sodded and the curb shall be extended around them with the exception of the triangle located to the southwest of the parking lot. This triangle shall remain bituminous so it will not impede drainage. 9. If rooftop equipment is added, screening shall be All voted in favor and the motion carried unan4mously. PUBLIC HEARING~ NICK JACOUES TO SUBDIVIDE 1.18 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY L~TS ON ?~OpERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED NORTH ON LAK~ LUCY ROAD, WEST 0P POWERS BOULEVARD. 1210 LAKE LUCY ROAD. JACOUES ~DDITION. Public Presents Judy Kepp Gary Welch Timothy Rashey Dwight & Rhonda Schneibel Jeanne Brower 8860 Cty Rd 52, Carver 101 Choctaw Circle 45 Willow..., Tonka Bay 6501 Arlington Court 6611 Ar-lington Court Sharmin A1-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Harberts: I have a question. Could you Just give us a little bit more detail about sharing a curb cut. Are we talking a common driveway? A1-Jaff: Correct. Harberts: So basically it would run the property line? Krauss: Well, there's a potential of it Y'ing off at the back of the curb. It's a common entrance onto Lake Lucy Road. A1-Jaff: So let's say the house would be located here, the curb cut, they would use this existing curb cut and potentially... Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 9 Harberts: We're talking, though are we talking some type of easement or agreement or something? A1-Jaff: A cross access easement would be required as well as the portion that is shared between the two homes which would be this area. Would have to be paved up to a 7 ton design. Harberts: Are they proposing, is the other place going to be built. Is it family related or Just? I think we got a yes maybe. Okay, thanks. Conrad: We'll open it up for public comment. is here, we'll let them speak. Is the applicant Judy Kepp: My name is Judy Kepp. I'm representing Nick. He lives with his mother at 1210 Lake Lucy Road. He's an over the road truck driver and he could not be here tonight so if I can't answer any questions, it will have to stay open until he gets here. What we wanted to do, we do share the driveway. We'd rather have it not tarred because all the roads right there are not tarred. We'd rather have the gravel. We like it better. We would have the garage on that side...with it angled. Angled up because we have...split entry, walkout type house. And the easement, I don't know how to go about that or what to do with it, I don't know. I mean would that have to be gone through more? Harberts: Are you related to the applicant? Judy Kepp: I am his girlfriend. Conrad: I guess what I'm interested in, or we would be, is if you have a problem with that tonight. Yeah, you're going to have to, if you don't like the recommendations of the staff report, we'd like to hear that. If you agree with it, you've disagreed with one of their comments so far, but if you disagree with that portion, you should make your point. We're not going to tell you the process but I think you should tell us your opinion. Judy Kepp: Okay well, all I know is we will share the driveway if it has to be in. That's alright with us but we don't want to tar it. We'd rather keep it gravel. Batzli: Is it planned to be developed in the near future? Judy Kepp: Yes. We have talked to a developer but I mean all of a sudden little thing where we're dividing land between his mother and us is starting to cost more and more than what we thought it was going to so that might be one setback on us. But Planning Commis~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 10 I mean, we came to the city. Nick came and asked how much sewer and water was going to be. He was told like a $25.00 to put into the lot. Now all of a sudden another developer came and it went up almost $2,000.00 and then he came again and got another estimate, it went up 3...so we don't know... Batzli: Dave, would they have to tar the entire length? Can they tar the first 10-15 feet or something? Hempel: The ordinance requires to share a common driveway. The private driveway requires it to be paved up to the point where it essentially breaks off to a single driveway access. The driveway is supposed to be built 20 feet wide and 7 ton standards. That personally in my opinion may be alittle excessive for just a two lot subdivision. The grades here do drain out toward Lake Lucy Road and a gravel driveway is subject to some erosion...Lake Lucy Road so we'd be very interested to seeing that blacktopped, at least a portion of it. Judy Kepp: So you're saying that it would have to be all paved? Hempel: Just the common portion of the driveway. Judy Kepp: Which is how many feet? Hempel: Well it depends on where the driveway would Y off or branch off. It could be right outside the property line. Could be 30 feet behind the trees... Judy Kepp: Like I said, I can't make the total decision, or whatever. Nick is going to have to talk to somebody. I'm just here representing him. Conrad: That's alright. Any other comments? Okay good, thanks. Any public comments? Dwight Schneibel: Good evening. We haven't met yet. My name is Dwight Schneibel and I own the lot Just to the west of the proposed area on 6601 Arlington Court. And we haven't met the people that are planning to develop it and I guess a couple things come to mind, or questions. First of all this drawing doesn't really specify where the house is going to be located at on the lot. And we're kind of curious how far away from the lot borders the house is going to be facing and what portion of the lot the house will be at because it will obviously make quite a difference. Our lot is, sits on a hill below where that lot would be located at so the elevations are quite different and brings up some concerns on losing the privacy with the house right on top of the hill where they're building. And if there Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 11 would have to be anything done with the lot below...or change the hillside which faces the new lot that they're developing. So I guess there is some concern on the change of the hill. .The drainage of the water. Where the water would drain in case of rain. And also if it would obviously affect the privacy that we presently have with our home, with the new home being built on top. It there would be a need for some type of natural growth, privacy fence being put up, or hedges of trees or something of that nature to continue to have that privacy in there. And if there was a change in the lot and having some of it excavated out, that there be some portion put in there to make sure that if there's a change in our lot, that that would be taken care of as far...rocks that we already have on the hill...So I have questions on where the house is going and questions about the privacy remaining the way it is right now. Also, the other thing that kind of comes to mind and curiousity would be the value of the home that's being built on the hill. We live in Curry Farms development which is a Centex development and I guess we'd be interested in seeing the value of the home being somewhere around the mean average value of the houses we have in our area...cul- de-sac or in the Curry Farm development is presenting a development going Just south of us. I think it's Willow Creek where the homes are...and I guess we don't want to lose the value of our home with...So those would be my concerns at this point. Conrad: Thank you. Some of those maybe we can address. In terms of where the building pad would go, in a subdivision we really haven't asked the developer. The owners to do that. What would be the process for them locating a building pad? Krauss: This may not be the answer that the gentleman would prefer to hear but Codes give the property owner a great deal of latitude as to where they can put their home. It has to meet setback requirements which puts them a minimum of 10 feet back from the property line. But beyond that is a matter of personal discretion on the site. In terms of privacy, I understand the issue but the city has never been in the habit of requiring screening from one single family home to another. Generally homeowners do that kind of thing anyway. It hasn't been something that we needed to become involved in. We certainly do screen between different intensities of use but from one single family home to another, no. In terms of drainage, those concerns are very valid. We take that into account. When building permit comes in, if there are drainge issues, we ask them, Dave ask them that there be some information provided as to how the drainage is going to be handled. We make sure that natural drainage patterns will not be disturbed and that there not be flowage directed in ~ areas where it was not appropriate. Our building inspectors are getting pretty good now too of making sure of those kind of Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 12 things...In terms of disturbance on neighboring lots, that's trespassing. The grades have to match at the property line. There should be no disturbance beyond that, or somebody's on somebody else's property at that point. The last question that was raised was as to the value. Again, the city has no minimum value requirements and to do so raises a lot of ethical and possibly legal questions. Again, it hasn't been an issue. Generally homes tend to be a certain value and it keeps creeping upwards. Not every home conforms to that exactly but... Farmakes: But from a practical matter Paul 'though, there is a minimum size that's required for footage size and if you look into that you will see that there are other conditions that are minimum requirements in the city of Chanhassen for single family homes. Scott: I think we're talking about 1,500 square feet finished with an attached 2 car garage. Krauss: That's true but those are fairly minimal standards. I don't know of any houses I've seen in 4 years that are anywhere near it... Farmakes: But I think from a practical standpoint though, there isn't going to be a warming shack built on a piece of property in Chanhassen for a single family residential zone, if that's some of the concern of the neighbors. The city does have minimum requirements for single family homes... Scott: Also too, there isn't any site grading that's proposed for the property so my interpretation is that there obviously will be some excavation for the foundation, etc but the grading will be minimal. So the drainage pattern will probably not be altered. Conrad: So I think the bottom line is, many of your concerns there are basic regulations but specifically they're not going to be addressed. I think grading and drainage will be addressed as a building permit is taken out. But the other issues are really based on code and current city standard setbacks. The applicant has a right to build where they would like to as long as they met our current code. Any other questions? Any other comments from. Judy Kepp: This won't close so Nick can come up and talk to you about some things? Conrad: Well we're going to make a motion tonight and that motion will go to the City Council. If he has some comments, he has to get to the Planning staff and address those based on what Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 13 our motion reads tonight and he still could oppose what we're recommending but it's, and then the City Council will vote on that with his comments included. But he'll have 2 weeks or whatever until this gets there. Dwight Schneibel: Can I just get one clarification. What are the city codes or clarification on the privacy between the homes. You said there is no code or city recommendation that they have to build some type of privacy or continue to, I should say, make sure our privacy isn't changed because when we obviously moved into the home, the reason that we liked the location and the area is because of the privacy that we did have. I'm not saying that anybody doesn't have the right to build on their lot but I guess we don't want to lose what we thought we got when we bought the home and part of that will be lost if we lose the privacy that's right there presently behind our home. By a house that we have no control over. We have no idea where it's going to be placed. How far away from the lot line it's going to'be. 'As far as I can tell right now, it could be sitting right on top of the hill right behind our house and there's nothing. What you're saying at this point that's going to help insure some of the privacy or end the privacy that we presently have and I guess that's a big concern of mine. Conrad: Yeah, I know what you're saying. Paul, there's really not much that we or staff can say. It's going to meet our minimum side yard setbacks. They have to do that. But beyond that, to tell you the truth, it's interpersonal communication that you have and maybe that's more important than what the city can legislate. Dwight Schneibel: That i s fine. We haven't talked about and we don't have any gripes about it. We're just finding out but at this point just clarification. The only guideline we have is the 10 foot offset that we have. That's the only privacy... Conrad: Pretty much so. If you thought that there were some trees or some natural features that were being disturbed, I think we'd be very interested in that but, and again, but if there's nothing that we see there, they do have the right to build within the current code. Dwight Schneibel: And the current code as far as for the type of home they have to build. Conrad: They can do anything. Dwight Schneibel: It's just the, it has to be a 2 car garage, at least square footage of 1,500 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 14 Conrad: Right. And pretty typically you're protected. You know we have seen very few cases where new development in this area has been substandard or hasn't appreciated the surrounding property. With property this big, I'd be real surprised if you'd be unhappy. Now that doesn't protect you. -The odds are with what I'm saying but then again they're only odds so. But I'd be real surprised if they built something that was less than appreciating the surrounding community, but that doesn't you know. Dwight Schneibel: ...that doesn't obligate...I guess I'd just like to tell...the types of homes that have been going up around the area. In Willow Ridge substantial homes and I think the homes that are presently in Curry Farms development right next door are along the same type of... Conrad: Thanks. Any other comments? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Soott moved, Batzli seoonded to olose the publio hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The publio hearing was olosed. Harberts: The only comment I have is, I would support their recommendation to lay asphalt on the common part of the driveway. I appreciate staff taking that proactive approach. Number 3 in terms of including that a written maintenance agreement is established, even though we do have family, ownership does change. So I think that was a good call. But my only comment really is to support the need for an asphalt drive. I don't think 7 tons is excessive because again you don't now what's in the future. I don't know, if an over the road driver, he brings his rig and drives it home or what but the code was established for some purpose but I guess there's always an opportunity to consider a variance. That's it. Scott: I have no comment. Batzli: Is the taking of 40 feet what we've been doing along the road with other people, with other developments? Hempel: That's correct. Consistent with Willow Ridge. Developments on the south side... Batzli: Do we need so much? Hempel: Based on that status of that road, the future road is classified as a collector type street, minimum right-of-way is 80 feet... Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 15 Batzli: That's a lot of feet. We need to look at that someday. That's all I got. Mancino: No comment. Farmakes: The property is not large enough to subdivide again? Krauss: No. No, this one will be above standard... Farmakes: The applicant shares parking does not wish to pave it, pave the shared driveway...I'm assuming they're going to... farther back from that they place it and there's an agreement here that the road is paved so there is a cutoff there. Unless you build a dual road...I'm still kind of ambiguous about how that would be handled. I'm always uncomfortable with shared driveways. I know there might be a fair amount of distance that's involved. The reason being, from what I've seen in practical matters, some of these left over lots, especially around Lake Lucy Road, there's a development built around and there's a little corner lot or something left over and being divided. The one I'm thinking of right now is on Lake Lucy and right on the corner of Lake Lucy and Powers...many of these cases cars have to be parked out into someone else's lot. And the shared driveway situations, unless there's a substantial amount of road available, can create a problem between neighbors. Now in this case...attachment to the adjacent property owner but in 5 or 10 years that may not be the case. I would hope that if there is a shared parking lot there, that it be minimum to avoid those type of things. There is enough driveway...Lot 1 and 2 to allow them enough parking space to accommodate...I have no further comments. Conrad: Okay. Thanks Jeff. I have nothing to add other than making sure we incorporate the staff's condition number 7 and the change that I think is some common sense in terms of the length of the common drive. A portion of the asphalt I think. It shouldn't be the entire length but just up to the Y. Other than that, I have no more comments. Any other discussion? If not I'll ask for a motion. Scott: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision $93-17 as shown on the plans dated July 18, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 will remain as they are. Number 7 to be added to read, park and recreation fees to be paid at time of permit application. And Nancy, do you want condition number 3 to, or excuse me. The condition relating to the trees, to include the language about, from the tree list. Recommended species. Condition number 6, add the language that the trees to be planted Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 16 come from the recommended species list. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Batzli: I guess I'd prefer to see something in there in condition 3 relating to the reasonableness of this road design. Conrad: In reference to what Brian? The length of the asphalt or the. Batzli: The 7 ton design, yeah. Conrad: What are you suggesting? Batzli: I don't know because I would be comfortable with only about the first 10 or 15 feet so that we don't track the gravel onto the road and we eliminate the possibility of the runoff, which is what I think we're requiring it for. You know it seems to me that our variance standard takes into account conditions of neighboring properties and here it clearly, we've got gravel roads up and down the whole way and I don't know why we're requiring something extraordinary from this lot. So I would at least like to see after the word 20 feet in width, something like for a 15 foot initial section or until the driveway splits. You know subject to city staff approval or something like that because I think there needs to be some reasonableness here. Conrad: Joe, what was the intent in your motion. You took number 3 pretty much verbatim. You didn't make any changes. Scott: I think Dave, what would be the minimum that you would recommend for a paved section? Hempel: A minimum to the property line from the street curb. Scott: Which is a 10 foot. Hempel: Which is, in this situation would be probably about 14 1/2 feet. Mancino: Nobody else has it on... Hempel: ...would have it. The driveways down further are, to the east are pre-existing conditions that go out into the...In fact we are in the process of requiring an ordinance that all new Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 17 driveways be hard surface. Right now...from an ordinance standpoint. Harberts: I have a question. How is the 20 foot derived and as a basis for the code or the ordinance. Krauss: That came from a section of code where we started allowing...on private driveways, which the city never used to do~ When we...private driveways, we figure well it's okay to do that. We still have to get a fire truck in there. The UPS truck has to come in and police car or whatever and the minimum acceptable standard, and this was by... Harberts: Given that, you know with your experience Paul, what do you feel...like that. 15 feet or whatever to the property line. What's your feeling on that? Krauss: Well I don't know. Dave is correct...talked.about the need to have a driveway ordinance and we don't. And there are.a series of problems that occur. Major deal? No, it probably isn't but the code requires...having common driveways that it be paved up to a point where you no longer have two houses uses it. And you know, there are ways and maybe they can work this out with Dave to come up with a, I mean there's nothing that says the existing curb cut is where it should be. Maybe it gets moved over a little bit to the property line and maybe if engineering is acceptable of it, the curb cut's a little'wider than the standard and it Y's off right away. At that point it's not an issue. I mean there's ways to work this out. I guess we understand...where you're going and we can probably work out something before it gets to the City Council. Scott: How about if we put something into condition 3 at the end. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved section will be determined by the applicant and city staff. Batzli: Subject to city staff approval. I like that. Harberts: I do too. Scott: Is that what you want? Okay. Conrad: So we have a motion on the floor. Brian, was your's, what was your's? You were Just talking right? Batzli: I was just talking. I didn't propose an amendment. Conrad: Right. Do we have a second to Joe's motion? Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 18 Mancino: I'll second it. Conrad: Any further discussion? So the intent, what we said to staff is to negotiate this with the applicant. Is that what we said? Harberts: I also liked the flexibility that Paul talked about because I think it's generally the feeling here that we don't like those common accesses but some of them, sometimes it may occur so if we have the opportunity of flexibility with that curb cut, I'd say let's go after it. Batzli: We don't have an ordinance. Harberts: Right. But that usually seems to be the intent of the Commission here with regard to common access points. soott move~, xanoino seoon~e~ that the Pla--ing Commission reoommend to approve Bubdivision #93-L7 as sho~n on the plans dated ~uly LB, 1993, sttbJeot to the following oonditions~ 1. No alteration or tree removal shall be permitted beyond the 40 foot setback from the rear property lines. Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fence or other means acceptable to the city. Protective measures must be located at or beyond the ground footprint of the tree's crown. No fill material or construction activity shall occur within these areas. These measures must be in place and inspected prior to the start of grading activity. 2. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements on the final plat over all drainage areas. The following easements and right-of-way shall be provided: a. The southerly 40 feet of the parcel shall be dedicated to the City for Lucy Road right-of-way. b. Standard drainage and utility easements along each lot line. 3. Lots i and 2 shall share a common curb cut access onto Lake Lucy Road. The shared portion of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design and 20 feet in width. The paved seotion of driveway will be determined by the applioant and staff, subJeot to oity staff approval. A cross access easement, including maintenance responsibilities shall be drafted by the applicant in favor of both lots. 4. Lot 1 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 19 preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result .in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading.. 5. The property owner of Lot 1, Block i will be responsible at the time of building permit issuance for one sanitary sewer and water connection and hookup charge. The City Treasurer's office shall determine the charges based on the original assessment plus interest accrued from the date the original assessment was levied. The connection and hookup charge may be assessed against the parcel. 6. Ail disturbed areas must be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. One tree must be planted within the front yard setback of each lot. The tree must be deciduous, at least 2 1/2 inches- in diameter at the time of installation, and seleoted from the oity's reoommended s~eoies list. All voted in favor and the motion oarried. ~UBLIC ~EARING: CONCEPT UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DESNITY (190 DWELLIN~ UNITS) ~%ND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 62.05 ACRES OF ~0PBRTY ZONED RSF AND¥CaTION OF a PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE ~ROPERTY ~S LOCATED F~ST OF HIGHWAY 101 ~ NORT~ AND SOUTH OF 66T~ STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES~ Publio Present: Name address Milton Bathke Gene Klein Mark & Lori Jesberg Bruce Engel Jeff Williamson Randy Fresett Joe & Gayle Hautman 8404 Great Plains Blvd. 8412 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. 8699 Chan Hills Dr. No. 8411 Great Plains Blvd. 8411 Great Plains Blvd. 8551 Tigua Circle A.W.(Mike) & JoAnn Mulligan 8501 Tigua Circle A1 Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd. Dave & Sharon Nickolay 8500 Tigua Circle Joanne L. Larson 8590 Tigua Circle David Nagel 8550 Tigua Circle Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 20 Farmakes: When you say...are you talking about commercial there... A1-Jaff: Well it isn't...the guide plan guides it for commercial as well as residential. It's a mixed use. We don't know what the applicant is proposing within the commercial district. Farmakes: Typically a mixed use, is that not low type commercial use? It's not a Target type situation. Krauss: It's really not specifically addressed in the comprehensive plan. It says mixed use. It"s mixed commercial and high density residential. It's really open to some interpretation as is...We think we know the scale...PUD process is even though commercial development there is premature, I think it's probably something that wouldn't happen until Highway 212 was a little more eminent. The PUD process allows you to send very solid, firm guidelines...development that happens here. Just rezoning the land, you have no controls at all and that's not something we recommend. Just to touch on what Sharmin was mentioning. This is a PUD concept plan. This is the first time through with this. As these things usually are, it's somewhat rough. We've been working closely with the applicant over the summer. There are some changes that have been incorporated into it. Some of the responses. But this level of detail is more of a fact finding mission frankly. To see what kind of issues need to be addressed when the formal documentation is submitted. We've raised a series of questions that we'd like to have addressed. We assume you'll...assume that some of the residents in the area will do the same as well. That's the purpose of this meeting. A PUD concept is a non-binding review. It has to be formally brought back through the process. Go through the public hearing for official action so that's still in the offing. So I guess you should...with a goal of refining the plan and laying your issues out on the table. At the other end of the spectrum, we shouldn't expect everything to be resolved to nth degree at this stage. That's not what this type of review's for. Farmakes: Taking that in mind, the 9.2 acres there on the commercial site. Do you envision that large enough to...strip mall or do you envision that large enough for a light use service type useage. Dry cleaners. Fun and run type. Gas station. Krauss: Well the thing that obviously concerns us is, 9.2 acres is almost exactly what Target is. Mancino: That's not neighborhood commercial. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 21 Krauss: That's clearly not neighborhood commercial. I mean we could tell you what we think and we're asking the applicant, for them to tell us what they think it is and reach some accommodation with that. What we'd like to see is something that's, as Sharmin said, of use to the neighborhood. That includes the gammit from small multi-tenant office space to a daycare center to small service commercial. Those kinds of things that are used on a daily basis. It is going to be sitting on a major interchange, and I know it's hard to visualize. Well yeah...year 2000 now or something. Batzli: Oh really? I saw '97 last time. It's delayed again. Mancino: What happens if 212 doesn't get built? That could happen couldn't it? Krauss: Well, it hasn't been built for 35 years so I guess anything's possible. The project is moving forward. It's kind-of hard to say. Mancino: But the reason why we zoned it mixed use to begin with was because we thought 212 would go in. Krauss: There's an official map highway corridor there. Mancino: If there's not 212, do we really want to have a mixed use in that area or do we want to have? Krauss: Honestly that becomes arguable. I mean when that section of the city will probably ultimately have enough population that you'll want something. Would you want as much-as you would if you had a highway interchange? Probably not. Our comprehensive plan is predicated on MnDot doing what they say they're going to do and they're buying up right-of-way slowly. Farmakes: Well, from a political standpoint as businesses go in there, which they are. As people subdivide and start building these types of roads. From a political standpoint, so comes the highway... Krauss: It's an approved project. I mean the State has scheduled to let contracts on the east end of it. Batzli: The people will come in and complain that a highway's going in next to them. That's what will happen. Scott: Also with TH 101 being kind of like the highway that isn't. Roughly, is it a chicken before the egg where this development is going to drive the city's expenditure of upgrading Planning Commission M~ting August 18, 1993 - Page 22 TH 1017 I've read here about that particular classification for that highway and what kind of bill are we talking about? If MnDot isn't going to pay for it. Krauss: We have no idea. First of all, I mean we do have, there is a state highway. The only improvements that are made to Highway 101 since the 1930's are safety related. There's no... Clearly the road is in terrible shape. Clearly it's inadequate. Clearly the city have acted as though they're a state government in trying to respond to what the State by default isn't doing. The reason why we commissioned a study 4 years ago, 5 years ago to decide how to upgrade things between Highway 5 and 212, which is also why the city has already spent considerable dollars upgrading Market Blvd/TH 101 intersection and rebuild it down to the creek. We met with the I guess it's Chuck, the chief engineer. And we were asking him. Harberts: No, he's the metro district engineer. Krauss: We had a meal with them a month ago trying to get this item on the agenda and...was that we ought to keep talking on it and they're may be some method wherein the highway is turned back to county or city jurisdiction...pot of funds that MnDot has called turnback dollars. We're hoping of meeting next week with the city of Eden Prairie, Carver County, Hennepin County, MnDot staff to try and set the ground rules for it but it's a very big issue and it's beyond one development tripping or not tripping. I don't know where the straw that breaks the camel's back. We realize that it's not a good situation. That's why the city's already committed to doing so much. Harberts: Is there a proposed dollar value though? What kind of money are we talking about here? Krauss: I don't know. We did have some rough estimates. In fact Fred Hoisington is here to be on your agenda last tonight, and maybe tomorrow now. And he was going to give you an overview of some of the preliminary work he did with realignments and his original study I think had some preliminary cost but that was 5 years ago. We haven't updated that yet. Harberts: ...looking at alignments, yeah. Krauss: Now MnDot is scheduled, with the construction of Highway 212, MnDot is scheduling to rebuild TH 101 from Lyman Blvd up to 86th Street. That's part of the highway project. Mancino: Whenever that. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 23 Krauss: Exactly. Scott: And wherever 86th Street ends up going. Krauss: That's true too. Mancino: Is there a formula in the comprehensive plan, I mean I read the whole housing section but is there a formula in the comprehensive plan that is mixed use on anything? I mean like is there a formula for how much of a mixed use should be commercial and how much high density? No guidance? Krauss: No. Mancino: So that's why we're ending up with the 9.2... Krauss: Well the...corresponds to where the lines were put on on the official city map. But it is open to some interpretation. Conrad: Any other things? Any other comments right now? We'll open it up. If the developer has some comments. I think from a Planning Commission standpoint, the key word here is conceptual. This is a concept plan. It will come back. Some of the staff recommendations are kind of specific so it gets you carried away into looking at specifics but again this is the time that we can tell a developer what we're thinking and for them to tune into where we're going and then they can take their calculated risk or gamble if they want to go a little bit against what we're recommending. But again, it's their opportunity to see where we are. I think as we get close to a recommendation, again there are some specifics and I think that's, they really get kind of specific but I think we have to be kind of general in our approach. With that, if the developer is here and would like to make a presentation, we'd sure entertain that at this time. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, my name is Dick Putnam. I'm one of the partners of Tandem Properties. My partner Jim Ostenson in the pink shirt is here also. Dennis Marhula and Greg Koskey from Westwood Engineering are the engineers and planners inthe project. They're both here this evening and we'll ask Greg to give you a very short explanation of some of the site plan issues. Don Jenson who is the manager of land development for Rottlund Homes is here sitting in the front row and he'll be able to explain the unit types that they're proposing and answer any questions you might have. We received the staff report. As the staff said, we've been talking with both the engineering staff and the planning staff primarily for quite a length of time. Also with Mr. Hoisington about the road realignment. The impact of that and so forth. I might Just tell you how we're purchasing Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 24 the property. We're buying the land on a contingent purchase agreement essentially. If the project's approved, acceptable to what we need to do, then we would buy the land from the two underlying owners, Mr. Klingelhutz and Mr. Bartz. Mr. Klingelhutz will retain the commercial area and we aren't involved in that other than it's included in the planned development at this point so as Mr. Krauss said, he and A1 I think have had some discussions about what that outlot will be and what size it should be and that's an issue we're kind of responding to on what's presented to us. If it's 10 acres or 5 acres or what have you. We'd work around that. I guess what I'd like to do at this point, we did have a neighborhood meeting last night with just-a few people there and they brought up some good questions. Good issues. Good suggestions of what changes we might be able to make. In reading some of the letters, it's pretty clear however that there seems to be a real basic underlying dispute with the comprehensive plan in that commercial and higher density and medium density housing that happens to be proposed for this site. And it's nothing we have any control over. I guess we looked at the plan and talked with staff and highway planners and proceeded accordingly. What I'd like to do at this point is ask Greg come up and maybe explain very briefly since the staff did a pretty good job on outlining it, for what the plan entails and Don, to explain the units for you and then we'd be able to answer any questions that are raised in the staff report after that if you'd like. Greg Koskey: Since the staff did a very thorough explanation at the beginning here I'll just keep my comments fairly brief here and touch on some points that I'd like to emphasize. One was that we had met with the staff early on to review the Comp Plan and various site issues. To that end we developed a site plan that was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan in terms of general areas and uses that would define the commercial multiple family and single family areas. The multiple family that we're proposing is generally lower density than might be allowed by that comprehensive plan. We also took into consideration the alignments for Highway 101 and 212 as defined by MnDot and that the Hoisington Group is working on for the 101 alignments. Knowing that wetlands is that ever important issue that we have to recognize, we did field delineate the wetlands. Had our wildlife biologist go out there and stake them and field survey them so that we can work around them. The intent certainly is to avoid any contact with them. I know that there was comment in the staff report about impact, potential impact from 86th. The intent certainly is that we 'stay out of it recognizing that there are serious repercussions if we start dealing with that particular issue. When we got into the specific site planning of the property, we took a look at how the Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 25 use relationships were going to work. We naturally wanted to get a single family buffer here adjacent to the residential to the east. Recognizing that 212 is going to be a fairly major roadway coming out of a freeway thoroughfare, we wanted to get a little bit higher density type units to this area and working with a slightly denser, lower type impact unit up here. The units down in this area are 2 story. They're generally 4, 8 and 12 unit buildings. We have a density in this area of around 9 units to the acre. Up in this particular area we're looking at one story. units generally before and...in our buildings. We've also worked with private roads running through this site. We wanted to keep things generally in a curvalinear manner. Keeping straight sections fairly short. Attempting to use the variety of sizes of units and the arrangement of roads to help create an interest so as you move along you don't see long lines of buildings that look very monotonous. We're trying to create some interest here with the way that we arrange units either at angles, moving along so that you're seeing the buildings from different forms, different directions and not seeing the same thing all the time. Overall density for the site, including the residential. We're looking at something around 4 1/2 units to the acre. Again averaging 9 units here. About 6.7 units for the one story units and about 2 1/2 units per acre for the single family residential. 86th Street is, as you see intended to be realigned up at this point here. Working with reasonable setbacks here and working with the plans' for 101 that the Hoisington Group has worked with, there is also a proposed connection to the existing Highway 101 at that point. The street right through the single family residential is intended to loop north and come back up to TH 101 at some point in the future. When that area develops. The grading, we've worked with in a fashion that's generally consistent with the site. The one inherent consideration that you have with any type of residential, multiple family residential is there is only so much grade that you can work with on these sites so they do have a tendency to flatten to some degree but we are attempting to retain as much of that existing character as we possibly can. We are also with the site drainage patterns, creating areas of where quality ponding prior to discharging waters into the wetlands. Generally we're routing water through the site in a southeasterly direction that will ultimately end up moving down towards the Riley Lake area. The utilities to the site are being serviced with sanitary sewer up north of this site. There is watermain that will have to be extended into the site from other areas through a public works project to service this particular property. Landscaping is one where in the multiple family area we're generally working with the density of about 2 1/2 degrees per unit which is a little bit higher than you'll typically find in a single family residential area. We're trying to also work with shrub massings around foundations and elsewhere throughout Planning Commi~sion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 26 some of the critical site areas. By appropriate massings of these trees we can buffer areas along TH 101, along 86th Street. Buffer along 212 in conjunction with the berming that we're proposing along 212 and 101. We're also trying to arrange landscaping throughout the areas to help define open spaces, shape of buildings, soften the massings of the buildings and help provide for the privacy of the individual units. Where they have their individual gathering areas. I think-with that I'd like to pass it along to Don. Don Jenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. It's been a while since our company's been before you. We are in the process of developing our own single family subdivision...I'm looking forward to working with Tandem here. We are the builder in this particular development, which means that they're developing the property for us. They're taking care of the streets, utilities, the land development approval process. We're the end user and that, in this particular case that means we're looking forward to bringing more of the single family houses such as what we're buildling at Windmill Run, down to single family lots. We are looking at providing market rate housing that staff eluded to, regarding first time home buyer product. That is what we are intending to provide on the southern end of the property adjacent to 212 is the Rottlund Villa. Some of you may have friends or business associates that live in some of those. There's approximately 1,400 of the villa units now built in the Twin Cities. All quadrants of the Twin Cities. It has sold, depending on the city and the development costs, as our newsletters would say, anywhere from the high $50,000.00's in the very first years, up to the low $90,000.00's in some communities. All of those things are driven by conditions and decisions of the various elected bodies. Planning Commissions, etc and how those things impact development costs. I think there's goals of the city to have housing that's more affordable. Then you can influence those through your decisions regarding conditions on any given approval of the project. We're also excited about bringing a very new product for us, which are called our garden homes. They are the one story product and I'll flip over this sheet to those in a moment. This would be a somewhat more detailed and perhaps the cart before the horse but we wanted to give you an idea of what will be here regardless of the site plan. Assuming that you approve it. With that I'll move to the other side of the microphone. Farmakes: We're looking at a fourplex here? Don Jenson: What you're looking at right now is the back to back unit which means that any given side, if there were 8 of them on the footprint looking in plan view, which is. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 27 Farmakes: ...multiple. Don Jenson: You multiple it, correct. So you'd see on an 8 unit building, you're only going to see 4 units on any one given side. Farmakes: How many am I looking at right here? Don Jenson: You're looking at 4. Farmakes: 4. So it's a 4 plex. Don Jenson: It's an 8. But you're looking at. Farmakes: 4 on one side and 4 on the' other side. Don Jenson: Correct. Now the site plan that you saw as part of the plan has combinations of 4 unit buildings, 8 unit buildings and 12 unit buildings, and I'll show you exactly where each unit is. Farmakes: I'm seeing 3 garages here. Where's the fourth garage? Don Jenson: You're actually seeing 4. You have one building. One unit is right here and it has, all end homes have 2 car garages. Harberts: Oh end homes so the centers have singles. Don Jenson: The centers are single so here's your other unit. And that should be in your packets, although it may be on a sheet that's quite small to read regarding floorplan. They're all roughly about the same size. These are about 1,150 square feet typically. The center one is a little bit smaller. It's around 1,100 square feet and then that pattern is just reversed. What you have on the site plan then for a 4 unit building, of which I believe there was one roughly in the center of Block i next to the wetland, is you have a combination of two ends. What we're done with this particular building style is the end home has a step roof, meaning that we have a vaulted ceiling space over on this side and then you've got a full 2 story space on the other side. So it's roughly compatible with how a lot of single family homes from the end view are built. The building itself is about 72 feet wide on the end view, which is not a whole lot wider than a lot of single family homes that have a wide or a triple car garage. About 40 foot wide house, depending on where the garage occurs, and 80 to 90 foot wide lot. You almost have the same... when you're looking at the end use building, especially when it steps up. It's no greater or no more visually a concern, depending on a person's perspective, than a 2 story home is on Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 28 the street. And depending on how a person views the sketch plan that the developers have put together here, the pattern that you see from the street, whereas you look over the wetland coming down to 86th into the Villa development on the south side, is a series of building masses and roadways which are about I 1/2 times thinner than some single family neighborhoods. In other words, you might have a 70 foot wide, or excuse me. A 50 foot wide home and you've got your side setbacks and you're going to have another single family home with it's 2 =ar, 3 car garage. Your side setbacks of 10 and 10 perhaps or 15 and 15 from another home. In this case you have a building mass and then you have at least a 20 foot wide long driveway plus a street, private or public. Another driveway area so you're going to have about an 65 to 70 feet between buildings. Again that's more detailed in the next part of the site plan but to get to the building style, that's what we're proposing in this area. What we believe is that encourages...you have created an awful lot of jobs in Chanhassen. Adjacent to Chaska. Eden Prairie. You have a lot of manufacturing, a lot of service sector employment. You're now seeing it across the street out here and in the retail developments that you've been successful in attracting and a lot of those jobs simply don't pay the high prices. High wages that are there purchasing the family homes. Farmakes: Materials on this particular model here. The outside clapboard. I see you have some. Don Jenson: No. I'll tell you what the outside building materials are. They're brick around the garages. Now that's usually around our entries to the homes. Places where a lot of hands get touched so it's around the doorways. Usually we have some type of turning corner. Where we turn the corners, we carry the materials around so it's just not like a fireplace where it's just in the front of the face. So we're carrying it around the corners. It's also on all garage tops so if a vehicle would miss the garage door for some reason, it's not going to dent the building. It's going to have something solid there. The siding is all an aluminum product. This all has a lifetime, similar to most single family homes that are being built today of about 25- 30 year life. The roofing materials, same thing. When we put together homeowner associations for these types of neighborhoods that we've been building in the Twin Cities, we're trying to make sure that they don't have big costs that they're going to have to worry about. Some of the associations on different housing projects, different housing types, in the 70's. Late 60's, early 80's used a lot of wood products. They used them when wood products had a little bit better quality but still high maintenance. The redwoods, the cedars, they..paint very frequently and quite often and if you have a single family home Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 29 that still has a lot of wood, it's a job you dread doing. You end up hiring it away after the first time you do it yourself in most cases. So what we would like to is the low maintenance, long life exterior products. Farmakes: The trim, the windows? Don Jenson: The trims are all aluminum or aluminum clad. In some cases various types of metal composites on the...windows. That's the building product. They all, I could furnish you with additional sheets. It's a detailed inventory of what comes with the home but again it's about 1,150 square feet, at a minimum. A little bit larger on the end. About 1,180 in some cases. That will fluctuate a little bit depending on how we treat the window areas. It is lofted, lofted space. Gas fireplace. All the appliances come in. This particular neighborhood that we're looking at, we are going to shoot for.providing housing that is under $80,000.00 for a first time buyer. Now you'll see a spread on all of our promotional material. If you look in the newspaper every Sunday you would see that a lot of our advertising we talk about how much the interior unit costs because a i car garage versus a 2 car garage, you can expect some savings there. There's usually in most of our neighborhoods, surprisingly a $6,000.00 spread between the 1 car garage and the slightly smaller square footage and the end home with it's 2 car garage and lofted ceiling space. Farmakes: Is the garage door also aluminum? Don Jenson: The garage doors have been primarily wood. They're painted. There have been some shifts, it depends on our suppliers and the particular development, neighborhood that they're in. So there's some shifts there. The standard exterior patio which is usually at least 10 x 10. You might not be able to measure that by looking at the plan. All of these homes have standard air conditioning, standard...we feel they're important. Will also affect that purchase price. Staff has eluded to an idea that they might want to try some type of special district where there might be various other incentives, either to Tandem or to an end builder like the Rottlund Company to do x in exchange for x, of which I don't know what those ideas might be. Farmakes: You're using the word range. Is that the average price then or is that the base price? Don Jenson: Well you've got 2 different styles of homes with, it's usually a spread of about $6,000.00 and you'll find that the very first subdivisions we did, if you wanted to research them up at Brooklyn Park or Coon Rapids, had land costs and other Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 30 development costs that allowed those to come to the marketplace in the iow 60's. We recently completed a project in Bloomington and Eden Prairie where some of the end units, and they were adjacent to a woods and they were adjacent to very large oak trees, some of those end homes sold for a little over $90,000.00. So it's subjective. It depends on the location and it depends on the neighborhood and the various conditions of the development. Mancino: Would this be comparable to the property that you Just developed east of Dell Road and south of TH 5? Don Jenson= From a neighborhood image on the exterior in terms of what we are now doing for our landscaping program, for our signage programs, our directional signs...at Dell Road and TH 5. How people are directed to their homes and how the project looks from the exterior in terms of the landscaping. It would be similar. The building facade itself is different. What we are trying to do there is that was also very high. That was above the number that staff was looking for. Those sold in the high 80's and low 90's. And what we're finding-is that there's a lot of people left behind. There's a lot of people who still can't qualify at that level. There's a lot of singles, for whatever reason, and most of our neighborhoods are women who are looking to buy. About 50% in most cases are single women. That doesn't mean you have children that you're tagging along. It just means that there's women in the workforce that are looking to buy a home and get started themselves and so without a partner and that's just what our demographics and our buying patterns show. Then on the end house we're finding that .there's couples. It's primarily younger people and it's primarily the first time home buying market. We also see about 10% of any given neighborhood, and most of them are anywhere from 70 units.up to 170 units so this one fits squarely in the middle at 112 units. That about 10% of those have been historically older buyers where price was important...I'm going to classify that as people over 50. They're coming out of another home or they may not have even owned a home yet. They're simply trying to get homeownership in this state, with it's high tax. You get one benefit on your tax form and that's if you own a home for the most part. What we found then is we could develop another product and that's what we have along the street and we're calling those our garden homes. We've taken the same square footage, which.is approximately 1,100 to 1,200 square feet and instead of two levels, we've got it all on one level. This does mean that it needs, and 'it will fall under the '88 guidelines for home construction meaning that doorways, hallways are wider than the 2 1/2 feet that you see in most cases. They're all 3 foot wide doors. Hallways are wider. There's more of a requirement to have a flat site because you can't have more than 4 units without meeting some of the federal Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 31 guidelines for accessibility. What we have then again is the same concept. The end home. The 2 car garage and our current concept plan is 1,220 square feet so you've got your dining area, you have your garage area and you have your laundry and kitchen. You have a master bathroom, half bath, master bedroom and then' kind of a den/bedroom and a porch. We found that the 4 season porch, or however builders like to classify it in Minnesota, it's still a big plus. It keeps the mosquitoes away and in areas, and especially neighborhoods where you have more wetlands or where long grass is close by, the mosquito populations are going to be up so you need to get away from those. But there again this is a fairly efficient home. Like all of the Rott!und products, we have accessibility to be straight out of the garage into the homes. You don't need to close the garage door and go outside and back into the front door. That's one of the reasons that the townhome design and the villa product has been so popular with women. It's real secure entry system. We've also taken then the idea of a single car garage has merit. There's a lot of older buyers that no longer have a mate, or maybe never had one. They only have one car. There's no reason that you need a 2 car garage just to store boxes. So we've taken the 2 car garage away. The 2 car garage again as part of the plan. · It's a little bit smaller unit. It's 1,117 square feet and again a similar concept. You have your 4 season porch in the center. A patio space, master bedroom, and you have one master bath. This does not have a second bathroom in it so that's one of the places the square footage is increased. The end home has i 1/2 bath system with 2 car garage. The interior homes 1 bath and then the laundry and kitchen area have a direct entry straight out of the garage. It has a total building height of 23 feet. The villa is around 28 feet so there's not a tremendous amount of difference between the roof height pitches. It's a 5/12 roof pitch. Similar building materials again. It's aluminum products on the exterior. In some cases some of the vinyl manufacturers have been pursuing us for vinyl siding. It kind of depends on your personal taste whether you see one or another having more merit. That particular siding industry has improved in how their quality of their siding. You're seeing it on homes all the way up through a quarter million, $300,000.00 so. It has an ability to hold color for long periods of time...bleaching out like previous projects did in the clapboards, etc. Metal trim and typically that's in a white. Scott: So in this particular plan, basically what we see here is unit A and unit B. Those two actually would be, you could put them together and that's basically how they would be? Don Jenson: That's exactly how they are. If you were to push these 2 together, that's how they show up on this plan. What's. Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 32 colored over here on the right side. Scott: Okay. So the indentation back there is the patio and then the 4 season porch adjacent to the side of the garage of unit A. Don Jenson: Here's your porch. Here's your entry area. In this particular building product, building design also has more of a vestibule or covered entry area so as you're standing at the front door as a guest, whatever and it's raining as this year every other day, you can stay out of it...get in the front door. ...garage and have direct access to entry that way. Single family homes, which we hope to be the end builder there as well. Your minimum lot standards here are being applied to the PUD plan. It's a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. That's going to translate into a move up style home or perhaps upper end...but it wouldn't be unlike neighborhoods we're starting to build up on CR 117. I'd be happy to answer any questions for you regarding the housing project but other than that, that's the overview. It's the first time home buyer and it is an empty nester. People who are looking to downsize or in some cases people who are looking to get into first time home buying on a modest scale. Don't need all the square footage. It's all on one level. And we think that there's a strong...for that in the western suburbs and particularly out in Chanhassen. Western Eden Prairie market area because you've done such a good job of getting service sector...and jobs here. It-will keep people off the roads so they won't be driving a half hour to get to work... Mancino: What's the occupancy rate of the one in Eden Prairie? Have those all been sold? Don Jenson: It's all been sold. There's been several resales and people that have been resaling have been getting their equity out and paying their broker and making a profit so we're leaving something on the table, definitely. Development just had it's... 2 weeks ago which means we're still in our-warranty period for that neighborhood. That one was sold out very quickly. Most of them, for 112 units, interest rates not going through the roof, we would expect that once we started marketing and selling, that we would be able to move through a development plan like this in, sell through and build that whole neighborhood is about a year. So if you were to approve this plan sometime in the near future, and the streets were to start next year, by the end of the year 1995 you would see a completed neighborhood. We would expect the similar pattern to occur for the garden homes. We're starting our first neighborhood of that particular home design in Eagan. We haven't broken ground on a structure yet and it's got tremendous acceptance. It's half sold out right now...provide Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 33 the modest home with what people want and -that part of the market is served. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, in quick summary I might just refer to the two recommendation sections in the staff report of the engineer and also the planner. I think by and large we can work with them on really all of the recommendations. One recommendation about a traffic study, we're a little in the dark about. I assume that pertains to the commercial area. Is that correct? Hempel: That would reflect the intersection there with necessary turn lanes and so forth. The intended use there, trips being generated from multiple and commercial use. So it's kind of a combination of both areas. Dick Putnam: Okay. The last item is item 11 where it indicates the applicant shall dedicate to the City in the final platting the necessary right-of-way determined from a traffic study for the future Trunk Highway 101 and 86th. In our meetings with the staff since day one we've indicated...we would be dedicating right-of-way whatever's necessary. We indicated from day one however that TH 101, which takes up, depending upon what you count, anywhere from 7 to 11 acres of property is not something that we're prepared to dedicate nor are the underlying owners. At no time at this point short of reading this report has anyone suggested to us that that would be a condition of approval. I guess I'd ask Paul perhaps before the next meeting to check with the City Attorney and the Plymouth case and some others that seem to indicate that in our previous discussions that that would not be the position of the city of Chanhassen for dedication of a state trunk highway or county road or whatever so that would be the only one that we don't feel would meet in working with staff and for the design. Conrad: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Are there any other public comments? A1 Klingelhutz: Members of the Planning Commission and staff. I'm A1 Klingelhutz. I live at 8600 Great Plains Blvd, Chanhassen, Minnesota. I just recently received the staff report on this and I did try to get ahold of city hall today to discuss a few items in here. One of the main items that I wanted to discuss was the right-of-way for Highway 101. When you lo0k at that map and see that the piece of property that I don't think there would be anything happening to until at least the year 2000, the 9.2 acres, and expect dedication of a 200 foot right-of-way plus a Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 34 berm between the old TH 101 and proposed new TH 101, which would constitute between 5 and 6 acres of property. Without reasonable access from TH 101 to that commercial property would be asking for an awful lot. I think I mentioned at one time not too long ago, over my dead body or I'll go all the way to the Supreme Court. And I mean it. I Just can't see it. As far as the state building a new TH 101, I don't think there will be any, I mean to 86th Street, there won't be any dollars other than city of Chanhassen's pocket. By letting the state acquire that portion of that right-of-way. It's a major collector street. Proposed to be a 4 lane highway. Proposed to take the traffic from having a major interchange on Highway 212 to downtown Chanhassen and I even believe the first portion of that road was purchased and already built...landowner. I cannot proceed having that road being such a major...being donated by the developer or the landowner. I'm speaking also for Mr. Bartz who lives down in Kentucky. He called me today and asked that I should represent him. He feels very strongly about this as I do. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks Al. Other comments. Dave Nickolay: Members of the Commission, my name is Dave Nickolay. I live at Rice Lake Manor. 8500 Tigua Circle, otherwise known as Lot 6, Block 1, Rice Lake Manor. We have the largest piece of property to the east of the proposed development. The map up there in no way I believe does it Justice. That line that Sharmin just drew goes all the way back to the black line of the back of the pond. That's a 4 1/2 acre piece of land and I guess I Just want to start out by saying that my wife and I are not opposed to development in Chanhasen, or development on this property. We directed a letter to you at very short notice. I worked on that letter until midnight on Sunday night because we just got home on Saturday night. We did not receive adequate notice from anybody. No one from the staff. No one from the development company. No one has talked to us prior. The last time any discussion that I'm aware of took place on the land was back in 1990 when the comprehensive plan was discussed. And I talked with Sharmin a little bit about that today but I feel that a development of this magnitude next to the development I live in, and...I'd just like to walk through a few of those real quickly with you if I could. The first and most major concern is dealing with the issue of the 190 units that are being proposed, and I've learned something here tonight that I don't believe my wife was told and the members of our community of Rice Marsh were told, the other night at the neighborhood meeting. The 190 units are really going on about 40 acres of actual land. The development of Rice Lake Manor was developed I don't know, about 15 years. We've been there about 12 years now. We were the third ones to build in that development. We have 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 35 units on 40 acres about, recognizing you've got to take the streets out of 40 acres and we've got significant amount of land in the marsh which is a wildlife easement. So somebody will have to tell me and I did talk to Sharmin a little bit about it today but I'm not here to get into the specifics of what's built but I think the fact is, we're looking at 190 units next to 7 units at this point. We have one open lot at this stage. There will be 8 units there someday. My most major concern is that there's no transitional planning here to go from this size lot, acreage. I had a choice. There were only two lots sold when I purchased this particular site. I purchased it because of the wooded nature and just the whole aesthetics of that lot, and I built a house on it appropriate to the site. Some of you, as I understand, took a walk yesterday through the area. I'd be more than welcome to invite you to my home to show you what I've got there in terms of what's being proposed. There's no transition here. To go from what we originally bought into in this area to what's being proposed. This is going to totally change the whole purpose of what we did back 12 years ago. It's probably longer... My second point is, deals with the fact that Lot 6 in the Block 1 there, I think will be significantly impacted for a number of reasons, and I'm not going to bore you with all the details. I think I outlined there that the property to the east, or I'm sorry, to the west of me will not be what I would consider conforming to the property that I own. And I think that's going to have an impact on what I have there. Another major concern that I have, which I'm not holding anybody responsible for this but the contour of the land's been adjusted on the horse farm over the last 10 years. The horse farm's been allowed to dump their horse manure on the land and that has created a drainage problem. All the land to the west of me, where what used to be the corral up on top of that property, and then slightly to the south, all drains through my property now. It does not run any longer off to the back of the marsh because that was filled in with the horse farm's manure. And so that has created a problem for me and I won't speak for one of my neighbors but it's created a problem for him. It's created a problem for both of us in terms of the water drainage. In the most recent heavy rains, only the second time in the 12 years I've lived in Chanhassen, my house is on a slab. The water table got high enough. I have good underground...that filled with water. I had to have that pumped out. The area that it's draining into, the culvert under my driveway wasn't meant to drain all the water from the west across my property. And that isn't I don't believe how the original land contours laid out. The third point is the fact that...with the large wooded area that I have on my property. It's directly adjacent to the single family homes and the people who were Just up before me, I have a strong feeling there's going to be a large number of young families in this area. There's no park in that Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 36 area. My children play in that woods along with a few other children in the neighborhood. I think it will be an attracter. There's a treehouse in the woods right now. I canJt, how am I going to chase children off my property? I have them myself. The property line which is on the west side of my land, is all treed and I planted some of those trees. There's oak trees there. There's an ash tree there and then there's a variety of other foliage on that line. I would sincerely ask you that none of those woods, if you're going to approve this plan, that none of that growth be destroyed in any manner and you'll have to determine what's reasonable in that regard. It doesn't make any sense to me if you're going to approve this, to tear out something and the landscaping in preparation of this site, only to plant something back, if it's already there. And some of you took a look at that. So I'll let you be the judges of that. The last point under the impact is, what I would consider the northern 1/3 of my property, on the very bottom of the hill behind my house is a main trunk line for the sewer system. For one of them. It is not a trail. It is used by, when I say it's being used. It's not being trespassed at this stage but I have reason to believe that it's going to become an easy access point off of this development. There's no place for them to go here. They're not going to go walk out on TH 101, as you're well aware. They're going to work their way, for recreational purposes. There's a pond on the back of my property. There's a nice marsh out on Rice Marsh. I have reason to believe that this is going to be an area where I'm just not going to be able to protect until such time as the city would put a trail in or use that property for some other reason. Quickly moving on to my point 3. West 86th Street. I told Sharmin that she should go out there this morning after the rain. You would have truly gotten a feel for what West 86th Street turns into after a good rain. Was it 2 winters ago or in the spring, there is no base underneath that road. That road heaves up. It does what it wants to do when it wants to do. It was originally designed as a farm access road. That is not a city street. The city doesn't maintain it as a city street. And so West 86th Street should not be considered a street by Chanhassen standards. It is in need of major upgrading. Two cars cannot pass...on that road the way'it exists right now. We have children and a number of the other neighbors have children. A school bus cannot pull out onto Highway 101 without crossing both lanes. If you're heading south out of that road, you cannot head south. It's a blind access. You're taking chances. We go down the left lane until we clear ourselves. We look to the corner first and then we go out. West 86th Street, if you approve this plan, has to be upgraded. With the realignment into the new spot that they're showing in the dark color area on the map, it cannot be left as it is with this kind of traffic on that road. It's a hazard for us right now. The fourth and fifth Planning CommiB~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 37 points are the wetlands issue. I encourage you because of this, the high density of this development to have an environmental impact study done by the appropriate state Or local, I'm not sure who actually does that. It's too major of an area there in all regards and I would encourage you to have that looked into. My sixth and final point is that the, at the hearing in, it was in September, 1990. We were told about another development, Klingelhutz development which was going to be over by Riley Lake. Or Lake Riley. And they were going to connect the sewer and the water and bring it down the side of West 86th Street and then take it to the south. And we were told at that time, and I testified at that meeting and I told Sharmin to check the Minutes and I don't remember what I said at that meeting, but we were going to be connected to the city water at that stage. And at that point they didn't, the staff did not even realize that we had the underground connections in place. So they took our fire hydrants, but we haven't really needed them but somebody took them. We have them capped off but I guess my point is that any, the residents of Rice Lake Marsh, and I will.speak for myself. I'll let my neighbors speak for themselves, is I don't believe that we should have to pay for any connections or upgrades to this area. I believe we've paid for that once before and I believe I testified to that effect back in 1990. I never heard back. The staff that were here then, or that were there then, are not here now and that still remains an open issue. I'll close by saying I have two requests. One, all of the issues that I had addressed and I'd like all of the issues that my neighbors addressed, we have a good group of people there. We get along. That all those issues be addressed in writing to you and to us. And my final request is that, if you're going to approve this type of development next to my property, and I won't speak for anyone else in my area, I feel I should be given consideration for what I have there and how it's going to change. I don't know what that is...I was not going to be here tonight but I changed my evening work schedule so I could be here. I just feel this is being rushed. I haven't had a whole lot of time to think about this. I'm not feeling good about it. Staff, I did get in this morning. In view of the 35W upheavel and I couldn't get to work, I was able to talk to Sharmin a little bit this morning so I'm feeling a little better but I'm really concerned about this and no one has talked to me, or my wife. So with that I thank you for your time and consideration and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Conrad: Good, thanks David. I think you're probably talking, or finding out about it. You may feel you're behind things but as we said in the beginning, this is a concept.. It is the beginning I guess and there is time for you to be involved so I don't think you should be frustrated that way. A lot of valid points that Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 38 you bring up and hopefully as we express our thoughts. Again, it's a real tricky issue when you get into a concept. We're talking, we should be talking general things. Not specifics. You may be concerned with some specifics. We may ignore them right now. We may touch on them. It depends on the preference of the commissioners. But again, I think what we want to, what I personally want to focus on is the overall global direction and provide the developer our insights so they know where we're going before they commit a whole lot of time and effort to a project. They already have but this is their way to find out what we're thinking. So anyway, hopefully we'll get back to some of your points a little bit later. Any other public input? Joanne Larson: My name is Joanne Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua and there's a couple, I hope you all have my letter but there's some concerns. I'll just go over the most important ones that... One thing I'd like to bring to your attention...is the developer stated tonight that the purchase of this land is contingent upon the approval of this and I'm just frighten that maybe if we say okay, this is just a concept. Let's approve the concept. He comes back and says, hey I purchased this land. You approved the concept. Now you're telling me I have to make changes. I think the commission should be careful about that. We just got back from vacation on Sunday night and found out about this and didn't. have too much time to prepare so I called a developer friend of mine and I go, I'm going crazy you know. What do you think? And so I got a little advice from him also and I' thought it was good advice...not all of them are from here. The density is way too high and the transition is not good. Single family homes should be extended to the south. I feel that single family homes should be extended to the south here. Also I'm concerned about what's going to happen over here. We have high density in the back along this line. When this developer comes in, will he be able to rezone this to high density? So my first point, the density is way too high. And then transition is good at all. In fact the developer has not even provided an area of transition from a single family home to the 12plexes right across the road here... I also feel no driveways should enter off West 86th Street. On the land here there are a lot of driveways that butt up to West 86th Street and can enter, you know turn right off of West 86th Street right at that driveway. All entrances to the multi-family dwellings should be kept to the west end of the large pond. Personally I'd like to see from the middle of the pond here multi dwellings just this side of the pond. I feel that the entrances to these multi dwellings should only be on this side of the pond and that's it. No entrances any further to the east. I'd also like to see this myself, single family here. I think we can split this up to quite a few good lots single family. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 39 Batzli: Excuse me, ma'am. Do you have a justification for why there should only be entrances to the west of the pond? Joanne Larson: I just feel for the transition, that's why. I think it would be a nice transition. Also I don't know what you're going to plan on doing for West 86th Street but it would become a collector street and should be widened to 30 feet. I don't know, maybe that would keep some of the traffic down... support the aesthetic affect and has a real nice, I mean if they just sort of were separated. If the single family homes were extended south. I commented a couple things on the villas. I like this style of the villas. I've seen them off Dell Road. I'm really happy with those. I'd like to see the ones in Chanhassen upgraded to the same architectural design as the ones off Dell Road. They have gables over the windows and I like, I would prefer vinyl siding. I think it gives a little softer look. I'll pass over the...The last thing I'll just touch on again is that we ask that the city not rezone or approve any concepts at this time because MnDot's not even sure that highway 212 will be built. We need to see more alternatives. We need to know if 86th Street. I'd like to know if it's going to dead end there at Tigua Circle or are you planning in the future to extend it all the way to Eden Prairie. I'm also concerned, like I mentioned earlier, is that development right to the south of Tigua Circle, east of the plan...What's that going to be developed into? Can that be rezoned to high density? Is it high density right next to it? It's just all too over powering I feel. Thank you. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Other comments? David Nagel: My name is David Nagel and I live at 6551 Tigua Circle. I don't know how to say this but I had to come back from vacation for this. As you can see on there, I have on that plan there's 5 lots that abut up to mine and I don't feel like I should have to sacrifice my lot for all those. I think that they can somehow they can get like 2 lots in there or 3 but I think 5 is ridiculous. Everything that Dave, my neighbor touched on I think I agree with 100%. The people in there will not have a place to go. They will be coming across into my backyard and I have trees that I planted in there too. I think my backyard will end up being a playground. If anything I'd like to see somewhat of a high fence put up, and I'm not talking chainlink. I think something on the order of like a 6 1/2 foot cedar privacy fence. Another point of mine is, are we going to be assessed, the homeowners in that area, for like Dave says the water hook-up because everything is in the street now. And the road. I came from Minnetonka originally and we got assessed for road improvements that didn't even affect us. I'm afraid that's going Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 40 to happen here. And to me this development is not an improvement. I mean I saw people out there, the Planning Commission walking yesterday when I came back from up north. And they can see what it's like out there. Now I don't thinkt his is an improvement so when it comes to paying anymore money for a so called improvement, I wouldn't go along with that. -That's about all I have. My main concern though is the 5 lots that abut up against mine. I feel that is really, it's going to screw my yard up. Dave has 2 1/2. Larson's have 1 3/4 and I have 5. I think that's a bit unfair. That's all I have, thank you. Conrad: Good. Thanks for your comments. You know there are a lot of, there's a tendency to get frustrated because we may not be responding to some of your specific questions. And I really don't want to right now because I'm trying to get into the concept stuff versus the particulars. I think there's probably a good reason for having a neighborhood meeting with the developer and some of the people that have been on vacation so, and probably in attendance with city staff so some of these questions can be answered. I know you get nervous about that. It's a big development going in. Right now again, I don't want to, this meeting could last for hours and there are a.couple other items on the agenda. I'm not trying to cut short the comments because we want them. Yet on the other hand, it's sort of, we haven't even started to talk yet and as commissioners and we have our own opinions too and this could take, it could take a fair amount of time. But anyway, your specific questions will be answered and we'll make you feel comfortable with it. May not always be the answer you want to hear but at least we'll be talking to you. Other neighborhood comments. Mike Mulligan: My name is Mike Mulligan and I also live on Tigua Circle. I'm in the first lot east of the Dave Nickolay's lot there. I've not been there quite as long as Dave. About 9 years. 10 years since I bought my lot. Obviously we're all speaking for ourselves and we're not professionally organized and we haven't been doing this for 2 years, working on this. But I think you feel the general theme that's running through these comments. Is that we feel that the intensity of the development is not only too great for our neighborhood. I haven't done the numbers...but it's pretty self evident that it's too intense for the neighborhood we're in. The short notice we got. Every single person who lives in those 7 occupied lots there has been on vacation and some of us were not able to be here tonight. Have not returned. We would respectfully ask for enough delays so that we can get our act together and make some sort of cohesive statement. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 41 Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Again, this is. a concept review and you're going to have plenty of time to do that. Other comments. Bruce Engel: Hi. My name is Bruce Engel. I live at 8699 Chanhassen Hills Drive North in the Chanhassen Hills development, which is across TH 101 on the west side of this proposed development. I just have a few brief comments. It appears to me that the plans for TH 101 and 212 should be finalized prior to this type of a project being approved. It may fit nicely with the 212 and 101 when they're completed but it would look kind of silly out there if say 212 wasn't ever built. In addition, the Highway 101 traffic is, once this happens, the traffic will be greatly increased, which it has, we've all seen it go up a great deal since these past few years and the ease of access and egress for residents will be decreased and I think we're additionally concerned about the future safety risks. The safety considerations on TH 101 for all of us. I think if you drive that, more and more concerned. Again as the staff report addressed, this PUD, planned unit development for the total... total plan should utilize the environment and apparently there is some additional concern and I'd like to see, make sure that there is a great deal of attention placed (a), to the grading and make sure the wetlands aren't jeopardized. And finally, my final feeling on this is regarding this commercial area. 9.2 acres seems to be, well it's too big. I don't think you need a space of that, for this size of development that is as large or almost as large as a Target. I don't think we need a Fleet Farm in there. I think we should keep our commercial. Major commercial development along the Highway 5 corridor. Thank you very much. Conrad: Other comments. Joe Hautman: My name is Joe Hautman and I live in Rice Lake Manor. Rice Lake Manor could put those 8 lots together and compise about 40 acres. 8 lots for 40 acres compared to the 190 units here. So if we came in together, the'8 of us, applying a formula used here, we could ask for a subdivision with 216+ units. Now that would be extremely profitable for us. But that would be lousy planning. That really would wouldn't it. You're not going to agree if the 8 of us decided to sell out and plan like that. Well the same thing somewhat applies next door. This is not a good plan for that neighborhood. The density is too high. The reason is, that is the topography does not lend itself to multiple units. We've already heard tonight from the developers. How they're going to have to straighten...It's simply the wrong development for that topography and that is a concept. The reason that one of the people suggested that the driveways for the multiple should be west of the pond is, as Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 42 you've heard tonight, things that are designed for first owners. Single people without children. So it makes sense to have the entry to the, from the busiest sections west of the ponds because the single family's going to have children. So it makes sense to separate the traffic pattern. Have the single family where there won't be children. Have a separate entrance there and keep the higher traffic areas with no children have their own separate entrance west of the pond. An important point for all of us is the special assessments. When we bought there we had all the special assessments in and paid for. We had...blacktop, storm sewer, catch basins, the whole works. Including the water. And we rely on you to protect us in that regard so that we don't end up paying any further special assessments. Thanks. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? Anything? Okay, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Batzli moved, Manoino seoonded to olose the publia hearing. &11 voted in favor and the motion oarried. Tho publio hearing was alosed. Conrad: Did Todd leave? Hoffman. Yeah, I was going to ask him about parks. Krauss: I can tell you what we know, and...putting together his recommendation and I'm not privy to that. The comprehensive plan does describe a large park area due east, along the south side of Rice Marsh Lake. It's an extremely attractive area. Heavily forested and it's going to be severed from the balance of the property by the Highway 212 corridor. Access to it is a little problematic because we don't have public right-of-way going all the way through it. I had some preliminary conversations with the Eden Prairie Park Director. They are also planning a significant park in that area and are working with MnDot to get a trail underneath Highway 212 that would run north/south that would basically allow us to have a trail loop around 86th Street to the rest of the city. Through the park, underneath 212 and back along a new trail that was built along..Lake Riley Boulevard...specific recommendation to the Park Board? Hoffman: No, the staff report is still being developed. It will take into consideration any comments brought out this evening... 8:00 a.m. meeting scheduled with the applicant tomorrow morning to discuss some issues. I have not had the opportunity today to get together and talk about trail alignments. Pedestrian movement through this site between the proposed park open space to the east and Highway 101 to the west. So you've got...recommendation in this regard for the park commission... Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 43 Conrad: Okay, good. Mancino: Can I ask Todd a question? I'd like to see a neighborhood park in this development. I know that the trail around Rice Marsh Lake is going to be a community park. Correct? Hoffman: The basis of whether it'd be a community or neighborhood or a combination of both has not been addressed to date. In the 2000 Land Use Plan, the site is considerably wooded. It rises up above Rice Marsh much more than some of the property on the north side of the lake which is typically much more wooded vegetation type of wetland. So that issue has not been addressed but now would be an interest with 212 coming through and the land use will change in this area, we'll have to address what that park is actually going to look like. In regard to amenities, recreational amenities which the residents of the site can use in very close proximity, I made an indication to the applicant that I found it was unusual that there was not a community amenity such as a pool and play structure. Kind of support this type of location included somewhere in this development typical of what you find in many other multi-family development types of applications. So again, that will be addressed in my staff report. Comments in that regard will be heard from the Park Commission... Scott: Todd, does the Parks Department own any property in that area? Hoffman: To the north we own, the city owns 70+ acres which is delineated by these two parcels. The one Just south of Hidden Valley and then the parcel which is larger just south of Chanhassen Estates. But again there's a small neighborhood park located right in this location. Access to this park from this development would need to come out onto TH 101 and then access the recently completed trail which travels then east along the toe of the slope or sandwiched between the wetlands and the homes which are in that area. Other than that, there's no neighborhood or community parks developed as of yet in this region of the city. However, the city does have land holdings of approximately 32 acres called the Bandimere Community Park site which is south. Scott: That's the recycling? Hoffman: Correct. Where the recycling center has been and that is south... Mancino: Todd, another question. When we have developers, well we haven't had developments like this. But do you find that homeowners with children plus homeowners that are just single or Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 44 older, over 50, want parks as much as families that have children? Hoffman: It's a difficult question to answer because it's really an issue of personal taste. But typically people, whether it's active recreation, passive recreation through the enjoyment of open space and parks, access to trails, all those are amenities. which the...regardless of age. So if you would like to see those incorporated, or at least that access to them, it's accommodated through the site plan. Conrad: Okay, thanks Todd. Well, we'll go for planning comments and again, we can have at it folks in terms of details but again I'd sure like us to keep in general terms if we can. The staff does have a list of recommendations so I think you can react to those but I also think we should react in general terms to the overall site that we see and let the developer and staff know what we're thinking so. With that intro, Jeff. Farmakes: Well I'm glad...In previous meetings that we've had... made comment to the homeowners that stood up here and he asked about the pricing of homes next to him and we didn't know what the price of the house was going to be. I think the standard comment that the city comes back and says we're not in the business of dictating that certain price house is going to be next to a certain price house directly. Indirectly obviously there's several other issues that come into play that the city has minimum requirements. And being that you have a foot of land in Chanhassen and you have a dictated amount of cost to build something on it and strict requirements...medium price house and I believe the medium price house now in Chanhassen is $110,000.00 to $120,000.00. Somewhere in there. Which basically says that that's the minimum requirement that we wind up with in this city. I'm a little disturbed that we come into a development targeting price totally from a governmental standpoint rather than letting the market do that. The reason that I'm uncomfortable with that is many of these large developments, the huge ones that you see in town and so on are dictated somewhat by government requirements and political concerns versus marketing concerns. Marketing always seems to work out better... I realize that there are other considerations that we've talked about here tonight. Providing housing for factory type work. For businesses in Chanhassen and so on. Entry level homes. Single family. Single parent type and I think that's...I'm wondering if the scope here, if what we're attempting to do is solve all our problems with one developer. I find the scope of this, for this particular area, with it's surrounding properties, may get a little tunnel visioned to solving the problem that we talked about. Providing housing in Chanhassen due to the deficit for a Planning Commiszion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 45 certain type of housing. I would like to see some more moderation that's been talked about here to the east of the property. Perhaps in Block 2 larger lots. Between 8 and 1. I would also perhaps like to see bringing single family down into the areas of 12, 11, 10, 9 and 8. Somewhere and perhaps they're duplexes buffering before you get to the 4 and 8plexes. I realize obviously that that will lower the amount of density but I do think that the homeowners that have come forward here are making a legitimate concerns. This is not a buffered area. There is not a transition, even if it's one row of houses. Again, that refers back to the tunnel vision type of approach of solving a problem by taking into consideration...Certainly units 11 and 12 that are on 86th Street, the people who purchase the homes for Lots i and 2 on Block 3, they're.certainly going to be adjacent to large density development of single family homes. Again I think that's compounding the problem. Overall, I'm going to make my comment general from this point. I think with the development overall, the scope for high density is too big. I'd like to see some more moderation in the transition. Again I feel uncomfortable dictating the size of the units and say that these should be duplexes and this should be 4plexes. I know that's a market of what generates those types of developments. Except where the city or the federal government comes into play. I know that in the case of Eden Prairie, some of the developments that the village homes, particularly I'm thinking of Centex, they've done quite an exemplary Job in terms of making a transition. The prices however on those units as I recall were in the high 90's to the low 100's so we're talking about a step up here from where this targeted amount is. The grading that Sharmin talked about earlier, I would support that. I'd like to see whatever development comes in here that we try to maintain that. It's been something that we try to maintain on any of our developments that we've tried to...Whatever happens here, I also am concerned about the scope of our parks to look at these things. I'm talking about neighborhood parks. There is, quite a lot that can be done in these types of developments. Areas that are referred to as common areas or areas where there's a small scale park and I'm thinking of perhaps Block 1, Lot 6. The 4plex kind of tucked in there in the middle of much higher density. Perhaps an area like that...The outlot, I'm still concern at the size of the outlot. I realize of course there's a lot of concern that 101 and 212 may not happen, and...any highway projects type costs. But it would seem pretty reasonable if that case...we're having here, the pressure that we're having to the south now, that highway's going to happen in the relative near future. Where it goes exactly, the preliminary work has been done for that and it may vary somewhat and I am again somewhat concerned. If there's commercial going in there, that works into our long term development. We look at the proposed commercial area that was at Planning Commi~sion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 46 TH 41 and TH 5. I responded in the task force in that development to propose commercial development there by the Mills property and the response was there that we had enough commercial of a half a million square feet in the downtown development that that's suffice for our population. I am concerned about the size of this commercial development. It's almost as large as the Target area and I would not like to leave that as an open ended thing. By allowing that much space as commercial, I would not like to see that go beyond the scope to Droviding services. Dry cleaning, daycare, the type of thing that you would not envision in the typical strip mall with more servicing higher residential area. I'm concerned about the size of that. It's so large that it would seem to me that it's bordering on being another strip mall. And if that's the case...should be discussed. So I'd like to see more information there on the size of that. On the area of safety and traffic, I'm assuming that that can't be, that the cost of traffic studies and so on until you come up with a relative plan that you feel has been narrowed down somewhat that we're going to get a professional response...Obviously there's this amount of density being put into this area, there's going to be a considerable amount of additional traffic in that area... Mancino: I don't want to repeat all of Jeff's...I do agree with all of Jeff's comments. I'll try to add to the big picture one. Paul, when is Fred's study going to be done? The updated 101 alignment so that we actually have the final 101 alignment. Krauss: I will defer to Fred on that one. Fred Hoisington: Nancy we will, almost all the information is in now so we would expect to perhaps, time permitting on the agendas and so forth, to have something that we'll be at least recommending. So we're not that far away from having a recommendation to make to you and to the City Council. Mancino: And your recommendation may ~not be this alignment? Fred Hoisington: It's possible that it won't be but my understanding is this plan takes into account any possible alignment. Krauss: If I could address. The alignment does affect portions of this property to a greater or lesser extent. But it's not significant. It can be accommodated so it's. Mancino: Would it not add to this outlot size? Krauss: It would add or subtract. More likely it will subtract. But it's got to be made clear that when we...the city's alignment Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 47 study and bring it to the neighborhood and get the City Council to approve it, nobody's going to be out there with a...in the foreseeable future. There is no project to upgrade the highway. We're working with people in trying to put something together but clearly that's a ways off so I don't want to mislead anybody that a quick solution to the Highway 101 issue is in the offing. What we're trying to do, in lieu of the safety with the proper planning processes of where this road's going to go, we're trying to put the city and it's residents in the drivers seat so we know what the solution is and we can work towards that on behalf of everybody that's agreed to it. Mancino: This comment that I have is, I would like to see a neighborhood park in this development. With this high a density, I think it would serve the people well that would live in it. And I also have a concern for the property owners to the east knowing that, I think they're very right that a lot of the people will be, a lot of these people that live in this development will be going there or using their property so I-would like to see some sort of a park here. I would also want to make sure that the wetlands aren't infringed on at all. In fact, if anything, if they could be...especially wetland $15. The commercial area of the outlot, to me I would like to see neighborhood commercial, not highway commercial. I would like us to have it be so that it does serve the neighborhood and not the community. When I see it being maybe half the size of what it is right now. I think it's too big. What else did Jeff say that I thought was very good? The Block 1, in that lower, the southeast corner abuts single family and I would not like to see, that is not in this development. I would not like to see the high density abutting single family to the east. So I'd like to see more of a medium density put in that area and that would be Block i where units 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are around wetland 18. Or excuse me, wetland 13. I think that's it for now. Conrad: Okay thanks Nancy. Brian. Batzli: I agree. I think some sort of amenities need to be provided. Whether that's totlot, play area, tennis courts. I think neighborhood park probably has a unique connotation to the Park and Rec Commission and I don't know that it's really what we're asking for. A neighborhood park is I think pretty substantial. Isn't it about 40 acres typically? Hoffman: Less than that. Typically 10... Batzli: Okay. But I think what we're looking for is amenities in an area, you know totlot kind of stuff. Tennis courts. Those type of things. Not necessarily a place where you can build a Planning Commis~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 48 dozen ballfiels. I think in general, I agree with Jeff's comments and I missed some of them but he sketched them out here for me and I appreciate that and I agree with virtually all of them as well as Nancy's. Some of her detailed comments. Just in no particular order to highlight some of th.em. I agree, I don't believe there should be drives as currently shown off of 86th Street. I think there needs to be more consideration for the land form to minimize the grading. I understand that's a problem with some of these. There's going to be a mobility type homes put in. Low mobility or handicap accessible, whatever. And I understand that but maybe more care needs to be taken regarding that location and the landforms that exist. Something struck me and I need to comment on this. My gut feeling. Someone said that Rottlund was the end user and I disagree with that. The residents of Chanhassen, both current and future are the end users. Not Rottlund and that notion needs to be disabused here. Sump pumps only along city streets. I'll get you yet on that Dave. I think homeowners association obviously is a requirement in this kind of thing and that will happen. Drainage problems need to be taken care of. The intensity of the development needs to be toned down a little bit, especially in the southeast corner. I guess I don't, I understand why this would be guided PUD but I don't think that they're paying enough attention to some of the things that we would normally look for in a PUD, especially those concerns identified as numbers i thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Clearly our condition 13, recommendations of the staff report include that and those are the types of things that I'm going to be looking at and I hope the developer read that condition 13 carefully because they didn't comment on it. But yet if they submit a plan consistent with those recommendations with numbers 1 thru 7, yeah. I'd go along with that then. Mancino: How do you feel about the commercial size on the outlot? Batzli: I agree that it should probably be neighborhood commercial. However, it's not entirely clear to me how large a trunk highway 101 is going to be and if this is really a major commercial intersection, I might be convinced that it's appropriate to have a little bit larger commercial sector here. Scott: I'll address my comments specifically to the commercial outlot. I think it needs to be downsized. Restricted to neighborhood commercial. I don't think we need, because of the central business district that we have, about less than a mile from the site, I don't think it's necessary to have anything but local services or neighborhood services. And I won't belabor any other point. I'm in full agreement with the other commissioners so I really don't have anything extra to add. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 49 Harberts: I have a strong support for a lot of the previous comments. A couple of, two additions I believe. They touched.a little bit on, I hope this is global. On just the space. Maybe it's the amenities. Maybe, you know you get your Joggers. You get your walkers. Just taking that into account. Maybe we'll see that. Some of the high points is certainly that transition and reducing the density so maybe some of that will come out. I would strongly urge that under the recommendations that because of the intensity of the number of people, even the fact that some of the target markets that the developer works in concert with the public transit authority to ensure that this is transit friendly. I'll also note that a park and ride lot is at the interchange. It has been already mapped at the interchange of 101 and 212. So I suspect that we'll see a lot of transit riders, both locally as well as commuters to Minneapolis. So I would strongly recommend to see a condition that they work with the public transit authority. Batzli: When would something like that park and ride lot be constructed though? Harberts: MnDot's going to build it when they build 212. Batzli: So maybe not for 10-20 years. Harberts: But I think with the current density that's being proposed and even working with them, that there will be circulators and buses on 101 as soon as the development goes in. So that will, you know we are talking about a park and ride lot somewhere on TH 5 as well so traffic is going to be generated. That's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Diane. I'll try to make mine quickly too. I again, I am Just not sure about the commercial size of that property. I Just, I don't want to limit it right now but it seems large I guess and we somehow have to get our hands around whether that is too big for a neighborhood type of use. I don't want to close it out. I don't want to downsize it right now but I certainly have my, I guess I need a better vision and I don't have one right now. We haven't talked about 101 dedication and maybe we're not, Paul. Krauss: Well, if I could clear that up. A1 Klingelhutz has no need to go to the Supreme Court, it's already been done. It's interpretation, and maybe Elliott can possibly comment on that, our City Attorney. Design...is probably correct. There may be a different slant...if the city winds up owning TH 101... Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 50 Conrad: It does seem reasonable. So if we make any kind of motions tonight I think that one condition in the staff report about dedication of TH 101, I don't know. Somebody should note that that is probably not what should be done. I'm concerned with internal parks. Like everybody else has said, I think there should be some kind of parks or something, on a very small basis in here. The transition to the east, the neighborhood who has represented themselves here tonight, yeah. There's no doubt. I don't like 15,000 square foot lots bordering that property. It's not a transition. That's not what a PUD is all about. A PUD is transition and in this case we haven't done it. Now I am confused with what the rest of the Planning Commission has said. You've really talked about the going to single family to the southeast. Mancino: Or medium density. Conrad: And I really am not sure why. Why is that? Batzli: It's guided low density to the east. Conrad: So you're just trying to make a transition there. Even though the wetland is there and that is a transition. I guess that, I have a problem with that. Batzli: I'm not sure of where the wetland goes based on this map. All of it and I was assuming that there's going to be homes here and there is no transition if in fact you develop single family to the east of the property. Conrad: Ah, okay. Farmakes: My comments Ladd is that if 12 became, if they increased that Block 2 between 8 and 1, came up to about 20,000 square feet. Block 3 remains somewhat as it is. Block 1, 11, 10 and 9, went down to single family 15 square feet, and 12 became a larger lot. Wetlands again, that would create a barrier that would have, 8 could be a duplex. 7 could remain as it is. 5 could remain as it is. I'd like to see 6 as a commons area or some...I think that that would create something of a barrier visually. Because I think not only looking at it this way but I also think when you're physically on the site looking, building to the east, you have homes to the east, visually what you see too... Conrad: Why don't we just play around with Lot 12 on Block 17 Why are the other 3 or 4 lots important? Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 51 Farmakes: I'm just throwing that out as a buffer and I'm agreeable to listen to whatever ever anyone else is suggesting. Conrad: Well what I'm trying to do for the developers here is try to get, and they have, obviously those of you that are here, this goes to City Council. City Council will have their cut at this too so when we talk concepts, it's our concepts and then the City council will have concepts so somehow the developer's... Farmakes: ...throw this thing out, obviously the developer's going to have a better feel for his market but as a buyer I can give you my opinion. I would not want to buy Lots i of Block 2 or Block 3 because that'd be adjacent to high density across the street. That's not a buffer for me. I would expect a larger lot single family with a smaller lot single family, a duplex, a 4plex to an 8 to a 12. Krauss: There's another aspect of what happens in that southeast corner. There is a large wetland, or there is a wetland there. We have to double check MnDot's plans but I seem to recall MnDot had intended to buy out that parcel and use it for drainage purposes. So there may in fact be nothing ever in that corner but we can double check that with MnDot. Of course they don't own it yet. Conrad: Now a lot of you did not really say anything about transitions on the northeast side but that's-pretty consistent. Aren't we concerned about that or am I putting words in our mouth. Harberts: I think you're putting words in the mouth. I thought the general discussion was that there needed to be more transition. That this wasn't going to do it and that I think Jeff kind of coined it right away when he said to reduce the number of lots on that whole Block 2. Mancino: To 20,000 minimum. Scott: Cut them in half. Harberts: That's the way I understood him. Conrad: Okay. Well you're supporting that? Okay. Harberts: Yeah. That's what I was supporting. Conrad: I think that is important. I don't think that if this plan came back to us again, and we didn't see some transition, I don't think it's going to pass if we don't see a better Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 52 transition to the property to the east. That seems to be essential. Obviously you're hearing some concerns about the transitions to the southeast so I think we've got to, I'm not sure what our consensus is on that but I think there has to be something, some attention paid to the southeast part. Generally I like some of the, a lot of things I see here. For those of you who, we have to take discredit for some of.this I guess as a Planning Commission. We have said this is, should be some higher density areas. We've said that in the past. We did that when we did a comprehensive plan so we're not, we can't dodge the issue by saying, hey this is just too, we never anticipated this. We did. And now it's just seeing if we still believe that and see how it fits and make it work with existing neighborhoods. The only other things that we haven't really reacted to was the staff comment on the EAW. Is there a feeling that we should request an EAW on this or not? Anybody? Harberts: What is the EAW going to give us? What can we expect to learn from it? Conrad: That we won't get¥ right. Krauss: Well, my personal feeling is it doesn't give you much that you couldn't get anyway. We have a specific request for some traffic information. That's something that an EAW might already give you. We have some requests for defining wetland issues. We have the best wetland ordinance in the State. I mean it really doesn't add that much to the process. I don't know. I mean I can't honestly say that it would add that much to the dialogue. I think it's a lot easier oftentimes to just specifically state, I've got an interest in this particular concern. It comes back to us with information on it. I think we've pretty much done that. Mancino: Paul...let's say 212 goes to the south. Comes in here. Will it tell us how much berming we should have because of noise levels that will be affected in the southern part of this development. Krauss: MnDot is right now, a few weeks ago they were supposed to have a meeting and they were meeting on projected noise levels with the highway. Where they were going to'build noise walls. Where they're not. They only build noise walls for residential development that's existing at the date of which they get what's called...Permit and that's this September. Now we told them about this development hopefully to get our foot in the door but this development does include significant berming up against the highway and the highway...That information's available. They have noise... Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 53 Mike Mulligan: Can I speak to that please? Conrad: Okay. Mike Mulligan: The Environmental Impact Statement that was done on 212 did address that issue but as of today, as of last week, MnDot has no noise berming whatsoever in any part of Chanhassen. I missed that meeting. I called Evan. He sent me the drawing last week. Krauss: Yeah, I don't know if, I mean Evan's clearly the person, Evan Green of MnDot is clearly the person who's doing it. I would...We do have some scattered other developments that I hope would happen.., for neighbors with MnDot and get as much protection as we possibly can. Conrad: SO, are there any votes for here in terms of an EAW? It's sounding like we're, with Paul's comments. Harberts: We're covered. Conrad: It's sounding like that. I guess if there's somebody in the audience that feels that that is an essential part of this, I guess I don't know that we're going to move that that happens tonight but if you feel it is important, that maybe you bring it up to the City Council when it gets there in a couple of weeks. Traffic. Dave. Now how do we know. You've asked for some traffic studies. We built that in but that traffic study is, how do we tailor that to a commercial use which we don't know what it is yet? Hempel: That is a difficult question to answer. I guess the traffic study would not be done until we get through preliminary plat stage where it's a little more defined for the use of that outlot. So we can give some direction to a consultant what to anticipate for trip generation...At this stage it's pretty unclear. Conrad: But the way the developer is handling this, they don't have to tell us what that outlot is going to be used for. Hempel: Our projection that it would be a worst case scenario, most intense use of that outlot. Krauss: Keep in mind that under the PUD you have the ability, whether or not, I won't say whether or not the property owner wants to, but you have the ability to establish parameters for what's going to happen there. We'd like to work cooperatively with the developer and the owner to do some projections so that Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 54 it makes sense for everybody. But yes, you can in a worst case analysis... Conrad: Paul, how do we get a handle? I don't want to drag this up but how do we get a handle on the outlot? Krauss: Well at this point I think you've made the concerns that we have that have been...come back in when formal submittals are developed that that be resolved, or at least brought to a stage that you can intelligently talk about it. It's quite similar I guess in a way to what happened with Opus/Steiner came in...You basically laid down the guidelines or the project wasn't going anywhere until we had some definitions... Harberts: What about those special assessments? I'm uncomfortable what to expect. What the city residents can expect. Will they be subject to assessments or all the costs going to be picked up by the, based on the development of this parcel. Is that still up in the air? Krauss: They do have service from city sewer. It's not an unusual relationship to have water in pipes in the street but they're not connected to them. Batzli: They have wells. Krauss: Right. And I honestly, I mean Dave do you know what they've paid for? Hempel: They did pay for the installation of their own lateral lines in front of the property. Over the last feasibility study that was conducted for bringing trunk water facilities into this area to service, we've adopted a rate of...$1,275.00 per unit. One unit being assessed for each one of those individual property owners...until some future point when they decide to subdivide further, additional units would be assessed in the process of a connection of a hook-up charge. Scott: Is that the same assessment for the x number of units that are to be added in the development? Same kind of thing? Hempel- Right Krauss: It needs to be made clear though that that was a feasibility study. That was approved by the Council...ordered the project but it never was built. We're not in the process of reassessing how that should be done. There are developments coming in south of 212 on Lyman that will have an even, the assessment, the feasibility study needs to be recomputed, Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 55 refigured. As far as the roadway goes, I guess I envision 86th Street being built by the developer. Harberts: Am I understanding that at this point that it's possible that the existing homeowners in that Rice, whatever it is. Sorry, that they probably will not be any assessments as a result of this subdivision? Krauss: Well, keep in mind the feasibility study that Dave is quoting, this development was existing in nobody's imagination at this time. This was rallying water on kind of a mini-regeional basis for the city serving the whole south Rice Marsh Lake area down to Lake Riley. And that was what that assessment was developed under. Now we never built that. Now I think what Dave's saying is probably reasonable to think that it may be somewhat in the same ballpark but we don't know exactly what it's going to be. I want to assure everybody though that it's a very public process. There are usually many hearings on those kind of things at the City Council. Harberts: So it's opportunity for the residents to provide maybe more additional information so they can be better prepared. Krauss: Oh no question about it, yeah. Conrad: Okay. Harberts: One other question I have, and this was brought up. I think it was a good point and I'm a little uncomfortable. As the first gentleman said from Tandem, that this is a contingency and my understanding that you have to have so much building here in order to make it feasible. If we were to approve it in concept, if they went out and bought the land and then because of our discussion that it reduces the number and the cost there, is it feasible for them to build this, they're the ones at risk? Krauss: This is not an uncommon practice. Virtually all the developments that are brought before you are a contingent purchase deal. Now if the developer picks some arbitrary n,,mher of units they expect to get, it's encumbant upon you to provide it... Scott: So it's preliminary plat approval. Conrad: What we say tonight, I don't think the developer's going to go out and sign anything based on what we're doing tonight. Harberts: Well no, because as I understand it, if we approve it, it's non-binding on both parties. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 56 Scott: Or if we don't like what we see, which it sounds like we don't, we need to table or reschedule to get something back from the direction that the applicant has received from us and do the whole process over again. Krauss: You're not, I mean the City's not bound to perform until you have a project you actually preliminarily approve. Scott: There you go. Conrad: Anything else? I think you react not only to the staff report, but also if you can give a summary of the key considerations that you heard the Planning Commission. If you think it represents the majority of the commissioners to include in that motion. So the conceptual approval has 16 points and if want to react to any of those 16 plus all the additional comments that we've made. Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommends conceptual approval of PUD $93-4 shown on plans dated June 23, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 10 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 11 which reads, the applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting reasonable right- of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the necessary right-of- way for 86th Street. Obviously that needs to be reviewed by City Attorney for appropriate language, that condition. Conditions 12 as set forth in the staff report. Condition 13 would read. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 set forth on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) in the engineer's memo. Conditions 14 and 15 remain as set forth in the staff report. Condition 16 to read, incorporate conditions of the Park and Rec Commission and include park type amenities such as open space, totlot and tennis courts. Condition 17. Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Condition 18. Let me ask this before I talk about condition 18. Where do we talk about coming back in the PUD process with the neighborhood commercial? Have you talked about that as conditions i thru 7 or did you actually include that as a condition and I missed it here? A1-Jaff: It's only in the body of the staff report... Batzli: Okay. Then condition 18 would read, the applicant shall provide detail on permitted uses of the outlot emphasizing reduction of the size of the outlot and limiting the types of use to neighborhood commercial. That's it. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 57 Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad: Discussion. Harberts: I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number 19 that the applicant work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding the public transit in this area. Batzli: Does the applicant actually do that-or does the City do that? Harberts: Both. Batzli: I accept that. Harberts: Thank you. Conrad: Any other discussion? Mancino: My only question is, is the thing about the topography, leaving the preservation of the existing topography? Batzli: I thought that was set forth in those conditions 1-7. Mancino: Yes, number 1. Okay. Conrad: Any other discussion? B&tsli moved, Ya~makes soconded that the Planning Commission reoommend oonoeptual approv&l of DUD #93-4 &s shown on the p~sns d&ted ~une 23, ~993, su]:)Jeot to the fol oving oondit~ons~ 1. The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoid impacting the existing wetland. Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties from the private streets in lieu of 86th Street. A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to determine the necessary right-of- way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. 9.. Ail utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the city to review and formally Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 58 approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an EAW. 4. Ail water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 5. Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accorance to the City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If interim service is provided from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City wil authorize/perform a study to determine if there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan Hills line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6. The proposed watermain in 86th Street shall be increased to a 12 inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain,the city shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 7. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the rention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be construted to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on-site, the applicant Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 59 shall work with the city in implementing the best location for said ponding. 8. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent uponthe City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to service this site. 9. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 11. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting reasonable right-of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 and the nooossar~ right-of-way for 86th Street. 12. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. 13. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the recommendations of the staff report (including without limitation the concerns identified as numbers 1 thru 7 on pages 4 and 5 of the staff report) and Engineer's memo. 14. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks i and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. 15. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway101 right- of-ways and betweenthe area separating commercial and residential lots. 16. Incorporate conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission and inolude park type amenities suoh as open Spaoe, totlot and tennis courts. X?. Reduce the intensity of the development along the neighboring properties to the east and southeast corner of the development. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 60 18. The applicant shall provide a detail on permitted uses of the outlet emphasizinq reduction of the size of the outlet and limitinq the types of use to neighborhood commercial. xg. The applicant shall work with Southwest Metro Transit regarding public transit needs in the area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: We'll move on a little bit. Is anybody here tonight interested in the John Pryzmus item on the agenda, because I don't think we're going to get to that. And our preference is to table it and talk another night. So if there's nobody here that sat through 3 hours of fun conversation. I guess Planning Commissioners, I think I'd like a motion to table action on item number 5, item number 6, item number 10 Paul? 10, you need reaction to 9 and 11 right? Krauss: Right. Conrad: Okay. 5, 6 and 10. I had it right. Batzli moved, aancino seconded to table items 5, John Pryzmus Interim Use Permit; item 6, Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding lot sizes; and item number 10, update on tho Highway 101 alignment study, duo to tho meeting curfew. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Ladd Conrad left the meeting at this point and turned chairing the meeting over to Brian Batzli. ~ DEVELOPMENT FOR A ]~RELIMINARY PL%T TO SUBDIVIDE 6-~ ACRES ~NTO ~3 SINGL~ FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED ~SF, RESIDENTIAL ~INGL~ FAMILY ]~ND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, WEST OF T~OENDLE CIRCLE, EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE AND NORTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, TOWER HEIGHTS. Public Present: Address Shanon Graef Frank & Marilyn Beddor Timothy Foster David Beddor Mike Meuwissen Larry Moloney Pat Cunningham 855 Pleasant View 910 Pleasant View Road 6370 Pleasant View Cove 1050 Pleasant View Road 6500 Troendle Circle 150 Fifth St. Tower, S$3500, Mpls 865 Pleasant View Road Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 61 Name Address J. & Karen Meyer 6225 Ridge Road David & Valerie Rossbach 670 Pleasant View Road Teri Frederick Douglas Olsen Kelly Bailey Mary Sherba... Rob & Teresa Drake Holly Broden Sandy Post Samuel Erwin Kathy Berdahl 660 Pleasant View Road 901 Vineland Court 6580 Pleasant View'Way Burnsville 980 Lake Lucy Road 640 Pleasant View Road 489 Pleasant View Road 6400 Pleasant Park Drive 6411 Pleasant Park Drive Conrad & Michelle Eggan 6500 Peaceful Lane Gretchen Robideau 540 Pleasant View Road Laury Martini 491 Indian Hill Road Gordy & Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View' Tom Meier 6410 Fox Path Tom Seifert 600 Pleasant View Road Batzli: Is this a public hearing? Okay, so it was held open from the last time? Scott: Well I know we closed the public hearing the last time we talked about it and sent comments to staff and the applicant and this is their reaction. Correct? So do we need a public hearing? Harberts: Yep. Scott: We do? Krauss: I suppose officially you may have already held the public hearing. I wasn't here. I don't know if you formally closed it or what. Harberts: I believe it was closed. Batzli: We closed it actually 2 meetings ago before we tabled it but I'm sure we had a public hearing last time but I wasn't here either. So okay, well I'll run it as a public hearing then. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Bat~li called the public hearing to order. Jeff Schameter: I'll be very brief. My name is Jeff Schameter. I'm with JMS Development. Last time I was here there were several issues regarding the plat. Those issues were worked out Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 62 and have been reiterated and worked out again with city staff. The issue of the trees we solved with a custom grading plan, retaining walls and 89 foot frontage on Lot 13. Our engineer Roger Anderson is here tonight. He'll address that briefly. Essentially I understand it to be a scale issue of the current plan and the final plat will show 90 feet in the surrounding area. Actually like 89. something but the lot next to it shows 91. something so there will be two 90 foot lots there. Dennis Troy, our attorney is here and he will address a couple of the more interesting issues surroundng this plat. We feel the development's an excellent addition to Chanhassen. It conforms in every way and we have conserved vegetation on the site beyond our last plan. We think we really have excellent tree preservation. One of the benefits of moving the lot line between Lot 12 and Lot 13 was that the major clump of trees, the cluster if you would, that existed well onto Lot 13. Excuse me, well into Lot 12 that would have been impacted by traditional home construction on Lot 12 is now bisected by the lot between Lots 12 and 13. Therefore the very fact that there's a setback requirement will in fact conserve those trees. We also are planning, as previously mentioned, to custom grade those lots. We have moved the setback, and I'm not sure this will be addressed in the developer's agreement, in excess of the minimum setback on Lot 13 to insure that the trees that will be located in the future front yard of Lot 13, will also be easily conserved...I'd just like to again confirm that this plat conforms in every way and we feel that out of all the alternative plans we've explored for this site, that this plat is by far the most efficient and best use. And ironically resembles study plats, study plans and concept plans that have been kicked around on this site for many years. At this point I'll let Denny and Roger expound on a couple of the particular issues that I've asked them to address and I will be available for questions. Thank you. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission members. My name is Roger Anderson and I'm the engineer on the project. Regarding the lot frontage issue that was...and is proposed to be corrected and is easily correctable. I'm a little embarrassed. That slipped by me to tell you the truth but the adjustment that I put was easily accomplished and...was roughly dimensioned until the final plat is done. Jeff has addressed the tree issues. We did feel that after the last meeting some work needed to be done there and we did some work at considerable length with staff to provide the adjustments to the grading plan that they needed and we did work well with them and they were very helpful for us and we needed to come up with a grading plan we felt was acceptable. I did have one issue on the grading plan. I think on the retaining walls, Dave and I had discussed that briefly that due Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 63 to the proximity of some of the trees on Mr.. Owens, the nearest house, it may help if we could put the retaining wall on the right-of-way and apparently some agreement has to be worked out to allow that to happen. That's one issue. The other things I think have been addressed. If there are any questions regarding engineering, I'd be glad to answer those. I think that staff has fairly well looked at those issues and... Dennis Troy: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Planning Commission members. My name is Dennis Troy. I'm the attorney JMS Development. I just want to keep my comments very brief as well tonight. The staff report we think is a very favorable staff report. They're in favor of it. We think staff has handled very well the legal issue that is kind of looming over this project in. terms of the condemnation and EAW. This body is not asked to make decisions on EAW's. This body is not asked to make decisions in terms of condemnation. The staff report indicates that those are conditions of the final plat approval and of construction. We think that makes sense. We're in favor of that to move the planning process along subject to those conditions and we think that staff has done a real good job in handling that issue so it doesn't muddy up what your task is, which is planning. Secondly, what is not at issue tonight are different alternative site designs but some other developer or some other owner might plan for this property. What is at issue here is the plat that this owner has presented. If there are comments or criticisms of that design, doesn't meet code, I think that's fair game but I would hope that tonight we wouldn't see 15 different alternative designs and waste a lot of our time. Third, what's not at issue tonight is what might happen someday to Pleasant View Road. This project does not require, does not anticipate, does not contemplate any improvements on Pleasant View and I know there's some citizens that are concerned about what might happen in the future and it might be nice to assure them that if a public improvement was ordered in that respect, there'd be a separate public hearing at a different time, probably...with respect to it. It's not the issue here tonight. And lastly, even though I don't think the EAW condemnation issue is an issue tonight, I do want to make an editorial comment on it. It appears to me that to some degree an owner has attempted, a neighboring owner has attempted to make an issue out of it by planting trees and in effect creating the destruction of some natural resources which otherwise wouldn't be necessary. And I think we're confident and my guess is that the City Attorney is confident that if and when that issue goes to court, the Judge is going to see very clearly that the City isn"t the cause of that destruction. This project isn't a cause of this destruction. The planter of those trees is what caused the destruction, if there were to be some destruction. So we would ask that you Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 64 approve that, the preliminary plat recommended to the City Council tonight. I'm also available for any questions. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I'm going to open it up for public comment. I ask that you keep it brief and limit yourself to several minutes. We have a full house here. I don't know how many people wish to speak. I'd like to have people try to limit their comments to the issues that remained open from the last meeting, if at all possible. I think the record's very clear on a lot of the other items. So having said that, is there anyone that would like to address the Commission? Frank Beddor: Commissioners, staff, my name is Frank Beddor. I live at 910 Pleasant View Road. I'm sorry that the time is so late because we knew this was a continuation of a public hearing a lot of us weren't able to be at the last one and we had, earlier we had about 40 residents that did want to say something about this proposal. I'll try to keep mine brief but I would like to go through the notes that I made this evening...Tonight I am one, and only one of 214 owners. Taxpayers or voters who live on Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road who were opposed to two things. We're opposed to connecting the Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. We're also against the proposed plat that JMS has before you and we're against that for two reasons. First it's the ingress and outgress of the 13 lots-because this is going to necessitate making Art Owens driveway and making it a wide city road and this in turn we feel is going to destroy somewhere between 20 or 30 mature trees. And I'm talking about trees that are 40, 50 and 60 years old. This is the proposed area that they're proposing. This is the drive and it comes up and the 214 people I'm speaking of are the homeowners who have signed this petition against the connection of this road. This is a photograph showing Art Owens driveway and the yellow lines are roughly where the driveway would go and the white lines are the outside area. Now we could not have the plat itself when we did this but as you can see, there are beautiful trees that are involved here. The...blocked out a lot of them but there are 33 trees in that immediate area and we are against that taking all those trees down. Now, I Just received the staff report late today, or I should say the developer's on the replacement plan' and on that replacement plan they are showing that on the overall development they're going to lose 33 trees. But right on their own admission, they aren't saying that ingress and outgress, they are going to lose 15 trees and those trees are 20 inches in diameter. This is a diameter. 24 inches. 28 inches. 26 inches and 36 inches. These are huge trees that are 50, 60 and 80 years old and the reason we object to this is that.there is an alternate solution of how to develop this property without going Planning Commission Me,ting August 18, 1993 - Page 65 through and taking all these trees down. We also object to the grade. It's our understanding that that grade is 10.5% and that's steeper than normally recommended by city staff. We also object to the traffic that these 13 lots will generate-because that will put traffic on Pleasant View, Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View and that will suddenly add to the safety issues on Pleasant View. Again, the 214 homeowners who signed this petition feel that this ingress and outgress is unnecessary because there is an alternate plan that you can access to Lake Lucy and that has a lot that was dedicated by the city for that purpose. On the connection between Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View. This is a safety issue and I would like to quote a staff report prepared by Dave Hempel to Jo Ann Olsen in July of 1989, and I quote. Pleasant View Road serves as the only east/west connection between County Road 17 and Trunk Highway 101. The existing roadway design is unsafe in several areas for local resident traffic. Steep hills, sharp curves, hidden driveways, and overgrown vegetation all combine to create hazardous conditions. As the area continues to develop, traffic volumes will increase and hazardous conditions along Pleasant View Road will only intensify. Well we agree with that and that was 4 years ago and we don't think any additional traffic on that road, either coming from the proposed ingress to outgress to this development or connecting Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View is going to help this situation at all. Also, back in 1989 we were at the only public hearing they did have, neither staff nor the city had developed an indepth traffic study. Now we did make our own traffic study just a short time ago. We went to Carver County Sheriff's Department and from June of 1991 until July of 1993 there were, in this 2 year period, 10 car accidents on Nez Perce Drive and Pleasant View Road. Three of them involved personal injuries. There was only one car accident on Lake Lucy with no personal injury. Now the Lake Lucy residents we do sympathize with these people. There are 20 homes on that one block stretch and we do feel something should be done to reduce traffic, reduce the speed at stop lights. However, Lake Lucy is only one block long. It's a new street and when you enter Lake Lucy, you can see down the whole block and you can see any, any homeowner or children there can see the cars coming. That's not true on Pleasant View. That's 20 blocks long, Pleasant View Road and as Dave Hempel so aptly points out in his report, Pleasant View is very dangerous and certainly it hasn't improved over the last 4 years and adding more traffic to it is not going to improve it. On the meeting, the Council meeting I had in September of 1989, that was when Vineland first submitted their plat, they showed a plat that came in and cul-de-sac for 15 blocks and came out Pleasant View for 3 lots. Evidentally the city staff took exception to that and they wanted to have this connect through to Pleasant View Road so at that meeting they Planning Commi~ion Me,ting August 18, 1993 - Page 66 offered 4 proposals. One of those proposals, they were listed 1 thru 4, one of those was to make this a straight road right through to Pleasant View. The other proposal, they had 3 other ones and the other one was to come through cul-de-sac it at when and if Troendle's was developed and then come through Peaceful Lane. We, as the 214 homeowner were only shown these 4 options and we certainly didn't want option number 4 because it immediately put a connection and added traffic to Pleasant View. We did agree but we did not accept plan 3 but we agreed to it which was the lesser or two evils at that time. Plan 3 meant that sometime at a later date when someone purchased and developed Troendle's property and when somebody purchased and developed Art Owens property, there was a possibility that Pleasant View Drive would be extended to Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View, unless a better solution was discovered. In September of '89, the same time we had this meeting, Art Owens had a plat that was already submitted to the city. It was okayed by the city and it showed 5 houses sitting right here. There was no connection to Nez Perce at that time on that accepted plat. At this Council meeting on September llth, we were not shown any plats that showed that you could access onto Lake Lucy connection. In fact we were informed that Lake Lucy, that outlot that was dedicated was too steep. In a staff letter to Don Ashworth of September 8, 1989 it was noted that Art Owens plat might expire in October and that a reasonable connection could be made to Pleasant View, but in that report it said the disadvantages of it was, and I'm going to quote, this would still result in introducing traffic on Pleasant View, and that's what we don't want is to introduce traffic on Pleasant View or Nez Perce Drive. This letter goes on to say that one of the advantages is that there's an undeveloped right-of-way to Lake Lucy Road...grade was too steep. Now at that same meeting in September of '89, Councilman Johnson asked Paul Krauss the following question. He said Paul, that little stub coming off Lake Lucy on the left side of the water tower, that wasn't consider in any option. Paul Krauss. Technically yes but there is some difficulty in the grade. Well see now the Staff is in a bind we feel. We now know, by accident I went out and asked somebody about a short time ago, to really measure that grade and could we heard that 10% was too steep. And we found out that that grade is only 5.3% steep. So we were never informed of this and so no one ever looked at that option. That option going to south to my knowledge was never presented in a Planning Commission meeting. Was never presented at a Council meeting and now that staff or someone at the city has allowed two houses to be built along this platted future road with the minimum offset. Now this is not the liability or the problem of the 214 homeowners that are on Pleasant View and Nez Perce. This is the city's challenge and it's obvious that if this new road was installed, that these homeowners would be compensated if there's Planning Commission M~ting August 18, 1993 - Page 67 some loss in value to their property. Back in t89, see that was the only public hearing we had. The Vineland Forest residents had to sign a restriction that they would not in anyway attempt to restrict the extension of Nez Perce Drive. I hope Itm not reading' too fast... When we purchased the Troendle property, this was a year after this, the city did not require us to put this covenant in our development agreement. In fact we knew nothing about this covenant. We didn't that out until about 3 months ago. At the last Council meeting, and I just got the report, Don Ashworth stated at that Council meeting, when Mr. Beddor received his approval, that would be on Troendle~s, specifically...on the covenants placed on each of these lots that shows the connection would be to Pleasant View. This is incorrect. These covenants are not in the developer's agreement that we have a year later in our developer's agreement. Now in the Vineland Forest, the covenant does read. Each owner purchasing a lot in Vineland Forest agrees not to object to the possible future roadway extension. Some of the language does not appear in the development agreement at that Troendle. In fact in contrast, this upset me so at the last Council meeting because I was kind of put in the spot of going back on my word, I retained the law firm. They went through all of the Minutes for the last 5 years. All'of the correspondence. All the city's reports and I quote what they say in our development agreement. Outlot A may not be platted... until the city receives a petition from the developer, which would be myself, to extend Nez Perce back through the property to the west of the preliminary plat as a direct or indirect connection to Pleasant View. Now in the case of the Troendle Addition, if the developer chose not to plat Outlot A, the road would not be extended. Now this is far from the agreement, from an agreement to extend the road. It confirms Mr. Beddor~s position that he exceeded, based on the circumstances that existed at the time, to reserve the right to extend the road. However, the solution is really simple. You know going back, what we want to do is, we want to extend Nez Perce Drive. We just want to extend...to the north. We want to go back down to the south. Come back through the property and this has a big advantage because you don~t have to condemn this property. You don~t have to deal with a public road and anyone that's going to go iht Art Owens property or into Troendles is going to come down Lake Lucy Road, immediately make a left and that property does not go down the length of the road. The advantage of this would be there~d be no connector road between Nez Perce and Pleasant View and this would reduce the safety issues on both these roads. There~d be no need to use taxpayers money to condemn private property or build a road. This does not increase traffic on Lake Lucy. The new owners in the Art Owens and Troendle Addition would turn off of Lake Lucy Road and would not drive the full length of Lake Lucy. And we would save 20 to 30 beautiful, mature Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 68 trees. Now the...seems to have been about 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago. Now 4 years ago at the public hearing, the Beddors did not own the Troendle property and we did not own Art Owens property. And at that time...Art Owens had his property platted and it did not show an extension going through to Peaceful Lane. At that same meeting 4 years ago we saw four options, none of them showed an ingress and outgress on Lake Lucy as an option and that was over land that had been dedicated for that purpose. After 4 years we now find the grade is not too steep and we are hoping that the Commission will keep an open mind on this proposal which we call a solution. At the last Council meeting on July 12th, 4 out of 5 Councilmen voted against this solution. And their general attitude was that this was resolved 4 years ago. They had very closed minds and they refused to explore any new viable options. In our mind a lot of things changed in 4 years. We now have the option of going off Lake Lucy because the bank is not too steep. We feel the environmental study will show that taking out 20 or 30 trees will have a disastrous impact on the environment. But the most important issue, who does this connector road serve. This is the same plat. All of those lots that are yellow lined are people who signed this petition. And a lot of people that you might see in white there...but we hope to have substantially more. It's my understanding that a connector road or this type of road, whatever you want to call it, is to serve the local neighborhood. That would be the residents of Nez Perce Drive. That would be Vineland. That would be Troendle. That'd be Lake Lucy and Art Owens and also the residents on Pleasant View. Gentlemen, tonight we have, and I'll have a packet here for you of over 214 homeowners, taxpayers and voters, who live on these roads and these are the people that this road is supposed to serve and the overwhelming majority of these owners do not want this connection. We still believe in a democratic system and we feel it's your responsibility as the government officials, to serve the taxpayers and the overwhelming majority we feel the taxpayers have spoken. I hope you'll abide by their wishes. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Excuse me. I'd like to hear from everyone else who would like to address the Commission before I let you rebutt, thank you. David Donna: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Donna. I live at 881 Vineland Court. I heard some discussions about residents on Nez Perce and Pleasant View. I don't...street but I still have some concerns. I also apologize. I was not at the last meeting. I don't know what was discussed so I'm not sure what the guidelines are. I'm not familiar with this process but I listen with interest to the issues that were Planning Commis~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 69 raised by JMS and the attorney for JMS. It struck me that those issues were the issues that JMS wanted considered. What I didn't hear discussed by JSM, which was talked about by Mr. Beddor, was the...sitting through the last several hours today, I heard talk and concerns raised by the Commission about safety in different developments. I think it's important that...I talked with Councilman Senn, Councilman Wing and I've talked with Mr. Hempel before Mr. Krauss left for out of town. We'were trading phone calls back and forth for about a week to try and talk about some of these things. What I understand is that with this connector road going through, that there will in fact be...traffic north and south. There will be increased traffic on Pleasant View and there will be increased traffic on Lake Lucy. I'm not an engineer. I'm not a planner but the increased traffic does not go hand in hand with a safer development, which means a more hazardous situation. I think that the real issue here is whether something can be done so that this project can be developed by JMS or whoever but the safety can still be'maintained all over. And I've talked with Mr. Hempel about some things and since then I've talked with Mr. Wing and he has asked me to make a Visitor Presentation. I'm not prepared to do that. We've talked about some alternatives which would disperse the traffic either by having a third ingress and egress, if that's what you call it. Or by having some multiple cul-de-sacs. I still think that there are some things to talk about. Some issues to consider and I noted that Ms. Harberts was concerned in the previous proceeding about we don't want to take a vote here tonight and have some developer rely on it and then rely on it to their detriment. I think that these other alternatives should be considered before any vote's taken and any developer or anyone else goes ahead and makes big plans and spends a lot of money...Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Other than the applicant. They'll be given a chance. Terry Barke: I'll try to be very brief also. My name is Terry Barke. I live at 9...Lake Lucy Road. I'd like to make three basic points here. In kind of response to what Mr. 'Beddor was saying. He started his presentation by talking about two points. One that 214 residents were opposed to this connection between Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. It seems to me that that's already a done issue. As part of the conditions of Mr. Beddor being able to develop the Troendle Addition, you can see on the second bullet there it's pretty clear that that connection being made was one of the conditions and they agreed to that when they developed the addition. But I see that as outside of the scope of this meeting tonight. Second issue regarding concerns for the trees. I'm concerned about the trees. People on my street are Planning Commi~ion M~eting August 18, 1993 - Page 70 concerned about trees. I think we're all concerned about trees. I noticed that shortly after the City Council decided on the connection of Nez Perce and Pleasant View, on Mr. Beddor's property there seems to be a bunch of pine-trees that have been planted right behind the barricade and the sign on the barricade saying this street will be extended in the future. To me that doesn't seem consistent with an argument about protecting trees and I'm Just saying that it sounds to me like the developer has done the best job he can to take care of the trees and I hope these trees that have been just recently planted back there don't become an issue later on. That seems kind...As a third point that I'd like to make is that, I feel like I can speak for the people on Lake Lucy Road. We are in agreement that we like the JMS proposal. We think that equitably shares traffic in that area between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View and we think it's a nice plan. Thank you. Batzli: Terry, could you show us on the map where you live on Lake Lucy? You live on Lake Lucy Road right? Terry Barke: Yeah, I live on Lake Lucy Road. Batzli: Can you show us on this map or another map. Maybe Sharmin has a little bit bigger one so people can see it. Where do you live on Lake Lucy Road. Terry Barke: I live right here. Batzli: About halfway down? Terry Barke: About halfway. On the north. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Renelle Ulrich: Hi. My name's Renelle Ulrich and I live 6581 Nez Perce Drive. I am against the connection and I still see viable alternatives and I would like the opportunity to work with the Councilmembers. Work with the planners and everything to come up with a solution that everyone can be happy with. I see that if the connection goes through, I see Nez Perce becoming very busy and it is very similar to Pleasant view in that it is a windy, curving road. A lot of overgrowth in the vegetation and that has to be taken into account. There are a lot of turns, there are a lot of hills and having a connection there is going to make it not a very safe street. There are other ways around it and I think that as a resident of Vineland Forest, I've only been there a year but I'm there. There are other people who have not been there a long time but we are there and there have been Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 71 many changes in the last 4 years and we really deserve the right to be heard. It's very frustrating when other alternatives are presented when we're still in the planning Stages and people are shaking their head and looking around and kind of relaying a real sense of cynicism toward us and that's very frustrating to deal with and I'm hearing some Council people saying, well you know the system does work. Well I'd like to see the system work. I'd like to see everyone happy with the solution. And that means going back and looking at some of the alternatives and hopefully you will allow us to do a presentation. Thank you. Dan Rogers: My name is Dan Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive. My concern with the proposal tonight is that it will lock us into putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View. My concerns with that are, that it will increase access to the entire area. I mean Pleasant View, Lake Lucy and Nez Perce. What I've noticed at these council meetings is that the City Council is relying on 4 year old information, before Target was a...and we're going to increase, by increasing access to the area, we're going to increase traffic to the whole area, including Lake Lucy. Even though it was never stated, I get the feeling that there's a belief that by putting Nez Perce through to Pleasant View, it's going to take a lot of traffic off of Lake Lucy and onto Nez Perce. I don't think that's really going to happen. I think it's going to increase traffic for all of us and I think what we all want, since we're all neighbors, our kids all play together, and basically the whole area is our neighborhood. We want an equitable distribution of the traffic and for that reason I would like to look at some other options other than the one we see, looked at this evening... Batzli: Thank you very much. Anyone else like to address the Commission? I think somebody's passing the child. We'll let her come up first. Sharon Rogers: Sorry,I thought we'd be through earlier too so. My name is Sharon Rogers. I live at 6500 Nez Perce Drive and I guess I basically just want to repeat what these people said. I do not think the road should go through. If this development is done as it is proposed, it will go through and it will cause a lot of problems...and also I just want to say that, Mr. Beddor refers to the Vineland Forest residents signing the covenants. That says we are not going to disapprove of any connections for any extension. That's what it says. It doesn't say a connection. When we moved in we were aware that there was going to be a development behind us. That's how far I thought it was going to be extended. It ended up not, and it's the same thing. I did not accept that it was going to be extended to Pleasant View and so I am fighting for that and I am willing to fight with Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 72 Mr. Beddor until and hopefully it will be, you will listen to the citizens in Vineland Forest because we weren't there 4 years ago and we really feel that we have been ignored and we really would like to be listened to and there are a lot of safety issues involved. Thank you. Mary Stasson: My name is Mary Stasson. I live at 5400 Peaceful Lane and perhaps Sharmin could point to where our home is. We're directly affected by the traffic that will come swerving across and headlights coming into our south windows and all that other kind of great stuff. And I submitted a letter today that I asked Sharmin to give to all of you... Mancino: Are you the corner lot? Mary Stasson: One of the corner lots. Mancino: And you're very close. Mary Stasson: We're very close to Peaceful Lane. About 35 feet from that road so we're very concerned about the...of this road and preserving the property that we have now. On that particular corner where we're at, we've...last 3 years and we've also had... Also we were never notified 4 years ago when all this was happening and so by the time we came up here to say anything, it was like it was already a done deal. Nobody was willing to listen to us so...thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Yes sir. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 1...Lake Lucy Road. The residents of Lake Lucy Road...traffic on our road is going to decrease if this connection... Also there seems to be in Mr. Beddor's presentation an assumption that all cars traveling from Nez Perce and Peaceful Lane will turn right and go east on Pleasant View to TH 101. I think the vast majority will turn left and go...CR 17. Batzli: Thank you. Todd Novacheck: Hi, I'm Todd Novacheck. I live at 6371 Pleasant View Cove. I'd like to just speak to the safety issues again. We have, from our residence, we have to turn out onto Pleasant View Road whether we're going east or west. And it is very dangerous. Cars right now coming over the hill and it's a very dangerous situation. In the wintertime a neighbor and I were Just talking, even though we live there and we know it, sometimes we've come down that road and you start applying your breaks and we Just keep sliding and almost right down to Powers Blvd to CR Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 73 17. And so now by taking more cars from the south and bringing them onto Pleasant View Road, you're going to increase...problems and as the gal just said, there's been several pretty severe accidents right at that intersection in the last couple years, that we've seen. I think you really have to take a look at it. My daughter is 10 years old and got off a school bus just this year with the stop sign out onthe school bus. Came around the front and a car was coming over, going west on Pleasant View Road and the bus driver said she just barely got missed. The car literally had to swerve around because the speed coming down Pleasant View Road, it's a blind intersection right there at Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. So you're going to dump more cars in there. I think you're going to really increase a problem. I think the solution brings people out of that area or into that area and will take them right back out to CR 17 and if they choose then to come around and use Pleasant View Road, that's fine but the point is it takes them, the solution takes them out. They would go west on Lake Lucy and hit CR 17. Then they could go north or south. So from a safety standpoint, somebody really needs to go out there and document what has happened in the past and potentially what could happen. So appreciate your time. Thank you. Tim Foster: Good morning. Batzli: It's going to get there. Tim Foster: Tim Foster at 6370 Pleasant View Cove and I have to agree with Todd's statement, and I'm Todd's neighbor. We use the same cul-de-sac...it is a safety factor. I somewhat view this connection that everyone to the south from Highway 5 can now have somehow access to Pleasant View. I think that the solution and based on the information that we have reviewed as a group, in the form of a petition, I feel that if I had your job and I was doing the stewards of the community, that I would view it as an impact that this is a situation where you cannot make the right decision on the wrong type of program. I think it's wrong and I think it creates a safety issue... Batzli: Okay, thank you. Did we already hear from you? Dan Rogers: I'd like to address the safety issue. Batzli: I'd like to hear from everybody before I get anyone a second chance. Is there anyone else that'd like to address the Commission? Sandy Post: My name is Sandy Post. I live on 489 Pleasant View and I live at the stop sign on the corner there and the safety Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 74 issue about a concern, we'd like you to look at the alternative. We are always in danger of pulling out of our driveway because they make the stop sign, make the corner and our driveway's right there. I'm afraid to let my children get the mail because it's bad. I just don't want to see anymore traffic come on. Batzli: Thank you. Valerie Rossbach: My name is Valerie Rossbach. I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. I've been living there for 10 years. This issue on Pleasant View that's come up repeatedly. I attended meetings when they were putting in the Near Mountain development. At that time the Pleasant View Road safety issue was raised. They were making efforts to prevent more traffic on that road. Since then increase...development and I think it cannot support another, that road cannot support another road into that. Dave Beddor: Hi, I'm Dave Beddor. I live at 1050 Pleasant View. In some ways it sounds like we in the room are opposed, I really think everybody stands together. They stand together for a principle and the principle that everybody's fighting for from their own perspective, is safety. Lake Lucy doesn't want their kids being run over. People on Pleasant View are concerned. We hear that time and again. But we're all very emotionally connected to our little piece and are very vested in, you know I'm vested in Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. What I'm hoping is that you can look at it from a more macro perspective and keep all those pieces in mind so it doesn't come out where there's one road that's winning and one road that's losing. Take a look from the perspective of on Pleasant View, how many people are funneled in from Fox Chase and Near Mountain and so forth. I can respect also...bias to the Pleasant View standpoint. I can respect that people on Lake Lucy are concerned that they have an extra 15 houses coming in. Maybe the fairest way of looking at it is saying, how many people, how many cars drive by my driveway you know every morning... Distributing it. What's fair? How should we look at distributing new cars there coming in. Everyone's going to say the same thing. Nobody wants more and so maybe there should be time taken on that study to take a look at how many cars are taking up. Where should it be funneled to? I sort of sat here sort of watching and it feels like, well you know I connect a road to that...old issue and I'm sure we can find technical reasons for both ways and I guess I'm just kind of hoping that you'll look at it from a little more macro perspective than what we all are because we're all vested in our own pieces and our own kids so thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 75 Conrad Eggan: Good evening. My name is Conrad Eggan. I live at 6500 Peaceful Lane which happens to be directly across from where this connecter road would exit. Would connect with Peaceful Lane. Now I don't, right now I probably will see the largest increase percentage wise of anybody here in terms of traffic. I have the Art Owens residence beyond me. No one else so I will see a huge increase compared to what I have now. I don't have a problem with 12 or 13 residences being built up'on that hill coming past me. What I have a problem with is the connection itself and bringing all the people up Nez Perce and those who might want to come through on Pleasant View and access Nez Perce. I Just don't think it's necessary. Simply not necessary. And if approving this plat forces that connection, then I also must approve, must oppose the approval of this plat. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission for the first time? Doug Olson: Hello. My name is Doug 01son. I live at 901 Vineland Court. I'm also opposed to this connection of Pleasant View to, or Nez Perce to Pleasant View. My biggest concern is that this road will be used a cut through from Pleasant View to other areas via Nez Perce...There's really two major issues here that I have a problem with and the first I mentioned is that it generates heavier volumes of traffic through a residential area that really shouldn't have to share that volume of cut through traffic because if you look at who is this serving, is it serving the residents of the area that live there or is it serving commuters just traveling through our residential area? It also creates a larger volume of traffic for Pleasant View and as you know, I think widening or expanding Pleasant View would be difficult at best and I don't think it would serve a public interest to create traffic on such a convoluted street. I had a lot of issues here but most of them have been discussed. A lot of safety issues. I think that there are more viable alternatives and that's what we should be looking at. Whether it's to bring Nez Perce back to Lake Lucy or to look at cul-de-sacing Nez Perce and Troendle. Maybe having Troendle come off Pleasant View. I think there are some alternatives that haven't been looked at. I think that the decisions maybe were made in the past based on misinformation. Whether it was grading limits or wrong calculations on slopes of roadway contours, I think that we've got to go back and stop what we're doing here and look at some of the decisions that were made in the past based on misinformation and I think there are much better alternatives...there shouldn't be a cost associated with the connection here. Who's going to bear that cost. I think a lot of homeowners in the area would agree that living on a road that's going to be used as a cut through, could actually decrease property values and perhaps the Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 76 market values of the homes would drop and of course not only a drop in that would also likely reduce the tax base for the city of Chanhassen. Not to mention condemnation of property that this connection would create. In conclusion I hope that the Planning Commission would look at all pertinent issues of this decision making process and reach the conclusion that more viable alternatives exist that are more environmentally and fiscally responsible and residentially sensitive to a better solution. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Doug Olson: One other quick question. Who prepares an EAW? Batzli: Paul, who prepares it? Krauss: Well this is, it's not a mandatory connection. The City Council received a petition signed by, I don't know, a n~mher of individuals in the area. 25 have to sign it. They will receive that on Monday evening. It's our recommendation that they go ahead and do it. The City Council is the RGU. Is the Responsible Governmental Unit. It's up to the City Council to figure out who should do it. Right now we recommended that it be a different engineering firm than did the feasibility study so there's a checks and balance kind of arrangement. We asked Barton-Aschman to do an EA...EA on Highway 5. They gave us an estimate on that. That's what we're going to be bringing to the Council. Batzli: Does approval of this have to be contingent on successful EAW for Nez Perce? Krauss: We added that condition. I mean at this point it's unclear as to whether or not the City Council's going to order an EAW. It's completely elective on their part. We've recommended that they do one. It's really their call. Harberts: Who pays? Krauss: Taxpayers are going to pay. It's a city cost. There's also a suit that's been brought in this case. The City Council was served on Friday. So the Council is dealing with a lot but right now, we delayed this item once before.. In June I believe because at that point the City Council was asked to reconsider their decision. We took this back to the City Council to tell us what you're going to do. They said they wanted to go ahead with the roadway at that point. I don't know what else to do at this point. We asked that this be approved contingent upon the Findings of the EAW. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 77 Mancino: Krauss: Batzli: Krauss: And the lawsuit? The lawsuit's unclear. I'm sorry, who filed the lawsuit? I don't recall which names were on it. It was I think Harberts: Batzli: Monday. Batzli: meeting. Which is Monday? Doug Olson: Do we know about what kind of a timeframe the EAW would take? How long? Krauss: I'm not sure. I'm guessing, I asked for an estimate... on very short notice and I got a fax today that gave me the cost but not the time. I'm assuming it's going to be probably a 6 week, give and take. Batzli: Multiply that by 2. Maybe 4 yeah. three families. Batzli: Okay, proposing to block this subdivision? Krauss: Well I guess, Elliott did you have a chance to read through that? Elliott Knetsch: No I haven't. Krauss: There were a number of issues that were cited, similar issues to those which were cited with the EAW. Batzli: Okay. Doug Olson: So am I correct in assuming that they're timing, that the timing of completing this EAW with whether this connection should be made. Is that up to City Council to decide? Batzli: They would not be able to proceed until the EAW was completed, if they determined to proceed with that. Doug Olson: And that's up to the City Council to decide if they want to do an EAW. Yes, and that will be decided at the next Council Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 78 Doug 01son: I assume what the EAW is going to do is address most of the issues that we raised here and your thinking is that an engineering firm may be involved. Krauss: Oh clearly, yeah. I mean there's enough questions that have been raised. I take strong exception to the tossing about of misinformation. I mean this has been a 4 year continuous process with multiple public hearings and new information being contributed ad infinitum. But at this point we're taking the position that there's nothing more city staff can or should add to this process. We've already had a feasibility study done by one engineering firm. Let's bring in somebody fresh. Have them take a run at it and let it come back with the information and let the City Council decide. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Tom Meier: Good evening. I'm Tom Meier and I live at 6410 Fox Path in Fox Chase and I'd like to address two issues. The first one being safety. We live at the bottom of a big hill on Pleasant View and most of the cars coming down there don't use their brakes and they can easily obtain speeds of 45-50 mph. It's extremely dangerous on Pleasant View to the point where you can't even walk it. We've been near hit by many cars trying to walk that and we're pretty well forced to use Ridge Road, which is a private road. The residents right now are gracious'enough to let us use it but they certainly have every right not to. We also have a large deer population in the area and I think any additional traffic is going to create some serious problems and also I think Nez Perce has got a problem and if you create a connecter, you're going to have a third problem. The other issue is I had a chance to go through Art Owens property earlier this year and I was shocked to find out that they were going to try and take out as many of those old grove trees that are sitting there in this day and age of environment, it's for me to believe that anybody would consider that. Thank you. Dave Rossbach: My name's Dave Rossbach and I live at 670 Pleasant View Road. And there's a lot of people here that think this is a done deal and there's a lot of people that, over 200 people that don't think it should be a done deal. I just hope you people can kick back and look at this and take a strong look at the other alternative. And if there's a better possible way of doing this, I think you should really consider it. It's kind of like main street in Chanhassen. You know maybe there were some mistakes made there with some particular corners. They could have been done the right way. You could have kicked back and checked it out one more time. Thanks. Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 79 Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. One thing that nobody's brought up about is who's going to pay for all this. We've been informed that.the developer will pay for connections and all this stuff. We hate to have our property devalued and also be assessed for all this stuff. Thank you. Kelby Bailey: My name is Kelby Bailey. I live at 6580 Pleasant View Lane. I've been a homeowner there for about 2 years. I've seen the traffic on Pleasant View Road increase in that amount of time. I want to first thank the city of Chanhassen for paving the west portion of it. That was badly needed. Since then I wake up at night to traffic squealing in the corners... What I would encourage you to do is to re-evaluate some other possibility that could save some tax dollars and use that tax money to slow the traffic down on Pleasant View Road. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Hold on one second. I think I've got a first taker over here. Okay. Did you guys want to say something else? Dennis Troy: Dennis Troy again with a couple brief questions and a couple comments. Do you have a copy of the petition here? Batzli: I've not seen it. Dennis Troy: It's not been presented to the City? Frank Beddor: It was all given to the Council. Resident: It's being presented to the City Council. Frank Beddor: I believe I mailed one to Jeff-but if not, I'll send you one. Dennis Troy: So really we don't know what it says here tonight. If we could get a copy of it to see what it says. Whether it's- Just against traffic or against this particular development. Batzli: No, we don't know at this point. Dennis Troy: So I guess I question whether it really poses this particular development. It may say we're in favor of safety on Pleasant View. Because the people that are here, the other 200 people that are claiming that petition, I guess I would like to know what they signed up for. We don't know it tonight. My next point, I'll go back is, so what? So what? So what? This is what's at issue tonight. This. Staff recommends it subject to conditions. Those conditions are not with in the purview of this Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 80 particular body. What's the legal basis to deny it? It conforms with your ordinances. We'd like it approved. Roger Anderson: Chairman and Planning Commission. Roger Anderson. I feel I have to take issue with some of the misleading information that was presented on the street'grades and the things we've done to make this plat fit into that piece of property. Mr. Beddor threw out some numbers here that were obviously incorrect. I think the correct numbers should be brought forth. Maybe Dave can help me. What's the allowable stree grade in the city Dave? Hempel: 7% street grade. Roger Anderson: And do you know what street grade we're proposing in our subdivision? Hempel: I believe it's 6%. Roger Anderson: 6%? That's less than the allowable and it's a comfortable grade. Hempel: That's correct. It meets the ordinance. Roger Anderson: And Mr. Beddor had thrown out a number of over 10% which was totally inaccurate. Never has been shown on our plans. Never has been presented by anything we've submitted to the city. Another grade he threw out was the grade coming up to Lake Lucy. That outlotted and made available apparently by some platting in the past. The city has rejected that location for a road because they recognize the grades are too steep. I've got a plan here with the elevation of the street where that outlot comes out and I'd be glad to give it to you. Confirmed from the city from Dan in your engineering office in June. He gave me the elevation of the manhole down there. I compute up to our street and I come up with over 9% on a straight base. We'd need a large landing area down there coming off the hill. Easily pushing us up to 10% or 11%. We can have the exact numbers if we want to but that's well over what the City could possibly approve according to their requirements. And it will not work, in spite of Mr. Beddor's presentation. I'd like to see his numbers to see how that grade was computed. We haven't seen those. I put this in the record tonight but we'll confirm it for the next meeting. The other issue was the trees and again we have taken great pains to minimize damage to the trees. Work with staff and work with us and I think done a reasonably good job. Are some trees going to come down? Absolutely. Did we do our best to minimize the activity? You bet we did. Is the proposal Mr. Beddor has to come up the corner of the property any better? Go out and look Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 81 at the trees behind Mr. Owens swimming pool, and behind his house and then you come back and tell us. If there's any difference, it's minimal and the tree impact is still going to be there. It's not a black and white issue. There's still trees that are going to have to come down. Thank you. Jeff Schameter: It's not us and them. We're just trying to plat a piece of land. There's no personal vendetta. No objective here other than to plat 12 new homes. Safety is an issue. It will be an issue for 12 new residents to this neighborhood. Over the next 3 years only 12 new homes are going to be added to the city of Chanhassen. That's 12 more taxpayers. 12 nice new homes. It's a development that was reasonably anticipated 4 or 5 years ago. The plan that we're proposing was contemplated by someone other than myself long before I ever heard about this piece of property. None of this is new news. We're only taking, I want to clarify a couple issues. We're only removing 5 significant trees in the area of the entrance to the development. Not 30 or 40, 5. The 5 brown dots shown between Lots i and 13 on this plan. We've submitted a nice reforestation plan. We think we've been very sensitive. It's in my best interest to create a neighborhood that's going to have a good tone. A nice feel. We don't plan to go in there and mass grade the site and take down every tree. Not that those trees couldn't be harvested tomorrow for firewood. Grades less than 7%. That's been reviewed. We're sensitive to safety issues. We've reviewed all the other options. I've had more options for this site put in front of me than any other development I've been associated with, and I've been associated in the last 8 years, various levels, with over 50 different subdivisions in 11 different communities. I think I understand what makes a good plat. All I want to do is move forward. We're doing the best we can. We realize there's a lot of political issues with this plat. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Beddor. Frank Beddor: Well this is a planning commission meeting and I hope you do some more planning. I think by all the questions that have been brought up, you see there are some unanswered questions. I'd be happy to get a copy of both petitions to you. One that's been signed for the Nez Perce and the other one was signed for the JMS development and I'll see that all of you get a copy of that. The trees they talk about that I planted, my wife and I on the lot, on property we own, those trees were moved in and can be planted and they're pines. They are dogwood and they're also dogwood hedges and they're also willows and some other trees. They can be taken back out again. So I said I didn't get a chance to read all the report. I got it late from the Planning Commission tonight but I just read that there was 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 82 significant trees on what's called the right-of-way area. So that is a very substantial amount. As we mentioned before...was not done. The thing that's very discouraging is that there seems to be such a closed mind. This is a Planning Commission meeting and I hope the planners keep an open mind because staff seems, well we've done everything we can. We can't do anymore. We don't want to look at anything else and I think that's wrong. Now we have undertaken ourselves at our own expense and we have two firms that are working with and we're going to award a contract to one, to do a traffic study because I think that's important to look at this overall, to do a traffic study so that you know what is proposed in this area. And in closing, you were talking about this suit. I am one of the people, my wife and I who instigated this suit the city just got. Our attorney's here and I'd like him just to update you, the Planning Commission now on what's involved in that suit, if I may. Batzli: Okay. Do you have a 2 minute synopsis? Attorney for Mr. Beddor: Yeah, I'm not planning on going into detail. There was a question about the suit and I did want to provide some information. We filed out suit on Friday, the 13th on behalf of several residents. Mr. Beddor being one of them and other residents of the Pleasant View Road area and Nez Perce Road area. It's based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. The meat of the coconut of that suit basically is that you can't destroy protected natural resources if there's a reasonable alternative. You certainly heard tonight that we believe that there is a reasonable alternative that doesn't involve damage to the environment to the extent that the proposal before you does. You should also know that with respect to the environmental assessment worksheet issue, we were the ones that filed that. That was I think on June 26th. There will be a decision made on that. If the petition for an EAW is denied, then our lawsuit would encompass that as an additional point. The third front legally is the condemnation hearing. It's our view, and I think it's agreed to by our, the attorneys on the other side. You can't have a resolution of the condemnation hearing until these environmental issues are resolved. There Was a condemnation hearing scheduled for August 25th. It was continued. Delayed almost immediately after we filed...because under the Minnesota Supreme Court law, condemnation issues are inextribly related with these environmental issues. The power of a city to condemn is limited by the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. I suppose the bottom line is, I'm certainly not going to argue the merits but I can tell you that on all of this is going to involve expense, delay and it's also going to generate new information. I think that's one point that really isn't legal but I'd like to make. In listening to the people here tonight. This is really Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 83 sort of early in my history in this controversy, but person after person has talked to you about the safety issues. Not just the environmental issues and there is going to'be new information generated. We are the ones that are talking to these traffic consultants. We're going to hire a traffic consultant. There's going to be traffic studies. There's maybe going to be an EAW. So why in the world would the Planning Commission and the City Council, when all this new and I think very important new information is going to become available, want to make a decision that will approve a plat. Perhaps give this developer a vested right of some sort that you're then going to have to argue about it if there's ever a reversal. Of the decision to go forward with this project. Obviously the neighboring residents are opposed to this in large measure and so I'm asking you both as an attorney and as an interested party to reconsider this and not to simply go forward because somebody else made a decision in the past to, that this was a good idea. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Okay. I'd like to close the public hearing if I could. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Harberts moved, l~ano~no seconded to close the public he&r~ng. &ll voted ~n f&vor and the motion o&rr~ed. The public he&r~ng vas closed. Batzli: The interesting thing here is we've heard a lot of comment that we're the Planning Commission and that we should be planning. I feel like I've been doing that for the last several years on this issue. But on the other hand, there's a lot of people that feel kind of like that old Dudley Riggs show. I hear what you're saying but I really don't care, is the reaction they're getting. I don't think that any of us feel that way. It also reminds me, for those of you who read weird science fiction, or watch Channel 2, of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the prime character is having his house bulldozed down and simultaneously the vogones are coming to destroy the earth and they're told that, well the plans have been located at the nearest star which is 5 light years away. Where've you been? The person lying in front of the bulldozer is told that it's in the City Hall, in the basement behind the third filing cabinet but the light bulb's out. So you know, I don't think in this case it was quite that obscure to find the information but yet I don't want to appear calloused because obviously a lot of people are fairly surprised by this whole process and I assure you that the Planning Commission is taking seriously and we've taken it seriously in the past and I hope you don't all leave with a negative impression. We're all residents of Chanhassen. We face these issues every day. In my neighborhood, they put through a cul-de-sac that I was assured by the developer was a cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 84 In fact it spills onto Pleasant View and it amazed us and it was the process and it probably worked but I was bitter for years. In fact that's what led me to join this commission. I also heard a comment that the main concern is safety and I agree. And a cynic would say that there's also an element, and forgive me for saying this because I know the former Mayor of Minnetonka got in big trouble for saying this but. Harberts: You're not an elected official are you? Batzli: Yeah. It's a nimby problem. Not in my back yard. And to some extent that's true because obviously you want your yard to be safe and you want your children to be safe and you want the traffic on your street to be lessen because obviously the thought is, it's safer. Less to worry about. Property values perhaps are increased. And we take those issues seriously. When we first started this process 4 or 5 years ago, the point was safety and the point was that it was safer to connect streets and there really wasn't a north/south connection between Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Drive and the world would be safer if there was that connection. And that's what started this whole process was safety amazingly enough and perhaps ironically. And we looked at these alternatives and we thought this was the best one. Perhaps it's not in hindsight. I know that the City Council recently was asked whether they wanted to look at it again and they said no. As a Planning Commission person, oftentimes we try to take our lead from the City Council as to whether we'll be wasting our time and effort. If they say they're not going to look at it again, it's difficult for us to direct staff to look at it again. That's not to say that we can't request it but certainly we recommend to the .City Council and they make the final decisions. So as you all know, you're all familiar with this process. You need to carry your issue up to the City Council because they will be making the final decision regardless of how the Planning Commission decides tonight. I do have two questions for city staff before I ask for comments from the other commissioners. One is, do either you Paul or you Dave feel that the traffic study that's going to conducted by Mr. Beddor and his fellow contributers to the study, whoever they are, and maybe it's Just Mr. Beddor, will that shed any information that would be useful for us to decide on whether we are creating a safety hazard here? Krauss: That's a leading question. We've looked at this thing inside and out. This is not a decision that was made on the spur of the moment. This was a decision that was made after 6 months of hearings 4 years ago. It was a decision that was reaffirmed on at least 4 different occasions in public hearings. We still think it makes good sense from a traffic standpoint. A specific traffic study was never done. I just hear tonight Mr. Beddor's Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 85 going to commission a study. Part of doing an EAW is another study so we're not doing the study. I wouldn't at all surprised if they said the complete opposite of each other. That's what consultants do. Batzli: But does it makes sense for us to table in anticipation of receiving some additional information from either one of those studies? Krauss: Well, I've got a couple things for that and maybe Elliott would like to add something to that. We received a request to act on a petition to subdivide property. In microcosm that's what you're being asked to deal with. You're dealing with it on the currently available information. Not made on 4 year old decisions. Made on decisions that were made 6 weeks ago. Made on decisions that were made specifically so that we could come back to you and say, what did the City Council want you to do. We delayed this thing several times already. I think we're under some obligation to move it along. In terms of implications that in so doing the die is cast, that's not true at all. I mean there's a condition that blatantly says, that is not the case. If the City Council does reverse itself and decide to come up with another solution, the platting that's been done to date isn't going anywhere. It's got to come back through the revised plan. What the outcome of all this will be, I have no idea. I wouldn't even hazard to guess. Is there going to be more information available? Yeah. Will it tend to lead the discussions one way or the other? I honestly don't know. I mean I'm afraid that we have a situation here where you have a no win situation. I wish there was a solution that made everybody content. You almost think that the best thing to do here is to step aside and let a mediator come up with some answer. I don't know. Maybe...There's a lot of issues being raised on Pleasant View Road. We're not looking at Pleasant View Road in macro scale. I think Pleasant View Road is in itself and has been a long standing issue. There are legitimate concerns. We always know it's there. And I can tell you that nobody on city staff relishes or even thinks about the idea of broaching anything like a trail on Pleasant View Road or anything else. It's not something staff is inclined to do unless we receive some kind of an indication from the residents that that's what they want. The addition of 12 lots or 14 lots or all 45 lots to Pleasant View Road, it's going to be a minor little increment to what's going on there. What's going on there has to do with the fact that Pleasant View Road is the only road between Highway 7 and Highway 5. The fact that the Crosstown Highway is extended. The fact that Chanhassen's developing. I mean those issues aren't going to go away. Even if this never gets connected, I'm convinced that Pleasant View Road issue is going to be back before the City Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 86 Council in a year or two because the safety issue is not going to go away. Is that a long way of answering your question? I don't know. There's going to be... Mancino: I appreciate it because I think it's very unsafe. I drive it all the time from Lake Lucy and Galpin. Scott: Within the speed limit. Mancino: Within the speed limit, it's hard. Farmakes: I won't drive it. I'd Just as soon take CR 17 down to 78th and go down TH 101... Batzli: Dave, what do you think? I heard Paul's answer. You're not going to say anything different from Paul huh? Hempel: I basically concur with Paul...Pleasant View Road is, does have safety problems. There's no doubt. I was on record with a staff report to Jo Ann. There are things that can be done on that road to improve that safety aspects of it. But again tonight we're not really dealing with that. We're dealing with the plat before us. The traffic studies as part of the EAW or a part of Mr. Beddor will give you some more information. Whether it tells you, I don't think it's going to tell you the city needs a stop light at that intersection obviously. I don't believe it's going to tell you need a 3 way stop at that intersection also at Pleasant View and Peaceful. But it will give you some trip generations proposed through the neighborhood. Batzli: Well assuming Paul, that we act on this one way or another, positively or negatively, it's going to go to the Council and they're going to have to, it's probably not going to get on next Monday's obviously. Right? Krauss: No. Batzli: So they're going to be deciding the EAW on Monday and then they will proceed with this, or they really can't proceed with this assuming they go ahead with the EAW, until the EAW is completed. Krauss: Well I would appreciate the advice of counsel but yeah. What I would understand it to be is if the City Council does proceed with the EAW, everything's put on hold until that's completed and a finding's returned. And then there's a public hearing held at the City Council to determine whether or not it was satisfactory. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 87 Harberts: So it comes back through this process again if they do do an EAW? The findings come back here? Hempel: Before the Council. Harberts: Or does it just stay at the Council? Hempel: The Council. Harberts: It just stays at the Council level. Krauss: The Council may ask you to review it. Harberts: But they can just handle it at their level. Krauss: I would think so. Batzli: Okay. Diane, why don't you lead off. Harberts: Let's talk about trees. Did staff have a chance to review this? According to your staff report, you were going to review it and are you comfortable with what's presented in here then? A1-Jaff: Yes we are. Harberts: Okay. You know I heard a lot of comments with regard to public safety and in my profession that certainly is one of main priorities. The way I understand it, that the issue that's before us, is having to deal with the four issues. I feel that the developer has met the four issues, at least to my satisfaction. With solutions that are outlined by staff. And as I understand then with the EAW, that that's an issue for the Council. That will address hopefully the safety issues. You know that connection with Nez Perce, I see that really at the level of the Council. What I see before me to deal with is the four issues and I'm comfortable with that the developers have met those issues. That's all I've got to say. Scott: I was focusing in on the issues that we left the developer with at our last meeting. They've been met satisfactorily so I see no reason but to go forward with this plat. Mancino: I concur. My only question is, on recommendation number 9. If we increase the street width right-of-way to 60 feet in width, will Lot 4 be of a smaller size than 15,0007 Right now Sharmin it's at 15,100. If we take 73 and added 10 feet, will we be below the minimum lot requirement? Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 88 Krauss: That can be fixed by kicking out the rear lot line. You can pick it back up again. Mancino: Okay. You pick up the rear. Krauss: Just move it over. If you take the rear lot line and move it around to the south a little bit, you can... Mancino: Okay. Krauss: Yeah, Lot 5 next to it is 26,000 square feet. Mancino: I think that that's the only lot that might have a problem with this 60 foot right-of-way so I'd like that added to our recommendation. It would be increased that Lot 4 meets our minimums. That's all. Farmakes: I don't disagree with the comments that Diane made. I think the issue that was supposed to be discussed here tonight. The issues that are on...I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about this when people make the effort to come here. It seems to me that there's been little talk here talking about the actual plat development that's being proposed here. What we're talking about here is a concern there is the street connection. By a fluke of geography much of the work that was done on the plot and so on is really not relevant to the argument that's going on here. I think really, having lived here for a fair amount of time, Pleasant View is a dangerous street and it's a separate issue from this. To make the case that connecting that street will mean a majority or a significant amount of traffic will... rather than turn to the left, is going to be the result of traffic studies and I haven't seen anything significant that says the majority of the people who will be coming up that connection will be turning to the right. I've heard opinions. But as I said before, I wouldn't be one of those people. I would not be connecting 101. The road, Pleasant View is an old road. It's back from the 20's. There are cabins on that north side of Lotus that are from the 20's at least. It wasn't meant for the amount of traffic that it's getting, but in this case, being so close to CR 17, the argument that's being made here, it seems to me, has a lot of holes in it. But I believe that anytime that citizens come in here and are concerned about their safety, I don't want them to think that I'm not listening to what they're saying. I think that any city staff, anybody on the Commission should listen to that. It's a question of how many times and how many studies do we do. The first time that we looked at this issue overall, it was, it's almost 5 years now isn't it? Certainly the city staff and the commissions have given this problem a long consideration. And there are times when there won't be an Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 89 agreement. But again it's how many times do we do this, and unless the City Council directs us otherwise, I'm willing to pass this up to them now. If they want to send this back and have us look at this again, fine. But it seems to me based on the information we've been provided, that I don't see any justification for continuing this here at this point. Batzli: Okay. I'guess the comment that I wouldn't agree with that you made. I think you spoke well on your position but in saying where Nez Perce is going to go, that dictated how this development was going to be laid out. And so I think the issue is related because it may affect the safety of Pleasant View and if we have to realign Nez Perce, then this development may have to be realigned and I guess that's how the issue's related. Farmakes: I don't disagree with that. I was using that in the connection between discussing the plot itself and a connection. I believe the majority of people here are, and understandably so are here talking about the connection, not the development to the 12 houses. Batzli: I would agree. I would agree. My feeling and not having been here at the last meeting, because I was on vacation. I sound kind of that last thing that was on the agenda. But the meeting that we had before that, I did raise the issue of, or at least acknowledge the issue of safety turning left from Peaceful Lane onto Pleasant View and I don't know if that was addressed last meeting or not. It's going to be around the corner, up the hill kind of a deal. And I think that interestingly enough as I said, our original intent was to gain a north/south connection for the purpose of safety. I don't recall~ to be quite candid, when it became a sweeping connection that people might be tempted to take to get onto County Road 17. I seem to remember at least some plans that made it accessible from north to south but, and that's kind of what I was thinking of as I was looking at the alternative here proposed by Mr. Beddor when that was, was there an alternative that kind of connected from cul-de-sacs but made it very inconvenient to take as a thru street? And I don't remember to be quite honest but it seems to me that that's kind of the nut of the issue, at least as between the city staff and perhaps, and maybe even the Council, I don't know. And a lot of residents is that we are changing the traffic flow and perhaps it's being, we've gone beyond our initial consideration on the Planning Commission was to connect it to increase safety and for purposes of emergency vehicles, etc. And that's what troubles me about not really having a new traffic study is that I think having looked at it and listened to everyone, I think we may affect the traffic. It sounds to me like everybody wants to move on and let the Council decide. So I don't think there's any Planning Commission M~eting August 18, 1993 - Page 90 support other than me to slow this baby down. I know Paul would probably come up here and slug me if I suggested it so. Having said that, I would entertain a motion. Scott= I move that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt the following motion. The City Council approve Subdivision $93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993 subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report, i thru 18. And if there are other conditions that would be added by other members of the Planning Commission, I would entertain those at this time. Mancino: I would like to add the condition that Lot 4 shall meet the city's 15,000 square foot minimum. Scott: Okay, that'd be condition 19. Any others? Harberts: Does number 10 address the resolution of the Nez Perce issue concerning EAW, staff? Krauss: I think so. It might be useful to read it so those... Harberts: To read what? Krauss: Read the condition so that they understood what is being placed on this plat. Scott: Ail of just number 10. Harberts: Yeah, it was number 10. Scott: Number 10 is the preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from the Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that the preparation of an EAW, which is an Environment Assessment Worksheet, for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it's completion and resolution of issues raised therein. So what does that mean? Batzli: Why don't you finish making your motion and then let's discuss that. Scott: Okay. Would include the 18 conditions as listed in the staff report and then add condition 19 that Lot 4 conform with the city's minimum size of 15,000 square feet. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 91 Batzli: Mancino: Batzli: mean? Scott: Batzli: Is there a second? Second. Discussion. Now ask your question. What does that What does that mean? Nothing happens until the EAW is. If. Scott: If they decide they want to have it. That was a rhetorical question. Batzli: Okay. I thought you actually wanted us to discuss it. Harberts: I have a comment or question. Earlier in the discussion there was discussion about a retaining wall in the right-of-way. Scott: The vacated? Harberts: Yeah, in terms of where it went. Mancino: On the east side of Tower Heights Drive. Wasn't it Dave? Hempel: That's correct. Yeah staff is comfortable with an effort to preserve trees from existing...we would entertain placing of a retaining wall within the city right-of-way with the understanding the property owner or applicant enter into an encroachment agreement for maintenance of that retaining wall in the city right-of-way. Harberts: Is that necessary as a condition? Batzli: Don't they have to come in for a permit to build it? Hempel: For construction, yes. Batzli: But you need the easement for maintenance right now in the conditions? Hempel: We can get that when the party comes in for construction of a retaining wall within the right-of-way. Harberts: Does it need to be a condition? Hempel: I think it would be helpful to clarify placement of it. Planning Commis~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 92 Harberts: So is that a yes as a condition Dave? Hempel: Yes it is. That's correct. Harberts: 19 then. I'd like to offer a friendly amendment. Item number Scott: 20. Harberts: 20, sorry. Long day. With terminology that the applicant will work with staff to locate a retaining wall within the city right-of-way and would be subject to city receiving an encroachment easement. Hempel: Agreement. Harberts: Agreement from the applicant. Hempel: Property owner. Harberts: Property owner, thank you. Batzli: Do you accept that? Scott: I accept that. Mancino: Second. Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion? Paul. Krauss: If I could raise an issue or concern about. The City Council's going to be asked about whether or not the EAW... recommendation to go ahead and do that. If there's a sense. I mean clearly it's the City council's call but if there's a sense the Planning Commission has as to which way they should go on it, maybe it'd be useful for me to include that in your motion so we could convey that to them. I mean do you think it would be useful in the decision making process to tell us to forward your recommendation. Batzli: Okay. Diane, do you think it would be useful to the Council to proceed with the EAW? Harberts: Well I guess with the discussion with the traffic studies proposed by the residents of that area, it sounds like if the city wants to have a traffic study, I guess I would be in support of an EAW. I'm not real happy that it's at the expense of the entire city but I guess that's one of the impacts. I guess I would also like to add, what I'm hearing from the safety issue, Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 93 that I think it is a Pleasant View Road issue rather than just 12 more houses being built. That's my personal opinion. Resident: Excuse me, it's a Nez Perce issue and we've been ignored and I'm sorry. I know I'm not supposed to blurt that out but I can't stay quiet. It's Nez Perce. We are...but it's both. Harberts: I appreciate your opinion. said, that's where my views are. I appreciate it and like I Batzli: Okay. Joe, would you support an EAW? Scott: Yeah, I think that's not the answer to the question. I would say no. I would not recommend doing it. I think that if we're going to commission a study to figure out what the beck to do with Pleasant View, that's another issue. But I mean I look at it, 12 houses. 24 cars. It's not in my back yard obviously but if we're talking about 190 units, like we are with Mission, that's definitely a major impact so I would say, personally I would say no. Batzli: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: I support the new traffic study and I would like to, excuse me. I would support it because of the traffic study. Scott: Are those one in the same? A traffic study I would say yes but is the EAW a traffic study? Mancino: It's part of the EAW. It encompasses that. So current new information. Batzli: What do you think? Farmakes: I would support it. Also outside of this, support that the city take a look at Pleasant View as the issue itself. And I'm not talking about the connection with Nez Perce and Pleasant View that we're looking at here. I'm talking about Pleasant View as it goes to the east, in particular once it wraps around Lotus Lake, which has nothing to do with what we're talking about here but I think that it is a major traffic hazard. I do think that the people who organized for this particular issue should not let that drop. I think that there's more to... Frank Beddor: And believe me, we're not. However there's nothing we can do except keep traffic down unless you want to widen the road. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 94 Farmakes: No, I'm talking again that I would support the issue that you're looking at from all points of view. I don't believe that, unless the study shows otherwise, that this development and that connection is going to generate that traffic that you believe to be...I'm willing to be proved wrong on that. Batzli: Well we may have several studies that tell us whether it does or doesn't, and I would support the EAW as well. Is there any other discussion? 8oott moved, Mancino seoonded that the Planning Commission reoommend approval of Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following oonditions: 1. Ail lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 2. The developer shall dedicate eto the city the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 3. parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees are to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600.00 per lot. a. A 20 ft easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8 ft wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400.00 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. 4. Ail 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 areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 95 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. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. A retaining wall shall be incorporated along the front property line of Lots 1, 12 and 13, in an effort to preserve trees immediately adjacent to the right-of-way. 6. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 8. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 9. Street right-of-way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 10. The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. Should the City Council determine that preparation of an EAW for the Nez Perce extension is warranted, preliminary plat approval for Tower Heights is contingent upon it's completion and resolution of issues raised therein. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 96 concrete surface between the existing driveway and the street. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot i (Art Owens). An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans Just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. 13. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. The applicant shall supply detailed storms sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 14. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile System in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 15. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to approval of the final plat and/or escrow if $5,000. shall be included in with the financial securities to insure the removal of the garage. 16. The city shall sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer for a price to be determined by the City Council. 17. The address for the existing home on Lot i (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed to an address on Tower Heights Drive. 18. The segment of Tower Height Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. lg. Lot 4 shall meet the city,s 15,000 square foot minimum requirement for lot size. 20. The applioant will work with oity staff to looate a retaining wall within the oity right-of-way an4 wou14 be subJeot to an enoroaohment agreement with the property owner. All vote4 in favor, exoept Batzli who oppose4, an4 the motion oarrie4 with a vote of 4 to 1. Batzli: My reasons for opposing is to make the record perfectly clear that there's a lot of people here that have safety concerns. The city staff, regardless of whether they really want to look at it one more time or not, needs to take a good look at that. Thank you very much. Planning Commission Me~ting August 18, 1993 - Page 97 REVISED PLANS FOR THE HANUS SITE, FRED HOISINGTON. Fred Hoisington: ...you'll remember the last time we all met on a Wednesday morning, as I remember, we had presented an alternative to you that suggested there may be some changes to the Hanus building site plan. And I'd like to just kind of call to your attention what changes have occurred since that time. Sorry, I can't show one up in front. But if you look at the site plans that we have here, Jeff you may have a little bit more difficulty seeing it down there. We have negotiated or talked with the two key occupants of this building, being Gary Brown and the Toll Company and they are the two that have the long term lease of about 25 years. So they have a very strong interest in this building. The only changes we really had to make was to add a couple of parking places here for Gary Brown with a rolled curb in this area. The idea being that he can put higher value cars in here and not have to park them in this area. And we did take out one island here in the front because he does plow the snow here and he felt that it would be a lot easier. He could accept this one but he could not accept the one at the other end, and frankly with the landscaping we're proposing here, it doesn't bother us a great deal. So we're quite satisfied with that. One other change that the Toll Company suggested was you may remember we had this sort of a peculiar configuration so we could get some berming in here. Their problem is that they need to manuever trucks to back into this area and our concern, after listening to them was that they would drive over that curb all the time. So we decided to pull it back. Put a retaining wall in that would be about 2'10" above the retaining wall that's there now and then there will be large trees planted in this area, and I'll show you that in a minute. So not substantial changes to what you've seen already. This shows a little bit about the grading. A small berm in this area. About 6 to 7 foot berm and the area behind. Closing this off so really the only avenue into this is passing on the public way into the parking lot. That's out of way but we have made this entry 30 feet wide because semi's have to get in here that are 55 feet long and we spent a long time at Toll this morning who didn't believe we could make that maneuver and we showed them how it could be done and made a slight modification of this radius to make sure that it could be done if they ever needed to actually manuever within this cul-de-sac. This is the landscaping that's proposed and we kind of need some input from you in that regard. Batzli: More. Fred Hoisington: More landscaping? Well, Brian there's a lot of landscaping here. What we're going to be doing is irrigating everything within this parameter. Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 98 Batzli: He finds no humor at quarter to 1:00 in the morning. Fred Hoisington: There is at this time there can be no humor. On the top of this berm there will be a 4 foot coniferous varieties of vegetation and then within this area, Austrian pine and they will be 6 foot tall when they're planted. Mancino: But they don't really screen. Austrian pine. Fred Hoisington: Austrian pine tends to be thinner. They're very tolerate however of the condition that exists here. Salt tolerate trees. We can try Nancy a more dense tree here. Mancino: Or ygur planting can be staggered. Fred Hoisington: We don't have room to stagger. That's the problem. There Just isn't a whole lot of space. If you're looking from this direction, you simply won't see this building. (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point.) Fred Hoisington: You know I have no problem with lower vegetation here because I think a certain amount of this building should show. What I don't want to see show are the fronts of the cars essentially. I don't mind seeing the tops of the cars but I don't really want to see the fronts of the cars. Mancino: But I would like to do year round vegetation. So it would be evergreens. You could use, or you could cut evergreens at the top and use them as hedges. Batzli: How about a red leaf dogwood? Fred Hoisington: That's okay except we won't have any cover really during the winter. A lot of twigs. We could use some arborvitae. Arborvitae can be controlled as far as height is concerned. If you're in agreement with something a little bit lower in there, I think maybe we can do more investigation of that and see what we can do because what we'd really, I don't want to get into an argument over it with him and I'm really not that concerned about the building showing. The building is going to be very nice looking. It's going to be completely painted. Scott: Yeah but the Rapid Oil Change, which is pretty obnoxious but you know, it's nice looking for being obnoxious. Fred Hoisington: At least it looks nice and clean there and so forth and I think this building once it's done is also going to Planning Commts~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 99 look nice and clean. That's why we're not trying to screen this edge. We're going to paint it. And we probably won't paint it until next year because of the signage that's there. When we take that signage down, we have to grade and put the new signage up and so we won't paint and put the roof on until next year. The roof situation is the partial roof. Remember we talked about...What we determined was that the mechanicals in there would not, we have 12 stacks coming out of that full roof and therefore we'll have a partial roof which is a little bit lower and so forth but it will make a tremendous difference on this building. The question will then be color, and of course we talked about it. Jeff, I don't know if you have the slide of color... Farmakes: ...ask Sharmin. I gave her some slides. I have some more if they don't have them. I still don't understand, if I park my Mercedes there in that corner, he doesn't need to move anything so I don't understand the reasoning for expanding the parking lot. Fred Hoisington: I think if you put it in there yourself, he doesn't care and that's fine. If they have to move it around, he would prefer not to take that risk and move it into a place where it's not going to get bumped by even his own people. So I think that's what he's, that's what he does now. He puts it in there now. Now if you want tell him Gary, you can't do that. I don't have any problem with that. We can put a full curb up to this point which means we only have to leave this area open. Farmakes: That's how I see all the drawings currently. I see the original ones going like that and I see it like that. I know that on occasions I have seen stuff parked up on that knoll up there. You can see it from the highway. It doesn't look very good. I'm Just wondering if there isn't an exemplary reason for that, if it shouldn't be more like the plan showed there. Fred Hoisington: I'd prefer to have it more like the plans showing. Batzli: What do you need from us tonight Fred? Do you need a motion? Do you need something? Krauss: It's not an official site plan. It doesn't require a public hearing. Batzli: We're going to see this though, or aren't we? Krauss: No. It doesn't require any official action... Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 100 Batzli: Is Council going to end up with the final say on what hagpens here? Krauss: The HRA. Batzli: HRA? Okay. So if people want to see something, you might as well, you could have a motion that this is what we want the HRA to do with it. Farmakes: I would just throw this out quickly. If it's possible to expand that back to the arch of the curve like that and put in a second tier so they can rise it up higher without affecting the truck movement into those two bays over there. That would offer you some more options. Batzli: So that's one thing. What do people think about landscaping on the west side there? Harberts: I don't have any problem with it if it covers cars. Batzli: We're not trying to cover the building. Harberts: No. Batzli: And what was the other thing you had? Mancino: I'd like to make sure interior parking landscape is in compliance with our new city ordinance. Are we going to have a problem if the city is going in and developing something and we're not even doing what we're asking others to do? Private developers. Krauss: First of all, we'll bring that ordinance back to the Tree Board and one of the things that was pointed out to me by Brad Johnson...was that when you have small parking lots like this, it's really not possible typically to meet that standard within the parking. Where it need it... Scott: No, you don't want to be goofing around with a parking lot that's that small. Mancino: Okay. I just want to make sure one side knows what the other one is doing. Krauss: This is a remediation too Nancy. We're trying to fix a problem that's 12 years old with limited land to do it. I'm pretty confident that's the way to go. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 101 Farmakes: I would also make a motion not to expand that parking lot as it's shown here. Yeah. scott: What's this deal? Harberts: It's a tree isn't it? A tree planter. Fred Hoisington: That's a detail. So what they're going to show is there will be no curb but it will be a little bit different texture and I believe this is concrete and there will be a tree... (There were a number of conversations going on at one time at this point.) couh'~¥ ROaD ;~? ~'D ~(~WA¥ S. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Dave Leschak: Well to be very brief, my name is Dave Leschak. I'm an architect with Hammel-Green-Abrahamson. I've been hired by the School District for the plans for the new elementary school. With me tonight is Bob Rothman from HGA as well as John Gockel who is construction representative for the school district. I would like, I realize that you all have a copy containing the program information to date. 'One change I would like to draw your attention to is the Chanhassen exterior activities which is page 31. We have revised that which originally had shown 6 ballfields and 6 soccer fields...and it's represented on the conceptual site plan. Other than that. Scott: Excuse me, 317 Dave Leschak: Yes, page 31. Well 31 in my...It's the Chanhassen Exterior Activities. Farmakes: 33. Dave Leschak: 33. So we went from 6-, which I believe your program information shows. We have revised that to 4. To be brief, I would ask if you have any questions. I could review the entire document if you want. But knowing that you people have had this information, I would just ask if you have any questions concerning the program or issues with the program. If not, I would turn the presentation over to Bob Rothman who will take you through that conceptual site plan. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 102 Farmakes: I have one quick question. How would you put 2 more ballfields and soccer fields in that... Dave Leechak: How would we have? Well initially we had hoped that the site would have been capable to handle the additional fields. The school district is looking at this land for this facility as being prototype and for that reason we are looking to keep this building as a single level rather than maybe being 2 levels which would reduce the size of the footprint. So as a result this building significantly...2 stories as a result of loss of potential...useage on this site as well as the different boundaries between Highway 5 and where it will be in the future as well as the widening of Galpin so when we were in the planning phase, we were talking about another 20 acres that the park district was going to develop. We maybe in there some neighborhood but not quite the entire 20 acres.. Harberts: Will someone else address it but why is the school district going to a single level rather than a tier? Dave Leschak: Well the school district is looking at this facility as becoming a prototype for them, which they would then be able to put on other sites that they may have. Now it might not include for instance a community program but the vast majority of this building would be able to be replicated on another site. Farmakes: How would that serve the community? Harberts: Well I don't know if they're that interested in serving the community. Farmakes: Well the community is making a contribution either directly or indirectly. John Dockel: My name is John Dockel and I'm the construction representative for the District. Under normal, I shouldn't say normal but I should say the most frequently used scenario, the owner of a building does not own the design of the building. The district in order to save costs negotiated with the architect in such a way that the district will own the design of the building. They own the drawing. They can replicate that building with an agreement with the architect on other sites. The advantage to taxpayers obviously is lower taxes. Harberts: Because it's a lower cost building? Farmakes: You're saying the district gets income from replicating the building? Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 103 John Dockel: No, they don't get income. Harberts= They save architect costs. It's like using a stat over and over and over. John Dockel: What happened on this site, number one there's topography that dictates what happens and as Mr. Leschak said, when we initially looked at the site, we looked at a nominal 40 acres. Well we're still looking at a nominal 40 acres but then all of a sudden when you lay the anticipated right-of-ways of Highway 5, the access road to the south and Galpin, you don't have 40 acres anymore. Farmakes: Isn't that all the more reason to go to 2 stories? Harberts: Well exactly. My understanding.when you build a, and maybe I'm wrong here, that when you build out like that, it's going to cost more. It's cheaper to build up than it is out. Dave Leschak= Not necessarily. John Dockel: Not necessarily. The other thing to keep in mind, the school hasn't been designed yet. This is very early schematics. Bob Rothman: It's a concept plan. I think the second thing, another thing to realize is what we've shown here is probably the worst case, one story building. The building hasn't been designed yet so there's a possibility it could go to 2 stories. Secondly, if it did go to 2 story, I think what we found by doing this exercise is that even if it did go to 2 story, I don't think we would save enough room on the site to fit more fields on there as it is. Farmakes: Okay. That would be a major question for me... inherent conflict of interest between the school district and the community, although they're a partnership on this. Going back-to the city relationship here behind us in relationship to the receational community with the park...and cross use of that. That was a major issue on the site development. That community also would have some access when it was not being used to the receational facilities. If there's a reason for going out rather than up, and one way or another you couldn't get any additional facilities there to utilize that property to the greatest extent possible. That's certainly a question that Would come up and I hope you have a good response for that. John Dockel: Another thing, and this is a, Dave you can talk about this. This is an elementary school for 1 thru 5. And yes Planning Commi~ion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 104 you can do 2 story buildings in an elementary school but it's not the most desireable. Farmakes: And of course when you get city type recreation, you get it all at the same time. In other words, you get slews of 5th. graders and 3rd graders playing baseball or whatever. They're all in the evening and they're all at the same time so by having additional facilities available of course is a primary benefit to the city. But perhaps not the school system. Dave Leschak: Any other questions? Do you want me to review or additional questions? Batzli: We'll probably have a couple questions. hear from Todd. What do you think about this? I'd like to Hoffman: Chairman Batzli and Commission members. Again it, I think what you're being asked this evening and what the City Council will be asked on Monday evening is to approve or disprove the concept of entering into a cooperative agreement to enhance both the school system, presence in the city of Chanhassen and recreational presence in the city of Chanhassen. It is certainly my interest and the interest of the Park Commission to maximize the recreational facilities on this site. However~ the school district certainly has a vested interest in half of the site so what discretion we have over instructing or amending what they do...I cannot answer that for you. The remaining 20 acres which is under the auspices of the City of Chanhassen, we certainly want to maximize what we have on that facility. Scott: Can they draw us a line? Hoffman: I think he can probably pencil one in there. Bob Rothman: The site's been organized with the community fields to the... Scott: So that's the city stuff? How about city stuff, school stuff? Bob Rothman: here. Basically city stuff is oh somewhere right about Scott: Okay. So that's the facility that can be cross used. And then Todd you're basically going to be the guru. You're going to have free, you and your people are going to have control. I'll use that word, control over-the city stuff. The school will have control over the school stuff and then you guys will work together to trade and go back and forth so basically Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 105 you're going to be acting in the best interest of the city of Chanhassen, like you do with all the other recreation programs that you run. Hoffman: But again it is my hope and desire that that line will not be delineated... Scott: Exactly. Because you're going to trade. That's up to you. Hoffman: You could ask anybody where the line is out here and they're not going to be able to tell you so. I have had preliminary discussions with the school district on the Joint powers agreement, we want to maximize to the benefit of the community both the indoor facilities. Both recreational, educational spaces for the school. In the schools program in the community and the community program and then likewise outside... share those facilities that we have to maximize the benefit both during the day and at evening...As it is currently scheduled, the city will have access to gymnasiums and...so one of the goals of the Park Commission was to allow that use. We have a lot of people who have...people have different schedules in today's society and we want to be able to accommodate those. Batzli: Okay. You've expressed an interest to maximize. That wasn't quite my question. Are you happy with this? Hoffman: Am I happy with this? Batzli: Yeah. Hoffman: Sure I'm happy with this. What more can you do? Batzli: I don't know but that's my question. You're the expert. You see these all the time. You've seen layouts. You know how they're laid out. Does this look like a good plan? This is your expertise. We're sitting here, I can see a bunch of streets lined up but I've never looked at ballfields to see whether that's the way you put them. Hoffman: Okay, to answer your question. There's not much more you can do there to maximize...actual use of physical space for ballfield development. You also see that the soccer fields are overlaying on the baseball fields. That's, when you're ask those two user groups, they would like to see them separated because of minor conflicts you see. My response would be, we'll get this one done and we look to Bandimere Community Park, which is another youth park...The park staff and the Park and Recreation Commission has not identified what segments of the user groups will be specifically slated for this location. Now that this Planning Commi~ion M~ting August 18, 1993 - Page 106 facility is starting to expand, we just split those up and which groups are going to use...We're seeing a much higher rate of youth activity in Lake Ann Park so I can tell you... Farmakes= So the two that will be eliminated off of here, were not supposed to be on here? Out of 6...there were only supposed to be 4? There isn't another plan showing 6? Hoffman: No. There's not another plan that I've seen showing 6. Again the construction from the beginning was to maximize the use of that space... Dave Leschak: Initially what was done, if I may Todd. A menu more or less was developed with some meetings between the architects and school district and the city which developed a menu of recreational activities. Whatever they may have been. Whether they were fitness rooms, aerobic rooms, weight lifting rooms, and from there we pared that menu down to what the city felt they needed to have. At the time it was discussed that we could get 6 fields on the site, the city would certainly see the need that they could use those 6 fields. Now what you see here with the conceptual site plan is you're taking another step. At that point you really didn't we weren't even looking at the site. We were discussing land'uses there...program sheet, that indicates those 6 fields. When we went in and calculated the acreage, at that time we felt as though 6 fields couldn't fit on this site. Now we've gone back and taken it another step. We've gotten a, developed a conceptual site plan and realized that 6 was probably an overly optimistic number... Bob Rothman: 6 fields was purely a mathematical exercise with the amount of land. When you look at contours, wetlands on the site, the constraints of the enlarged, expanded Highway 5, Galpin, that realistically that turned out to be 4. Mancino: I have a question that I see a lot of...racquet ball sports here. I don't see any track and field for an elementary school which you usually see. They have track and field days and you have your long jump and high jump areas, etc. Is there anything like that? Dave Leschak: Normally...I believe in your program information was the, we have listed the school district program activities, or exterior activities and those are activities that we would normally program into an elementary school. That would be a softball field, soccer field, hard surface, multi-purpose type area that may have basketball hoops or an area where they could play four square. And playground. We don't normally provide for a track at an elementary school type of facility. Those you Planning Commi=sion Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 107 would usually find at a higher, whether it be maybe a middle school and certainly at a high school. And that is partially due in part to the cost associated with doing a track. Batzli: You said there's a lot of four square spots. Where's the hard surface playground? Bob Rothman: We've got two playgrounds. One would be associated outside the cafeteria...another one. Batzli: And your hockey rink is Just something that would be flooded. You don't have permanent boards there? Bob Rothman: Well we're talking about a few different ideas. One suggestion was put out last week was possibly making that actually concrete hard surface so in the summers they could play roller hockey there. Batzli: Any other questions? Okay. What do we need to do with this Paul/Todd? Krauss: Well again, this is not something that requries official action. In the interest of getting your input. If you're comfortable generally with the program, I'll past that word up to the City Council on Monday. And again, you will be getting... Batzli: Okay. I'm comfortable. I'm pleased with what it looks like and the amenities that it will add to-the community. We need multi purpose and the ballfields and stuff so I like it. Did you have something you were going to add Todd? Hoffman: To follow up on Nancy's question about the track and field days. They do...there's a small aggregate track which is a loop around the soccer field. That was talked about at a staff level meeting with HGA and again...possible uses of this site are going to be. Harberts: I'll Just add that public transit has already contacted...so we are on top of this. Batzli: I think we generally like it and I don't know that we had any specific...so we're in favor. Go for it. Thank you for staying. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 4, 1993 amended by Jeff Farmakes changing the word attractive to attractant on his comments regarding the Target site. Planning Commission Meeting August 18, 1993 - Page 108 Scott moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:24 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim