Loading...
PC 1993 10 06CHANI-I. ASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 199:] Vice Chair Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Matt Ledvina and left Fammke8 MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli, Diane Harberts and Joe Scott STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Kat~ Aanenson, Senior Planner, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer, Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;, and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT LOT 2~ BLOCK 1~ OIYrLOT C~ OIYrLOT D~ BLOOMBERG ADDITION INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD AND LOCATED SOUTH OF WE$'r 78TH STREET~ EAST OF MARKET BOULEVARD AND WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ~ APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A HOTEL EXPANSION AND RESTAURANT BETWEEN THE COUNTRY SUITES HOTEL AND FRONTIER BUII.DING~ LOTUS REAI.TY SERVICES AND BLOOMBERG COMPANIES~ INC. Public Present: Name Address Brad Johnson Vernelle Clayton John D. Rice Kevin Norby George Bentley (?) Herb Bloomberg 7425 Frontier Trail 422 Santa Fe Circle 575 West 78th Street 6801 Redwing Lane Eden Prairie (SW Metro) 7008 Dakota Kate Aancnson presented thc staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called thc public hearing to order. Brad Johnson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brad Johnson, 7425 Frontier Trail. Tonight we'll just quickly go through a brief presentation of the things that you've seen and probably highlight what we did with thc signage plan which was developed and did not show you last time. So with that I'd like to have Tim Howell come forward, the archite~ and then we'll follow that with Kcvin Norby with the sit~ plan. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Tim Howell: Would you like a review of what we've gone through before or shall we cut to thc chase and look at thc sign issue? I'd be happy to do whichever you prefer. Conrad: I don't need the review but does anybody want to see it? Ledvina: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to know what architecunal changes, or what changes have been made from the last drawing that we've seen. Mancino: And specifically on the dock screening area. Tim Howell: Okay. I'll show you here. This was the original, I'm getting laughs already. Mancino: No, no. Not at you. Tim Howell: If you rex. all at the previous meeting, I don't know if you can see _this. I'm sorry. We had some additional parking in here beca~ we knew we were fight on parking so we were trying to find every useable space. And we had access through a screen here for the trucking to come back and nnload. The request was made that we provide either a wider turning for the larger tracks for an additional access to the dock back here which would serve the restaurant for deliveries. In reviewing the whole process, there was also a discussion about at some point in time, if the parking of a truck is not adequate, that there may be some need for pedestfi~ access to the back or additional parking behind the Pronfier bnilding s~nd in this area back in here. So in preparation for that potential, what we did was a couple of things. Number one, we took that parking out that you see is now a planted area. We provided two openings, one of which is pedestrian access to the back alongside of the building and then we're having the large deliveries from the back here and only small mlcks and individual deliveries at the front. We also are obviously providing for the trash pick-up and... Actually all three of those issues have been dealt with and what we've done for that is to again tie in with the idea that we presented all along of the arched entries and provided two more arches there. One for the trucking and nnlo_s_ding back there and then one also for pedestrians with appropria~ lighting, etc. Mancino: Will there be a sign there saying what that one entry is for? It's just for truck loading or unloading. Tim Howell: I don't know that that would be necessary to have. I guess my preference would be not to have a sign at that point. It's probably only going to take one delivery. Mancino: I mean you don't think you'll get cars going down there? Platming Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Tim Howell: I really don't believe so. If it becomes an issue, we certainly can~ Farmakes: Is that access to be backed into? And backed out off Tim Howell: Well actually it's wide enough. If there are not these vehicle~ simultaneously unloading, yes there is space for this truck to drive in and pull that away. Farmakes: Okay. From what direction here, just clarify for me. The screen_ ing that we see that you drive through is towards the bottom, correct? Tim Howell: Right here? Farmslre~: The screening we just talked about. The arches. Mancino: The arches. Where arc the arches? Tim Howell: Yes, fight here. Mancino: drawing? Oh, they're back. Right, so they're recessed from the arches that we see in a two dimensional Tim Howell: Oh yes. Farmakes: When a truck has to come in there, or a car or a van. A van in this casa Delivery van. It accesses by, there's no room to tttrn around correct? Tim Howell: No. Farmakes: It accesses by backing into then? Tim Howell: No, no. He can drive directly in here and pull right here, nnload, and continue on. Farmakes: And continue on. Tim Howell: 8o it goes straight through. Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 Farmakes: I see. So the drawing, there's son of a barrier there. That type, we really can't see that from here. Tim Howell: This is the driveway here. You come in and pull along side and unload onto this dock. A large truck can come from the backside and back up there. Farw,ire~: Yeah. See when I saw my plans I saw that line underneath the type. I thought that was a barrier. Tim Howell: Oh. No, no, no. No, no. Not at all. No, there's nothing there. That's words on the plat. Mancino: And where do the big ones come from? Tim Howelh From the back. Mancino: From the back. What street is that? Tim Howell: Well, whatever is back behind the, what do you call it? Conrad: That's the bowling alley. Tim Howell: It's the bowling alley side. Farmakes: Has safety looked at this at all? Tim Howell: There's a plan to be a road back there. Farmakes: Is there a one way problem with this or is this calling for a one way access or are you comfortable with the safety factor of that? Mancino: Of one truck coming one way and one truck coming the other. Farws_lrea: Son of a blind curve there. Krauss: It's not that long a drive. Farmakes: But we're funneling people in there too aren't we? Tim Howell: On a walkway. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Right. And are they prol~ted then from that type of access? You're comforlable with that? I just asked if that was considered. Aanenson: Well right now we have it that they provide parking in the back. What we said is our recommendation to monitor that. If they do, then we wonld want them to provide betl~ access as part of it. They need more lighting or whatever to mak~ sure that it is safe to get back there. Right now they may not need that. Farmakes: So if two cars see each other driving through there. Aan~n: Cars won't be going through. There will be two u-ucks backing. Farmakes: Two vans. If they meet each other in the middle, they're going to have to put it in reverse and back out again correct? Or one will. Aanenson: The intent is to back up anyway. Fammke~: Okay, so that goes back to my original question. Is it the intent then for them to back out of there or drive through? Aanenson: The way I understand it, they'd be backing out. Tim Howell: The only reason that they would ever have to back out is if they were both there at the same time. Farmakes: That's an u~liimly possibility or is that, I'm assuming most deliveries are in the morning? Tim Howell: There is room for someone to drive in, turn and drive down. There's also the possibility that if someone is here, he can back the truck in~ Farmakes: My point though is that if a single lane of traffic and we have someone coming in and there's an access, they ~y meet each other. Tim Howell: This is not going to be a drive. I mean this is, it's not a roadway per se. It's a delivery area. Krauss: If there's one truck sitting there, you'll see it before you enter. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: What would stop me say from my car from driving through there to get through to the other side on a short cut? Mancino: Let's say there's no parking and I decided I'm going to park in the back because there's not enough parking because it's~.. Tim Howell: Is that getting back to your idea of let's put a sign up that says trucks only? I mean that can be done. Farmakes: Well, of course it's like having an alley way where there's one lane where two cars may meet each other in the middle. In this case it's not a straight road. So I'm just wondering if safety has looked at that. I'll leave that up to the professionals on the Highway Depamnent. Ledvina: Could you identify where the covered area is between the retail and the restaurant? Tim Howell: The covered area is the dotted line. The dotted line across here and it goes back to the front edge of the dock. Ledvina: Okay. And that has a roof over it? Tim Howell: Yes. The roof is open. Obviously the two archways in the front and totally open to thc back. . Ledvina: Totally open in the back. Okay. Mancino: So the roof is only being supported on each end in the back? There are walls7 Okay. Farmakes: The primary area for the pedestrians is to come across it would be from the left side. They would come out to the fin-thest walkway there and cut across? Tim Howell: Here? Farmakes: Right there. Tim Howell: Yes they would. And what we're proposing is that that become a, either a brick tic and...so that it's identified through the roadway. Farmakes: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - O~l~r 6, 1993 Mancino: And what are the little black square~ on the roof line7 Tim Howell: These are columns. You can see the arches in the front ~ the wozk is being done as we speak, the arched ways are being opened up and these will be columns that will support the overhang...so that you do have a protectv. A walkway back through. Conrad: Okay. Tim Howell: In terms of the signage, what we requested is, again ff I can approach the bench. This again is the front elevation of 78th, as we face 78th Street. We're asking for a band, 3 foot wide band along the, above the line of the eave on the Frontier building and you'll see up there ~tly the Team Sporting Goods red band basically exiended down to the Theater. As an allowable band for 24 inch letters, 5 inch deep with a plastic face... Team Sporting Goods right now. That band. We're _s_,idng for a band on the face of the, where it's presently the Animal Fair b~iiding. A directional sign, which is merely identifying the enwance to the restaurant at that point. The band on the face of the colonnade here that would identify the two shops inside the hotel A sign on the back of the proposed motel expansion. That would be facing actually Highway 5. Mancino: And what does that sign designate? Tim Howell: This one? ' Mancino: Yes. Tim Howell: Just the hotel. Farmakes: The Country Suites? Tim Howell: That's all that will be on the back side. Mancino: Just the Country Suites, their logo? Tim Howell: Right. And then two monument si~s that we're talking about arc located, one in the location. We're t_sidng down the pylon sign that is presently existing out there. Farmakes: The abandoned one7 Tim Howell: Is this where you pause for applause? And then replacing it with a monument sign here that is architecturally compatible with the expanded motel, hotel rather. Than a Planning Commission Meeting - Octobe~ 6, 1993 second monument sign here that identifies the...on the upper floor. And that's the two. Ledvina: Why wouldn't the designs of the signs be the same? Tim Howell: My understanding was that we were to keep them compatible with the appropriate bniltling8. We certainly can but we thinlr that it get~ a little HR~ta~e havi~ everything the same on the street Ledvina: Okay. So the signs are to match the look of the building, okay. Tim Howell: The mansard appearance for the Frontier building and this sign would follow the architecture... Mancino: Dave, do you have any problem with a sign that, can we go to the second board please? The sign which is I think Sign A that is positioned on the right sidc. Yeah. I'm concerned about traffic. It's at a comer where you're going to be turning out onto ?Sth Street so if you have somebody in the parking lot that's trying to get out into 78th, will they be able to look ahead and see traffic because of that sign there? I know that it comers, you know in neighborhoods, etc we don't want to have fences over 4 feet tall so I'm just conccmexi about the placement of that sign at that corner. As safety. Hempel: The traffic on West 78th Street is primarily eastbound traf~. Ledvina: That's a right out only, right7 Correct7 So they're not looking that way. Conrad: Okay. Anything else? Brad Johnson: Any other questions? Conrad: No. Brad Johnson: Okay, Kevin...Kevin Norby the landscape architec~ Kevin Norby: Maybe I should hand this out. This is a reduction of the colored plans you're trying to decipher there. Maybe it will be a little more clear .... over story trees. This one and the handout I just gave you show some of the other plantings that would happen underneath the trees. As well as up along these projections in the paflcing lot. We've also added a couple of trees here. Basically the parking didn't change. Sign locations didn't change. The one thing that you may not be aware of, I callexl Paul about this and I talked to Kate. We recalculated the square footage of landscape, interior landscaped area relative to Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 these two sii~s. We come up with 4.8%. If we calculat~ all three of these areas, we get 5.1% so we jumped up a little bit from the 3% we talked about last ~rne. Basically we're, if you look in the upper comer here, we've gone with four di~t species of shade trees. We've got sugar maples, hackberry, American linden and the summit ash which are all on the tree list. We've gone with equal quantities of those. We've got 4 of each in appropriate locations. Some do a little better in actual parking lot locations so we've used them accordingly. We've also got some"..plant rma~ Both evergreen and basically pereonia~ are being used underneath there trying to get away from 811 the... Mancino: Excuse me. Could you read a few of those because I can't. Kevin Norby: Yeah. They didn't copy real well The ~ of course I mentioned. The lower plant material we have Blue Princess Spirea. Those are used primarily up around the building. We've got dwarf bush honeysuckle which is used in the parking lot. Both here and the parking lot here. Just on the points here and along the I~_ildlng over here. And we've got some daylilies. Those are used around the two signs here as well as in a couple planting areas along the front of the bnileling here and here. And then we've got some of the"..a little bit taller. About 30 inches to 3 feet. Those are existing and over here is the restaurant. Mancino: Did your calculations of the 5.1 include the igrimot~ landscaping on the boulevard7 Kevin Norby: It only included the projections into the padcing lot. It did not include any of the area here. So the 5.1 is from this line to this line. And just the projections into the parking lot. These. I think the two sites we're really dealing with right now are these two and we come up with 4.8%. I think total trees, I _think we've got 16 of them and if we were at the 8%, I tbinlt we'd need 14. So we're still a little above that as well. The only sod I can see probably being used here would be out along the boulevard, adjacent to the street And possibly up in this area here but I think we want to do some nicer landscape plantings there as well Mancino: What are our areas for the plantings? Are they ~ square feet? The minimum that we had in the. Kevin Norby: They're 10 feet by about 32 feet so they're like 320. 300. $orng~_ lng 1i~ that. There will be these four in the center. They're 10 feet wide. Conrad: Okay. Any other questions of Kevin? Anything? Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Brad $ohnson: The only other issue that I don't think, we'll have to figure out how to handle wnight was the staff had asked Strgar-Roscoe to study this into-change here. We still prefer to have it open because I guess it seems logical and what we're trying to figure out is there a safety problem. And the opinion of the owners is if we don't leave it open, we'll have a safety problem over in this area because people will have to drive down to the end, come back and then always exit past where most of the pedestrian tra/~ probably will be. There are a number of interchanges that look like this around town. Staff's position, which is correct Is that this is a semaphore interchange and they're concerned about stacking. What we're concerned about is the congestion in this area here. If people have to drive down, turn around. It's like a long cul-de-sac. You know you don't like cul-de-sacs. So this would be like one. So what we're saying is that it's better for trai~c to come out here. I guess we're willing to close it off, just like we suggested on the other thing. If we run into trouble. We don't think we're going to have that much traffic in and out of here and I've been watching the Dinner Theater when it actually, you know we've got the same kind of lsnes right over here at the Dinner Theater. And if you come here at night where probably what, 400 cars leave and...again there's senu~hore down in this area so I think you're waiting for a report from Sugar. And if there's some real dramatic problem but we think, you know this is just an opinion now. We're not experts but we think there will be a problem right in here. Conrad: I didn't understand your solution Brad. Brad Johnson: Well the solution would be to open it up. See today it looks like thi~ There's a better picture but I don't have it blown up like _this~ Today this is the, okay and there's the sign. And we've got it rnnning there. If you look at it this way, we've got a picture that looks this way. It comes down to the end and it's just going to be a problem. It's son of like some of these over in here and I, I don't know if stacking's going w be a problem or not but I think if it's really heavily stacked, it will back up and come around and go out that way anyway. But otherwise, and I drive _this everyday. I just know it's dangerous to come back inw this area, even with nothing there. Because the guy here doesn't know you're coming. It's just, and that's an opinion- Not an educated one but just an opinion- So we'd like to try it this way with the stipulation that we change it at the city's request. That we have a lot of accidents at that point but I think we can end up with some major problems out here in front of the shopping center. Because we'd just be doubling up the traffic. Ledvina: Is that, now just to clarify that. Is that a fight-in, right-out only? Brad Johnson: This is a right-in- This is thc interchange. Their point is somewhat correct If there is a lot of traffic out here, which we're not sure we have. I did calculate it. It will be 1 car every 30 seconds to a minute. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Is there a light there? Brad $ohnson: There will be a light there. Mancino: So you can go left or right? Brad lolmson: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm not saying, it's just, we looked at it and we said, the problem will be in here and we'll create another kind of problem because all thi~ ~ will have to always be going like that. And this is the same thing over here and nobody's too concerned about it. As is Town Square. You know we don't keep muting traffic around. This is the same type of intemhange opposite. What we're proposing is an inmrchange like this. And we haven't had, the hotel has a real minimum trs_ffic in and out. The restaurant, if it's really busy, maybe 1 car every minute. If they're really lucky. Okay. I mean it's not a high traffic kind of business. It sounds like it is but when you actually analyze it, ff there's 60 tables in there, and they turn once every 30 minutes, you know that's pretty good for a restaurant. It's full sit down and that, maybe sometimes. And I don't think, we'd like to try it this way first and if that doesn't work, come back with a different alternative. That's our idea. And maybe somebody else has something else~ We'd like to know, if an expert can tell us traffic counts there, we can tell you it's not going to be very many cars. I think that's really the only issue that's in there right? And there's sonic conversation about a 40 foot easement. We think you already have the easement for the two lots that are being ~fly phtted. And if not, you can have it. And then over here on the Prontier side, that's not up for replatting. But when we come back and replat that we'll give you that so I don't think we have any question about your easements and thig is primarily for road purposes in the downtown area. As long as we can have parking. So okay? Any other questions? Conrad: No. Good. Okay, we'll open it up for other public input. Is there any? Anything? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing, Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Ledvina: Okay. Kate, last time we talked about a variance far the f~ontaEc. Has that gone away7 I didn't see it in this. Aanenson: No. That was a condition... Ledvina: Right. So we need to add a condition as it relates to that7 What would you, I think you had one in thc last staff report. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Aanenson: ...100 feet of frontage and they're at 96...variance to the lot width req~t. Ledvina: Okay. Can you suggest some language for ~_u_t? Just a variance shall be granted for. Aanmson: Lot width requirement in the CBD zone. Ledvina: Okay. I'm a slow writer. In the CBD zone7 Okay. And the other thing that one of the things that I was looking for last time was a little bit more description in terms of the reason for the variance and looking at it in a more classical sense. Aanenson: 1ustification. Ledvina: Right. The justification for granting that vadance. Aan~n: I can pull that forward, what we put in there before and that was the justification would be what we're trying to do is provide two separate ownerships for the existing buildings. The Animal Fair building and then the extension of the hotel, which is going to be under two different owners... Ledvina: Okay. Well I understand it's critical to the proposal and we want to see this, or we do support, or I support the developmen~ redevelopment in thi~ area so I think it's definitely a good thing for the downwwn area. Not that I oppose it~ It's just kind of a technical point. But okay. Let's see. On condition number 6. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Code req~t regarding lot lines through buildings. Is that complete enough7 I mean docs that get us where we need to be7 Aanenson: WelL.Building Of~cial regarding that. What we've done, and one of these lots is actually put a subdivision lot line through a bnilding and that requiz~ ~ Code conditions. So they've been made aware of what those conditions are and stated that they're willing to meet that condition so, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Building Code and what we're saying, just to make them aware that they must comply... Ledvina: Okay, so everything that we need then to comply as it rela~ to the lot lines and the design of the bnilding and whatever. Aan~n: Is now...Buikfing... Ledving Alright. And then I guess as it relags to that access point to the west. I believe that the situation is, that it be connected there and I guess I would follow staff's 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 recommendation that that should be left as it exists today and then if the applicant can demonstrate that there is actually a problem, then it can be changed later. It wouldn't make much sense to change it and then find a problem and then have to change it back. So I guess that would be my comment on the access. I think that's it. Conrad: Okay, thanks Matt. Nancy. Mancino: Matt, is that the curb median that you're talking about? Ledvina: Right. The west access. Mancino: And leaving that? Okay. And Dave, do you still feel slrongly as you did from our last, the last staff report about leaving that in? Hempel: Yes I do I guess. It's been functioning properly out there .... with the semn?hores that are going up and could create a stacking problem if somebody wants to short cut across and there's cars backing up. To putting a turn in and out of there so. There's both types of median entrances I guess and we sec them around town, And ss Brad had indicated, it's been working fine. It wske~s sensc to §o back and change it twice ff there is a problem. Mancino: I agree. Kate, on recommendation number 7 it says, staff still encourages the applicant to leave parking entrances as it exist today. Aanenson: That's the curb we're talking about. Mancino: Okay. And do we want to say still encourages or? Aanenson: I guess the reason why we wrote it kind of soft that way was, it was like 5 reasons to take it out and 5 reasons to put it in and we were kind of split. Engineering, it's really their call but. .. should probably be left in. So what we did is we refen~xi it to our traffic engineer consultants, Strgar-Roscoe to look at it and we haven't gotten a response back from them yet. So we're still looking for their expertise on the stacking. Basically, the fact that there's a signal, that's really the concern with slacking. So if you want to word it stronger, if you want w...recommend that they leave it in, that's fine. Or as Matt suggested, leave it and if they demonstrate there isn't a problem, then they can have it. Ledvina: If I can just follow up on that. I guess as I look at it, it says and provide additional access points. Can you just flush that out a little bit? Do we need more access points? Aanenson: I _think the... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 199'3 Ledvina: But that didn't mean out onto West 78th. Aanenson: No. No. No, that's what exists. Ledvina: Okay. Do you think we can take that out and, that phrase and addition access points? Aanenson: Sure. Ledvina: Okay. Mancino: So staff wants the applicant to leave the parking entrance as it exists today? Aanenson: That sounds like the direction... Mancino: I don't really have any other comments. I do like the new landscaping plan that I see in front of me here versus what we got in our packet So I want to make sure that the new plan that I see in front of me is the one that is executed. The only other recommendation that I feel, that you talked about Kate in your stuff report but dicln't put down as a recommendation and I thought should be included would be that the city will monitor parking and if a parking problem occurs, the applicant will be require~ to pwvide landscaped hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel si~e on property owned by Bloomberg Companies. So that would be recornmen_d~tion number 10. And that's it. Conrad: Good point. Serf. Farmakes: I'll start off with the landscaping. The two areas that are in the fcrmfl~nt there, in the landscape plan. I ke~ on seeing these drawings where the crown of the tree over extends the island considerably. Those seem to be the narrowest islands, other than the one that's directly adjacent to. These are existing trees? Which ones are existing and which ones are to be put in? Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. I'm just wondering what we're looking at here now. What is differentiating what's there or what's to be put in? Kevin Norby: Thc existing boulevard trees are these here. And there's one ash, one large tree here. The rest of these arc all proposed. 14 Phmning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Okay. The islands that I'm looking at for the two proposed, thc two in the center on the lower end. And the island that's adjacent to the drive in area. Kevin Norby: Here? Farmakes: No. The drive in from 78th. Kevin Norby: Here7 Farmakes: Right there. That's correet. Those islands are the natrowest islands as I can see through the drawing here. I can barely see a delineation where those islands are underneath there. Didn't we come to a discussion on how wide these islands are in proportion to how big the uee actually gets. Aanenson: I _think we touched on it a little bit. I think the new ordinance talks about 10 x 20 winimmn, 200 square ~ Kevin had mentioned they were 10 x 32. Kevin Norby: The three here are 10 x 32. They're the length of two stalls. Farmo~: The larger ones. Kevin Norby: Right. This one would be 32 x probably 8 feet at the one end and 10 feet at the other end. So we're still within the 200. Farmakes: We're within the total range. We're just a bit narrow. Kevin Norby: The other restriction was...4 feet where a car would pull along side it. 6 feet where a car would pull up to the islancL So the minimum it could be would be 8 feet. Farmakes: It seems to me from a pull in perspective, that the Iree against the drive in area just seems to be, I wonder does the tree grow longer and not wider. Or narrower on the other end. It just never seems that these trees ever get very large even 20 years later in the middle of a parking lot, but maybe they're not suppose to. Driving into that island imm that exit just looks a little strange to me. It sort of, it seems like an awkward place to put the islancL I realize that there's some difficulties with this piece of ~ and landscaping and dealing with the amount of parking spaces that are required. The other thing that bothered me with this, a driveway still seems rather bizarre to me. I realize that the city would like to have walk through and pedestri~ traffic corning through but it worries me, as I understand it. The property does go down there in the elevation and you'd be driving through a screened area down to the elevation from 78th where we're asking people to walk through. And the ones 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that, some will wslic on the walkway and some will walk on the road and I'm just wondering, how safe that would be. Aanenson: One option I guess would be to put some striping in there. But if you go back to the original curb cut, what your reco~on apiw. ars to be, that that would realign at that one planter. Farmakes: I'm just concerned about somebody getting hurt there. Is it, I guess I'm all for it if it can be done safely. It just seems to me that there's some, in looking at it, there's some hazard there from somebody blind siding somebody or somebody sts_ nding behind the obstruction, coming into the road. Kid.~ st~ing out into the traffic. If we have fencing there or something that does not allow them to come into that roadway. If it comes down to a question though about accessing traffic up through there versus getting somebody hurt, I'd rather block that area off and let them access it from the back. I'll defer to the expe~ on that. I just wanted to put it on the record. Tim Howell: Excuse me. In response to that if I may. You did recognize. .. sort of jumping in on you. My understanding is that the passage back there is contingent upon having a problem with the front, with the parking. So the only reason that pedestrians would be going back there is because of the access to the parking lane. Given that, when and if that does become a necessity, I see no reason that we couldn't put a handrail or something like that along side the sidewalk. We're really doing two things here, and I understand that. I think it's important that we separate them with not only a curb but also certainly furniture, landscaping kind of thing will mole_ it, and lighting that will make it more agreeable to go back there. Farmakes: Okay. Well, again I just wanted to address the paragraph on page 2 says the City wants to ensure that we have flexibility on the potential uses for the bowling alley property and possible expansion of thc park. I just hope that that doesn't get in front of being safe in that consideration. Anyway, I'll go onto the next item. I like the expansion. I like the difference in architecture. I like the walkway. I even liice the, what's called the dock screening. I ~ how it appears. I like the way that that looks and connects two buildings and my worry is not how it looks but what it's going to do. Mancino: Safety. Farmakes: Yeah. I'd also back up your comment of the monument sign which is now a pylon. But the monument will obstruct the view on that entry off of 78th. Let's see that would be Sign A I believe. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Hempel: Sorry to interrupt. In preparing the proposed downtown West 78th Street construction plans for that in--on, it does seem to be a conflict with the West 78th Street improvements at that corner would be both sidewalk loc. ationg and the sarfle proximity to where the pylon sign is located. So they probably should look at that. Farmakes: So maybe slide down more to allow the better access? Hempel: Right. Farmakes: The sign proposal for the walkway, or I guess that's what I'm referring to. Is that the right term we should be referring to it as. The walkway as it continues down I think is pretty moderate. I think it, the proposed monument signs brings me to the question that I asked in previous meetings. Whether or not we had an opinion from our legal source. Did you get a response to that? I didn't see that in the report. Aanenson: No, I haven't gotten it. Farmakes: Conceptually what I was wondering is if you have a development where you have a separated two buildings but under the same ownership where agreements of usc, are you dealing with two separate entities? So when we're dealing with ordimmces and regulations, does the fact that there's a cartway say inbetween two buildings, are we de~ling with one stn~etm~ or one entity or are we ~g with two? Are we dealing with two pylon signs? Are we dealing with two, do you understand what I'm getting at here? And my question still holds here. I think that this is important in relationship to what we're doing with Highway 5 because we may have developtmnts that are under the same management and development but may be 4 or 5 diff~t buildings. They may be separated by, or they may even be connected and how do we address that? Do we wind up each with it's own sign? Each with it's own square footage. For instance outside of the ac_n~8! store owner. Let's say we're dealing with monument signs. In this case, if we look at this, is this one development or is _this two developments or three and I'm not proposing one way or the other that we have three, two or one. I'm just saying, what criteria do we use to evaluate that. And I'm not sure we have a specific criteria in this particular instance. The monument si~s I think again arc low profile. I don't have a problem with how they look. I like how they look. So that thc question to mc is, we should answer that so as not to create a precedent of how we're doing this...kind of creating a situation that we're approving here. The sign that's on the back, I don't see a sign on the hotel expansion other than my particular piece here says fine restaurant and I think Sign A should be limited to identify location of the hotel. And the signs at B will be limited to identification of the two retail spaces. This Sign A that I'm looking at, the plan says fine restaurant, hair shop, gift shop. Is the hotel there somewhere? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 199'3 Brad Johnson: There's no sign for the hotel Vernellc Clayton: A and B are changed. A refers to the hotel. Farmakes: I'm looidng at monument sign A, monument sign B. I'm not seeing Country Suites on either one. Is that correct? Vemellc Clayton: That's right. Farmakes: Alright So number 1, the last line, that's incorrect From the staff report Conrad: Which one Jeff? Farmakes: It'd be the last line on 1, under signs. Page 3. It'd be the third paragraph down. Sign A should be limited to identification of thc hotel Mancino: That's the sign band. Tim Howell: They're des~bed as bands and monument signs. Farmakes: Okay, there's two A's and two B's. Tim Howell: There's a band A and a monument sign A. Farmakes: I see the band in the previous one. I don't see it on that one, alright That's been cleared up. Thank you. Conrad: Anything else Jeff? Farmakes: No. Thc sign on the back of thc southern elevation udw, s thc place of thc pylon I believe. The question becomes, is it a duplication of what's Idready arched on the Country Suites hotel that currently stands. And is it a separate entity and I'm not saying it one way or the other. I'm just asking for a legal opinion on thaL Conrad: Okay. I don't have anything to add. I li~ the design. I like what I'm seeing. And I think Jeff brings up some good points and I think that we have to follow them up but I think what's being requested is appropriate. And whether it's the right thing in terms of setting precedent or not, I don't know. I do know that it seems like a right level of use. I think the band signs are appropriate. I think the pylons are appropriate. I reaflly don't have a problem with it but I still respect what Jeff says. I said I think wc should havc a good grasp 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 of what this is doing. I ~ the walk thru. I liko the design. I liko what's happe~xl sinc~ the last time through. Only question. So when tbe parking will hand~ 9095, handle our n~eds 90% of the tim~. In the 1095. What does that 10% ~? Aanenson: Well according to Brad's study, peak...and there may be some proble~ns with that. Conrad: And so where do they go? Aanenson: Then there may be some flow over to properties that we don't want to pemmnently fie up, which would be maybe Southwest Metro perhaps st night when they'r~ not using it or... Brad 1ohn~n: Ladd, can I add something? Conrad: Sure Brad. Go ahead. Brad $ohnson: What we're talking about is a Friday night in December and there's a parking lot across the street that's publically owned that has about 200 parking spots that's never used on Friday nights during the month of December. And when we did the...across the street that's one of the reasons we put a public parking lot there, which is designed as. That's part of the Professional Building. Okay. And there's going to be an access right off the middlc there. Between the two where the building goes~ And that was the idea. That would handle the overflow of December uses in the evening and that actually close traffic assuming the Dinner Theater caused the problem, hopefully because it's over pack~ that evening. But there is, you know the Theater in the winter months la~ely, they were parking, this is closer over st the, what is it. Pauly's or across from Pauly's, in that are~ They'll park there. That was the idea. That's the whole area that's not used at night, if you think about it. Conrad: Yeah. Well I'm comfortable. Serving the needs 90% of the time. But as I said, but we also have to know where. Brad Johnson: If the Dinner Thcst~r Ol~st~ ~ problem, ff there is a problem. Conrad: Okay. Mancino: I just want the city to be very proa~ve about rcco~izlng those ba~k up positions and where the overflow parking goes. And to know that now, so when it does come, we can deal with it. Conrad: Well I really like what I see. Looks neat Anything else? Is thc~ a motion? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Site Plan Review for the addition of the hotel, restaurant, modifications to the Frontier building as shown on the plaus dated September 23, 1993. Is that stamped7 Is that the rec~ved date7 Conrad: Yeah. Mancino: Does that include the new landscape one that we saw tonight? Ledvina: Is that this plan? Conrad: No. Ledvina: There's no date. Conrad: Exhibit B handed out on 10/6. Ledvina: Okay. And Exhibit B submitted on October 6, 1993. And also subject to the following conditions of the staff report with the modi~cafions as follows. Number 1 thru 5 to read as indicated in the staff report Number 7 to read as follows, The applicant shall leave the parking entrance as it exists today. If safety problems are experienced, the applicant may petition for a modification of the access points. Number 8 to read as indicated in the staff report. Additional number 9. A variance shall be granted for the lot width requirements in CBD zone. Additional number 10. The City shall monitor parking and if parking becomes a problem, the applicant shall provide hard surface parking at the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Compsnies. And nnmber 11. Additional number 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re-evaluated for the north/south walkway bemeen the buildings. If staff has concerns, a rail or other ~ shall be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety reasons. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: I'd like to make a friendly smendment. Conrad: I'd like to have a second first. Maucino: I second. Conrad: Okay. Motion made and seconded. And the friendly an2mdment. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: Would be that we add to, I think it was number 10. That if a parking problem occurs, the applicant will be required to required to provide a landscaped hard suda~ pafldng at the rear of the hotel site. $o I just want to put the word landscaped in. Conrad: I don't know what that Mancino: So there's not just hard surface parking lot. It needs to be landscaped. The parking lot needs to be landscaped as the front one does. Intexior landscaping. Conrad: Okay, Matt? Ledvina: I would accept that. Conrad: Any other discussion7 Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~i_'on recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat for Bloomberg 2nd Addition and Site Plan Review for the addition of the hotel, restaurant and modification to the Frontier Building as shown on the plans dated September 23, 1993 and Exhibit B dated October 6, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: le All mechanical equipment and loading docks shall be screened with similar building ma~s or landscaping. 0 Right-of-way along West 78th Street shall be dedicated at 40 feet from proposed center line. 5 AIl trees located in the plant~ shall include an equal mix of sugar maple, linden, ash e All sins must be in compliance with proposed sign plan as proposed as shown on plans dated September 23, 1993, except monument signs shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Cross parking agreements between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, and Outlot A of Bloomberg Addition and Lot 3, Block 1, Chanhassen Mall and Frontier Development Corporation e Compliance with conditions of Building Code requirements regarding lot lines through buildings~ 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 e The appficnnt shall leave the parking entrance ns it exists today. If safety problems are experienced, the appliennt my petition for a modification of the access points. 8. Sign covenants shall be created and fled with the devel~~ts. 9. A variance shall be granted for the lot width requirements in CBD zone. 10. The City shall monitor parking nnd if parking becomes a problem, the nppHcnnt shall provide a lnndscnped lmrd surface parking nt the rear of the hotel site on property owned by Bloomberg Compnnies. 11. Pedestrian safety shall be re-evaluated for the north/south walkway between the buildings. If staff has concerns, a rah or other means shah be installed to separate vehicles and pedestrians for safety reasons. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: · FRANK REESE TO SUBDIVIDE A 36~23 SQUARE FOOT LOT TO CREATE ONE SINGLE FAMII.Y LOT AND AN OUTLOT TO BE COMBINED WITH A LOT LOCATED IN SHOREWOOD ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMII.Y AND LOCATED AT 6200 CHASKA ROAD, JEAN ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Robert Sommcr 6239 Chaska Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on thi, item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public heating to order. Robert Sommer: My name is Robert Sommer. I live at 6239 Chaska Road. Essentially across the street and my only concern is that I had to, I extended thc water line to the city limits of Shorewood, eastward and to give you a little historical perspective. It was about 5-6 years ago that Mr. Reese req~ that the City extend the water line because he wanted to split off a lot. And at that time we made an agreement with Mr. Re. ese, Mr. Swearingm and myself that we would extend the water linc for this petition and that we would all pay our fair share. Then his original plan did not go through and I extended the water line at my Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 expense to the city limit. I would like some assurance in the public record that he will pay his fair sharc of reimbursing me for the amount of foolage that hc would be using in the water. Conrad: Kau~, how would that happy7 Hen'~l: Mr. Chair, maybe I can address that. Unfortunately I guess Mr. Sommer's here is a part of thc developrnent requirement~ thc City does have requirements that...provide sewer and water for the subdivision and also extend it beyond his subdivision or into the limits for thc next person to connect onto and e~ it. Unless there's an agreement reached during the actual platting procedure, and on record, the city is not obligated in any way to reimburse you for any money for anybody else tapping onW the water that you have already installed as part of your development. Shnilar to...Gaty Carlson up on Church Road where Mr. Carlson did put in a water line to serve both sides of the road...as well as the neighbors across the street. At that time it was brought up and put on public record that thc applicant should be reimb~ by the neighbors across the street and the neighbors then...onto it and paid a portion of those connection hook-up fees that were received by the city. To my knowledge I'm not aware of any agreement has been made in the past for this subdivision. I'm assuming your ref~4.ng to Eight Acre Woods subdivision. Robert $ommer: Yes. Conrad: Okay. It doesn't sound like there's a happy answer for your question. I think that's a practical response from the City Engineer. I think that's probably true. Do you have any agreements? Any written agrccments that you can produce? That mi~t be the only. Robert Sommer: Well it's in the public retards that Mr. Reese did apply for water extension for the city to put waist through. Mr. Swearingen was a co-party to it and I was also a co- party to it originally. At that time we had an agreement. Conrad: Any advice we can. Hempel: I guess he can certainly pursue it at the City Council level Let the City Council decide whether or not there's any reimb~t. Conrad: You may want to do that. Any other comments. Hand it up to you. I like that. That's great. Mancino: Pass the buck. Planning Commission lVfeetin§ - October 6, 1993 Cortrnd: Any other comments7 Is there a motion to close public hearing7 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to close the pubfic hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The pubflc hearing was dosed. Conrad: Jeff, start at your end. Farmakes: I guess I don't have any further comments on ~ Staff's recommeod~on~ seem sensible to me. It seems like a straight forward reque~ So I have no comments. Conrad: Nancy. Mancino: I agree. Conrad: Matt. Ledvina: I do have a couple of questions, and I guess maybe the first one relates to the, may be a question that Paul can answer. Are we concerned at all about the future loss of the out. lot by annexation to the city of Shorewood7 Is that an issue at all for us? I mean we don't like to see our city chiseled away at but I mean is this a concern7 Aanenson: ...annexation. We're not discussing this at this point. What we've always said is that _this is an outlot and it's unbuildable. Recorded that way. If he wants to pursue annexation, that's completely different...City Attorney about that. We're not prejud~ng ourselves in anyway. Right now it's unbuiidable. Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: What he really wants to do is to create a buffer between that lot screening and the exis~n§ home. The one that's in our jurisdiction and the Shorewood jurisdiction, we want a buffer there. He's just got two separate tax parceh, which he's had in the past. Ledvina: Okay. Krauss: ...we went through with an annexation of a chunk of Shorewood which was a cooperative effort between the two cities. Ledvina: So this swapping goes on nil the time. Okay. Alright, well that's fine. I was wondering if there was anything other than that or something deeper that we should be concerned about as it relates to that potential annexation. But our loss to ShorcwoocL Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Whatever. Okay. I had a couple of questions here on item number 2. A tree removal plan shall be required with the building permit. Would that be prior to the issuance of the building permit7 Aanenson: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. And then a buffer strip of 5 to 10 feet from the house, that's from the rear of the house right? I'm sorry, for number 3. I think it's identified as a 5 foot buffer strip. Is that right or is it 10 feet7 Can we be specific on that? Aanenson: It's 10. Ledvina: Okay, 10 feet. Is it appropriate to be specific on that at this point7 Okay. And let's see. In Dave's staff report he talked about thc need for a grading plan, grading and development plan showing the elevations of the lowest floor and garage. Also it talked about a ditch culvert. Is it appropriate to add that to these conditions here or do you have any thoughts on that? Aanenson: They did submit a...plan that showed the sewer and I think they gave that to you, that showed the elevadon...sewer in. Lcdvina: Okay, let me just take a quick look at that I didn't think I saw it in here. I see the house plans but. Aanenson: Where it shows the proposed sewer and water. Ledvina: I don't know what thc lowest elevation would be. I guess I'd like to, it may be redundant but I'd like to stick Dave's recommendation in there. His recommendation from the staff report. So we'H throw that in there whether that's been covered or not, and that may be the case. Aanenson: Which number from Dave's? Ledvina: Number 4. And I guess we don't really see a grading plan for thc house pad and such and I think maybe that's one of the things you were looking for. Aanenson: Usually we do that as a part of the building permit.. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. I think that's about it. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Okay. Thanks Matt. Kate, you expressed some concern with Uv.e removal But actually there's only one spot on this parcel that can, that a house can go. Whether it splits or not. Aanenson: Exactly. Conrad: I have no comments. Is there a motion? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93-19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions. That read in the staff report with the following modifications~ Number 1 shall read, an appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. Number 2 should read, a tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. Nnmher 3 shall read, a buffer strip of l0 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of great~st runoff along the area of grea~t potential of runoff from the lawn area fertili=ers and chemicals. Silt fencing will be required around the perimeter of the lot during construction. Number 4 to read, the house type may be limited to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pmnp for the lower level based on engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics~ Number 5 to read per the staff report. Number 6 to read, the applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement cenmv. A on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm considerations. Number 7 per the staff report. Number 8 to read, in addition. 8 to read, the applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of the lowest floor and garage slab. This plan shall also show the ditch culvert location and size and invert elevations. That's it. Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Conrad: Any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mandno seconded that the Harming Commission recommend approval of Subdivision 893.19 to create a 27,750 square foot lot and an 8,750 square foot outlot for Jean Addition as shown on the plans dated September 8, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: Planning Commisdon Meeting - October 6, 1993 le e o o o o o An appropriately sized driveway culvert may be needed through the ditch area in conjunction with constructing a house on this lot. A tree removal plan shall be required prior to the issuance of the building permit to ensure minimal tree loss. A buffer strip of 10 feet from the rear of the house is required since this area will be of greatest runoff along the area of greatest potential of runoff from the lawn area fertilizers and chemicah. Silt fencing will be required around the perime~ of the lot during eomtruetiom The house type may be limit~ to a split entry type home due to sewer elevation. A full basement or walkout home may require an ejector pump for the lower level based on engineering analysis of sewer hydraulics. The applicant is responsible for the appropri~ connection hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance for connection to City sewer and water. The applicant shall convey a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered on the common lot between Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 for future storm con~derations. Park and trail fees will be required at the rae in force at the _time of building permit application. These fees are currently $600.00 for park and $200.00 for trail The applicant shall submit a grading and development plan showing elevations of the lowest floor and garage slab. This plan shah also show the ditch culvert location and ~e and invert devations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Plaoning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RI~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PREI.IMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SINGLE FAMII.Y LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON ~ WEST SIDE OF GAI. PIN BOULEVARD, 1/2 MILE NORTH OF BIGHWAY $, SONG-CARI~ON PROPERTY. Public Present: Name Address Marian Schmitz Betty & Larry VanDeVeire Terry Forbord John Uban Patrick Minger Jerome Carlson Ron Peterson Ken Adolf 8190 Galpin Blvd. 4980 CR 10E, Chasim Lundgren Bros Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban 8221 Oalpin Blvd. 695O Galpin Blvd. Peterson Env'tl Consulting Schoell & Ma&on, Inc. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Vice Chair Conrad called the public hearing to order. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd in Wayzata, Minnesota and I'm really happy to be here tonight. As Paul indicauxi, acumlly it's been 4 years since we started this process in 1989. Almost 4 years to the date when we started the land assembly. And Paul's also correct, I believe the Chair is the only person here that probably remembers when we ~ that process. And actually it's not unusual anymore where it takes 4 to 5 years to start working on a neighborhood community of this scale before you even get to the point where you're pushing dirt. In this particular situation it will be about 5 years from the time that we start until the time we're actually in the consmlcfion phase. Unfortunately the process...takes that much time but we're very pleased to be here tonight because on this particular proposal it's udcen a very, very long time in working with the landowners ~ also with Mr. Carison who's a landowner to the north..And just to set the record straight, Mr. Carlson is a third party to the contract with the Song's and Lundgren Bros. He helped the Song's and assisted them in making their decisions and negotiating with us to their best interest and also because he lives right next door. He had a genuine concern. And this is kind of a unique situation. Usually Lundgren Bros is working diligently with the City and the seller but in umns of this acquisition were extremely unique because of the site. 28 Plavniug Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 It was very, very important to the Song's and to the Carbon's that they have as much input into this planning process for this neighborhood community as we would have omseives as the developer and we wanted to make sure that we addressed all their concerns, and we beiieve that we have done so. And we seek your help this evening in order to make sure that we follow through with those promises and commitments that we've atterr~,ted to make. I'd like to introduce to you this evening the staff, the development team. To my invnediate left, to your immediate left, would be Mr. ~'ohn Uban. He's a principle with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He has been the planner on this neighborhood commnnity. To his immediate left and to your right is Mr. Ron Peterson. He's a wetland specialist. To Ron's left and your right is Mr. Ken Adolf. He's a principle with Schoell & Madson and he's a civil engineer. Mr. Uban is going to present this proposal to you this evening. Myself and the remaining development team will be here to provide input and also to assist and answer any questions. To expedite this proce~, because there's a lot of detail in what we're going to be presenting to you tonight. I have an outline for you which you can follow through on Mr. Uban's presentation. I hate almost to have to give this to you because I don't want you to get too hung up in looking at the paper. I hope you give Mr. Uban the oppartunity to present the proposal to you but because there are some detail items, I thought you may appreciate hearing... John Uban: I'm John Uban. It's a pleasure to be here in front of you again. We've worked with Lundgren Bros on many different developments and this is one that we reaLly like because of how it grew from the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer project, which is directly to the west and how it just has naturally worked across this fairly in~g tm'rain with all the wetlands and woods and so forth. What I'd like to do is first go through a couple of slides so you get a quick overview and what I'Ll do is give an overview of the project and then we'll talk about some of the specifics. So I'll come back and revisit these things as we need to discuss a couple items. I will point out and talk loudly hopefully so everyone can hear me. But the property that we're looking at, is the Song pr~ which comes up to the tip top of Han'ison Lake. This is Galpin. We're looking north. This is of course Lake MinneWnk~ Here's Highway 41 and the Song homestead, wday, is this house fight here. This is the Stockdale home and the land they own directly to the south. This area is being looked at by the Park Commission for a future park. We have a power line that runs through here and you can see all the heavy woods all along this area and another wetland here. Wetland here. Rolling fields without trees on it. And here we're looking back this way. The Song homestead. This is the Carlson home and the shared pond, or lake, and wetland complex with the woods surro~ this area. So this is really a major feaVare wiflfin the whole area and what we've done throughout our development is paid special attention to preserving that. Not just the environment but the views of it. The ambience of it and how it will be enjoyed by everyone in the are~ Here we're looking sou& Here's Highway 5. The Carlson's, the lake and then all this land over here is the Johnson-Dolejsi parcel And a collector mad comes through 29 Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 here. It comes around and enters onto Galpin over here. So we weave it through all the wetlands, the varied terrain and the wooded areas to make that work. This shows that wetland area. And you'll notice this wooded stand and this is where we paid a special attention to design details trying to get a road son of almost surgically installed inW this wooded area with narrowed standards. In other words, smaller right-of-ways. Smaller street ...very carefully looked at with gr_s_ding and much of this area, it will be covered with a conversation easement for the preservation of the trees. Mancino: Can you show me the line, the ~ property line of _this development on that slide? John Uban: Yes. This is a, right here you can see a line which is a power line and that forms the boundary between $ohnson-Dolejsi and other properties and the Song pwperty. The Song property is about here south. All the way over to Galpin and then fight here is it's southern edge and this then would be it's western edge go like that. Mancino: Thank you. John Uban: I have also for you to look at, and it helps because you start relating then directly to the maps that will show you is an aerial photograph at 1 inch equals 100 feet And it's in black and white but outlined in red is the perimetrr of the property. About 117 acres. Here's Galpim Stockdale parcel is right down here. lohnson/Dolejg/Tumer project is over here. Carlson to the north, this way. And here are the large woods. All along the western edge. Wetlands and wetlands here and then an open field character along Galpin. This gives you a sense then of thc kind of constraints that we had and thc constraints basically are steep topography, si~ificant woods, and wetlands and then adjusting to the adjacent roads and tying the two developments together. So we havc to, weaving around these wetlands and there really was one good path through it which works out very well and then there's another connection which right now is called B street that takes ns up this hill to connect to what was a cul-de-sac on this plan. To connect it through which will be a very nice development also that has special sumdards. To really overview the combined development, I first want to show you John~on/Dolejsi and the Song development put together as one piece. And once again this is Highway 41 and here is Galpin. This is a wetland to the south of the project and you'll see in this green color is the buffer area and a proposed trail easement that we've been talking to the Park Commission about. Something in addition to what we're doing ~ bnilding two association recreation areas and paying full park fees and trail fees. And then the Park Commisgion has started talking to ns about what we can do to trade fee credits for actual con--on of a trail for instance or assisting in the grading of Stockdalc Park, which is shown here directly south of the Song parcel. And this shows a possible further subdivision of that piece so we get some idea of how this mad 3O Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 system will access the south. Also I want to show you in this whole process, this is really that same drawing. Here you can see the wetland complex on thia small map with Highway 5 and Hazeltine Boulevard and TH 41 and Galpin_ But there's a potential, as the rest of the land develops to have a very nice nature trail sll the way around that wetland. Whether it's paved or a soft trail I think is an issue depen_rling on how much money the City would like to credit against the fee that would be collected on both developments. This is that same development and I've outlined here also the wetland areas and the city has found that we need to map one additional that sits approximately in this area. It's a small wetland. And it shows the common areas. Protection areas. Buffer areas around here. Around the wetlands and just in this combined development, there's about 207 acres and of ltmt 95 of the acres are either conservation easement, buffers, specific buffer easement~, wetlands, and mnenity and recreation areas. All to be enjoyed by the neighborhood. So that's about 46% of the development and that really I think speaks to what we're proposing and how much of it is committed to the common enjoyment and preservation. Some of the details we want to talk about and we've been talking to City staff about it too is how to wozk with tree preservation. How W, I'm actually going to turn this like this if it will help since we're looking at everything, north's up. And how we preserve these features on the site. What this exhibit shows are the different areas that are treated riifferenfly and have different constraints. The tan area are the wetlands on the Song property. Once again this is Galpin and this is that power line wesUm~ edge. Around this then is the preservation or buffer strip. It varies all along the edges of the wetlands. We're also, this is the mandatory setback or buff~ setback and then in the green is tree conservation area. The green area is an easement. This is where absolutely no construction takes place. Nothing can happen. There's no mowing of the grass. It is kept natural and it's an easement that is restricted on the deeds and it's recorded with the platting of each lot which is different than sort of a preservation area or an area that the city looks at when you get a permit and see that, how well each home is adjusting to each individ~m! site. So what we have here are sort of three levels of how we develop and how the city reviews and controls tree preservation on the sit~. One is this definite conservation easement that controls these areas. The second is as we prepare our first gra_rling plan for utilitie~ and road construction, that perimeter is protected and we only l~-rnove ~ trees. And so that gives us an area betw~ the conservation area and the actual road where each home is built and that way when the lots are looked at and sold, they see the maxi nm amount of trees possible and are able to adjust their home~te, their home plan to that site itself. And then that is done when you lake out a b~ilding permit and each b~ilrling permit then is reviewed. The foresl~r comes out and looks and that's the way it's done today with the city and that's how we adjust to each one. And in _ta__~bing with staff, they would like to see some additional areas covered by the permanent easement and we want to sit down with them and make sure that we have full flexibility to do custom hon_sing design and yet maximize the protection that the city would like to see. There's this comfort and flexibility 31 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 thing that we just need to work out and it works welL That is the level of conservation that we are proposing. Mancino: Excuse me, John_ Am I reading that right? What I'm seeing on the northem, let's see on the right sidc where that green conservation easement is. There aren't any trees there. There aren't any existing trees there at this time, conect? John Uban: Yes. I'll show you the plan so you can see what is being planted so that becomes. Mancino: So it's an easement for what is to be planted? It is not old growth ~ that are already there? John Uban: Not in this area. But it will control this area the same as it controls other areas so it's the bind of prot~tion that we felt was i .mlxn'tant because we're re-estab~g some natural areas. Some of our wetland mitigation is happening in this area. We're actually going to be tran.~pLanting some of the native matm'ial from one slope back to another. There's a lot of sumac out there for instance and we'll be transplanting some of that around to recreate that natural feeling that is the~ today. And how that works, and let me turn this over again. This is the development plan and it shows a proposed typical Lundgren home on the individual lots. Here is that main street A, the road that goes through the project. And here we're putting in lots of plantings around this park area and that's what will be covered also by this conservation area. There actually are some trees up in here that we'll mak~ sure that those that exist up there can be covered also by the conservation ~t. So I think these are some of the things that we'll be talking to staff about in detail. What the plan, this plan shows then is the basic development patt~'~L The road looping through. This is the southern road. Road E and coming up through this wooded area for instance where the road needs to steepen. It's about 8% and this is done to minimize the grs_rling agsin_ To lower that road down to 7% for instance, you'd either have to cut off the top of the hill or fill more at the bottom as we're crossing the stream through this area. And so we can do it more sensitively and save more tre~ by having an 8% grade. The 8% grade also is up on H and I in this area. But this is the narrow cul-de-sac road system to work in amongst these large trees. In fact one of them down in here is om' largest tree which is about a 60 inch oak flee which is fairly large and fairly mature. And those trees are all covered in a conservation easemenL We can see that we will integrate each homesite then into the existing ut~.s that are there. Each one will be custom done to make sure it fits well. The pon_ding, the additional ponding that's shown on the site, NURP ponds and so forth. This recreation area, I have a detall~ plan so I can show you how that wc~ks. Some of the issues we'll be talking about is how we grade and what we can do along Galpin to integrs, te into the future road condition and how trails might work in that area so we'll go through those issues one by one. We have 32 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 two entrances with entrance islands. These are very imp~t to create the am~ of, excuse me. I'm losing my voice. To help the ambience of the entrance. We like to do these on every one of the entrance roads into the neighborhood. We're proposing them in both cases because they're both im?ormnt entrances, not only to the Song property but as they can'y over into the Johnson/Dolejsi and that one also has the same entrance off of Highway 41. We'll have berming all the way along here where we can and we are protecting the existing wetlands that are along Galpim Another issue that is being talked about with city staff is the city would like to designate road A as a state aid road. And that has different design standards than what we have designed at this point so we have some specific issues that we need to review with you so you can see the rawi/ications and hopefully accept our recommendation on how to address that and make it work for both the City and the developer. And I'll be going over each one of these issues on the outline so you can see how that works. The private park is developed along the road which is a spine road and you'll see that most of Lake Harrison then, there's just a few lots and then the wooded lots and they really won't be viewed to a great extent from the natural area and then we've put our park in here and put in a berm so we really keep pwtecfing the views in that lake area. And this shows the same area. Here's the lake. We have tennis coum, a totlot, a connecting trail, basketball, picnic area and then we put in an infoImal play area which Park Con~miasion requested. They wanted one that was large enough to put in a full sized baseball field which we felt was inappropriate. To have that scale of active play and in.stead we proposed one that's a bit smaller, 180 x 180. This is very good for frisbee, you know family games of ball and so forth but not big enough so that team play would be atlmcted to the site. Thia definitely is a family neighborhood recreation facility and not meant for large scale activities. But it's done in a very nice way with natural landscaping brought back into the park system itself. What I'd like to do next is show you the specific recommendations of staff. Just go through those so that we can talk about some additional wording that we think is appropriate to bring our concerns together. So we can focus on getting ahead of the final approval for this time. And I'll show those on the overhead. Conrad: Is that a copy of the reconunendations? Terry Forbord: With slight modifications. We would like to go through these. Iohn Uban: The recommendations we've given you in blue are really very similar to staff and we are very close to staff on these details, We just want to make sure we have a clear underslanding and direction what we hope is working together to resolve these issues. What we've shown, only in those areas that are bold typed. We have just some wording to change the reco~tion which we feel fits the development a little bit better. Number 1 and number 2, there's really absolutely no problem with. Nnm_her 3, what we want to make sure is, when we count tre~, on 2 trees per lot and there are no ~ on the lot, there really are 33 Pl/mning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 lots of unruapped trees. The aerial photo's not up but around the ~ and so forth there are a number of ur, es we just have not mapped and shown so we want to ~ake sure we have credit for that and have our absolute commitment that we are noL..lots up there. We will be planting a minimum of 2 trees per lot. And each home, homeowners typically do ext~sive landscaping after the home is built. Krauss: I should state there are 30 some odd conditions and we got this late this afternoon and Dave and I had an opportunity to briefly go through it. You may want to get a point, counter point kind of a thing on each one as you go through so you don't lose track. The first one's kind of detailed. I guess I'd agree with John. That's consi,tent with the language that's built inw the subdivision that we require 2 trees per lot, at least 1 of which must be in the front yard. Well if there's already an existing tree, we only require 1. The next effect is really negligible because John and Terry will be planting more trees than we require anyway to satisfy the buffer...along Cralpin and the park landscaping around the site so. Farmakes: Does it make any difference which species of tree it is? Whether it's credited or not. Krauss: The trees, well actually that's not been the case thougix I mean as long as you have a tree of significant size. Farmakes: Well we're talking about between 2 1/2 and 6 inches. Krauss: Right. Farmakes: Yeah. Exactly right. Credit them for thaL It makes no difference which species it is then. Krauss: It hasn't in thc past Jeff. It's just having a trcc in thc appropriate area. John Uban: This is really only a point of we think clarification and under.haling and not a burd~o~ issue either way. Farmakes: But this maybe brought to attention maybe something that's lacking in there. Terry Foflx~: Most of the trees that are on the sim am maples and...those are all acceptable trees for the city. Farmakes: Yeah, I was talking about in relationship to what our requirements are. I don't recall encountering that. Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 John Uban: Well to continue on. Number 5. Number 4 is just misnumbered but number 5, we have no problem with the archi~ critm~ and so forth. Outlot B will be assembled with the Johnson/Dolejsi parcel The issue of, on number ? is really a timing issue that the association park will be built concurrent with street A. So those parks are always built within that neighborhood phase as developed and so that's when that pazk will be built and we just want to make sure that's understood and it's not anticipated at some other time. Terry Forbord: Maybe I could just embellish upon that briefly. Because of the, for those of you who drive Galpin Blvd ever, there's a public i .mlmrove~t project, 92-5 currently underway exteDding sewer arid water to this area and that sewer and water easement is within this right-of-way and if you drive down here you can actually where they're consUucting those public facih'ties at this time. And therefore, it only stands to reason, being that we'll have lateral benefit from those pipes that are going to be in there. We can tap fight into that trunk line that's being built right now with each one of these homesite~ that's along here. So it just stands to reason this would be the first phase of development in this neighborhood community. It wouldn't make a lot of sense since the sewer and water's here, to stm't up here. So we would be starting here and so then is the progression before it can swing nm'th up to and ultima~ly s~reet A...will be built and at that point in time, which probably will be within the second and third phase of development, this one we're proposing to build the association park. Conrad: Paul. Krauss: That's fine with us. We're going to have financial guaran~ that say it's going to be built anyway. Conrad: Okay. John. John Uban: The next point, number 8 where they're talking about the wethnd mitigation and so forth and you will have a I to I ratio. In this the city has asked that we remove wetlands out of the highway fight-of-way on Galp~ Generally this, Galpin, the enlargement of that sm~et would either be a county or combined city/county project in which there would be lots of other impacts along that corridor and nommlly a city or county wo,ld mitigate that as a total entity and would be banking_to resolve those issues at an opportune time. What we don't want to happen is for that kind of mitigation or requirement that is sort of beyond what we would normally be doing within our development, to imp~ and throws inw a category or calls concern for those people reviewing our wetland mitigation, that we've added into it this additional amount. So we want to stay coordinated on that issue and we also feel, and this is another issue that will come up on another one of the topics. That there's a way to minimize some of those impacts, especially along the entire corridor for Galpin ff we do a good 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 consolidation of highway and trail inW the right-of-way rather than trying to push the trails out beyond the right-of-way of C-alpin. We are dedicating an additional 17 feet to Oalpin to make a total of 100 feet of right-of-way for that road, so that's quite a bit of right-of-way which will accommodate a 4 lane road, plus trail and most accommodating on most kinds of designs and we'll show you an exhibit when this comes up agsin in the recommendmlous that clarifies how that can work. Terry Forbord: The key point in number 8 would be our wetlands specialist advises us that the city should apply separately for their wetland mitigation for Galpin Blvd consuuction rather than combine it with our wetland application. That's the change that we show here. Krauss: We understand what the situation is. I mean there were soveml things that were raised. Dave and I are assuming that the trail will be going within the right-of-way. It's probably something that needs to be worked out, we'll sit down with the engineer but that's what we've been doing on other roads, What we have here though are two small wetlands that would be impacted by a public improvement that needs to occur pretty quickly. What we also have here is the ability to mitigate that on the Song's PUD with no fuss, no muss. The issue here is that, it's almost a technical one. There is a threshold beyond which permitting gets to be considerably more complicated in this new, what we're de~ling with wetland protection. And they are concerned that this will put them over the threshold. I had a chance to speak with Diane Desotelle about that wnight. It's really not a big deal for us w process a city sponsored wetland alteration permit for the ci~ hrrprovement understanding though of course that the mitigation be carded out on the Song property. So we're willing to do that We didn't know however that condition was listed 3 times in the Lundgren report so... Ledvina: Mr. ehainnan? Then Lundgren actually does the mitigation? Krauss: ...yeah. In their grading, that's the way I see it That we would make sure that there was sufficient, basically it's shifting two fairly small wetlands a little bit so that they're out of the way of the public project. Terry Forbord: It's not our intent to not coordinate or cooperate. It's our intent to make sure we don't jeopardize the approval of our permits for the development over this and Paul underslands this stuff far better than I do. I know because he is intimately involved with it and I think he's addressed it in his comments that he just made. John Uban: The next issue then is on tree preservation. The first one just that we'll provide all the landscape details when we do the final plat. I think that's just clarifying when we'll do that. Item number b under 9. Here we will buffer the wad from the homes. So in other words, we will try to minimize the impact the road has on the adjacent h~ along Galpin 36 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 and what we need to do here is make sure that we can do it successfully and it has once again an impact on whether or not a trail would be placed on an easement adjacent to Galpin Blvd. Paul has indicated that it sounds like the City staff would keep the trail within the fight-of-way which would help immensely in our developing a good berm system because it would take 20 feet away and we would lose the abih'ty to do a good berm. Plus the land undulates and some of it is high and we just can't berm s~y. So that's basically to clarify what we'll be doing there. And we'll be working with Paul and clarifying what frees will be planted on which lots and screening and so forth. So it's just a matter of coordination. We're recognizing that, and this alteration to the reco~tion. Conrad: Paul, any counter point? Any comments? Krauss: As to the modification on a, that's fine. On b, I'm uncomfortable with the language. We're talking about homes from Galpim That's mandatory. Whether it's done through a berm or landscaping, there's two ways about it. And when I see a sentence written, this feature shall and then there's two weasel words, reasonably attempt. There's no reasonably ~ about it There's got to be a buffer established. I think we're splitting hairs here and I know what their intmu is. I know what our inumt is. It's probably the same thing but it should be clear that there is a desire to see legitimate buffering of those homes from Cralpin and I didn't see the need to modify that language. As far as the last senumce, the applicant will work out with staff the amenity and screening tree planting versus the required bare lot tree planting. I don't see any versus about it. I mean they're all separa~ things. We're concerned with buffering. We're concerned with the bare lot tree planting. Lundgren Bros has, I think creatively said, well we'd rather not plop two, if we have an obligation to put 2 trees on a lot where there's no trees existing, we'd rather not just plop one on every lot, we'd rather cluster them. That's a fine idea. That's great. I don't have a problem with that. They've also got a third req~t which is, I don't know if self ~ is the tight word but they want to create a buffer screen upon the private park from Lake Harrison. That's fine. We would encourage the reforestation of that site but that's nothing inherently that the city is necessarily asking for. ~y not to compromise the number of trees that go on individual lots or around the buffer. So again; I thought it was worded fine the way it was originally written. I don't think we're far apart on that however. Terry Forbord: Let me just clarify. The reason that we modified this, and I haven't had the opportunity to talk to Paul and I think he's correct in saying that our objectives are the same. I can honestly say that there's no way that you will be able to make it so when you're driving down Galpin Blvd that you won't be able to see a house. Because the elevation, I ~ there's big hills in here and you will, if you were to build a berm, you would have to build a berm so high and it would look so, certainly it would look unnatural. And so what we were af:mid of saying is that making sure that we don't see any homes. I thinlr that's unobllfinable 37 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 from a practical standpoint. The idea is to, the problem here, the way we look at it wasn't that the houses were the problem. The road was the problem and we were trying to buffer the people who live there from the noise of the road and the view of the road and the cars going by and so we were trying to create that type of buffer, while at the same time when you're driving down the road, the houses aren't just leaping off the site at you. But I think you might be able to see a rooftop and things like that and I just didn't want to say that we'll be able to do that when I inherently didn't think it would achieve it. That's the only reason we modified that. Krauss: Well I ~ again, I don't think we're far apart...never been to avoid loo_idng at homes...make sure that the homes have a legitims_te, rear yard area and to view from the highway it helps the roadway somewhat soften but the primary issue is protecting the residential neighborhood. We've got so many situations elsewhere in town that that was done inadequately and again, I don't thinl~ we're talking about different things here. Conrad: Yeah, I think we're pretty close. Let's move on. John Uban: Okay, yes. c and d, there's absolutvJy no problem with. e is the issue of how much we can expand the actual tree conservation area which is an easement that's recorded on the property versus the adjustments we made during construction with flexibility to wslre sure that works out. In talking with Paul, I think we're close. I think it's just a nastier of some adjustments to the plans that we have submitted and really clarifying with staff how much flexibility we need to have and how much of a guarantee or an easement is appwpriate for this development. I think we're close and we just merely have to sit down and work it out before we appear before the City Council Krauss: That's probably a fair ~t. John Uban: The next item that we talked about parks. I had under 10(a), I had shown you that we had put in a 180 x 180 size playfieid which is designed for the level of play that we're looking for and not the 250, the 250 foot play area that is suitable for large scale team activities that the Park Commission was looking for. Since they're putting a park to the south, it really isn't necessary in our neighborhood association. Krauss: If I can interject. I understand some of thdr concerns with some of the Park issues. Some I agree with. Some I don't but the fact is, traditionally the Planning Commission does not place themselves inbetween the Park Board and a developer. Thea~ are concerns that I think the Park Board has seen it. These were their issues. This was their recommendation. I think the developer can make that pitch relative to these conditions to the City Council It just traditionally hasn't been something that you've tinkered with. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: How do you feel about the issue of fight of first refusal for the pwpa~? Does that mean that it could be sold for a price determined at market at a later date? Krauss: I think the condition that was written by the Park Board was somewhat different in approach. It said that if the homeowners association fails to operate the park or maintain the park, whatever. Wants to walk away from the park, that it becomes a city owned facility. That's different than getting first dibs on buying it. But again, I wasn't at the Park Board. That was their recommendation. I'd ask you not to tinker with that. Farwoke~s: I'm perfectly agreeable with that but I do have a question in regards to that. How does the taxation work for that type of operation? Krauss: It's taxed property. I suppose it's taxed at a lower ram. Farmakes: So the homeowners association then pays that tax7 Krauss: You bet. And I guess we're somewhat comfortable with it in this case Jeff. There are a lot of commonly held facih'fies and chunks of land in this one that don't, and the park, that the homeowners association has a valid purpose and would tend to exist for... Mancino: Paul, I just have one other question with that too. I don't want to tinker with the Park Board's recordation but what was the rationale behind having them put in a 250 square foot field7 Krauss: I honestly don't know. I wean I can guess. Mancino: A rink? An ice rink7 Krauss: Well there was an presumption here that okay, the Park Board agreed that they would build a neighborhood park on the next property to thc south pending their abih'ty to obtain title to buy the property. But I think they also wanted to make sure, this is significantly sized development. That it was providing a legitimate variety of internal recreatio~ amenities. That's my guess. Terry Forbord: Paul, this just makes for expediency. Is it thc position then that the Planning Commission will not be dealing with any of the park issues as it relates to the items that we have concerns about? Krauss: That's wadifionally been thc ~ unless there are some land use aspects or site design aspects of the park issue. The Planning Commission and Park Board are equally 39 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 created by thc City Council with their respective spheres of influence and we haven't tried to modify them. Conrad: Terry, I don't mind hearing the issues. I don't know that we're going to react to them here. If I think they affect the planning. I don't know that we're going to react to 250 versus 180 uniess it affects the overall plan of the site. So it's good for us to hear them but again I don't know that we're going to react to them in one way or another at _this time unless it does, there's some contingencies to something that we really have some influence on. Terry Forbord: Okay. Well then let me just take over for a minute here because I think it's important for me to state that of all the issues, there's a number of key issues that are here tonight. We're going through some minor adjustments here and fine tuning with you but there are a couple key issues that will decide whether this property is acquir~ by us and whether it is developed and the park and trail issues are certainly probably at the top of the list. The association park that we have presented in the ]'ohnaon/Dolej~er neighborhood connected to the immediate west of this subject property and the same association park on the Song property, are new elements of design that we are now incorporating into all of our neighborhood communities of any significance. And by si..~,nificance I mean something that is of enough size that it wammts this type of amenity. I'd like to tell you that we are the ones that invented this, but we are not. We've traveled the country and we have found that in neighborhoods with these types of amenities, the peoptc find them to be incredibly desirous for, not only for their use but for what they do to protect and enhance the property values and the investments that people are making in probably the largest investment they make. So over the last 4 years, on every si~,nificant neighborhood community that we've developed, we have included as association park like ~ And they have been incredible. Well, excuse me. Well accepted by the buyers. Now this is kind of a new thing for the midwest. You can go all over the United States and find these everywhere but in the midwest it's somewhat different. And we've had to really, really spend a lot of time before planning boards and city councils and park commissions trying to hopefully educate them to the benefits, not only to the people who own the association but to the general benefits of the city because we're providing the land. We're building the improvements. We're maintaining it and that takes a burden off some of the facilities in the rest of the community. So for us we find that it is very, very important. Now, for the parks commission, their charge is to also make sure that the general public is being taken care of with facilities to provide recreational facilities for the general public which is their charge and it's a good charge and those things do need to be addressed. So obviously they look at this very closely and they scru~ it. And in their attempts to review this, and pass it onto you, they have exacted from us items economically to the point that where it's going to kill our ability to proceed with this project if in fact it ultimately is approved that way. We're spending a lot of money, if you can imagine, just putting in the facilities that we are. Now they have asked us to come back to them with Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 some new ideas and we came back to them with the proposed trail corridor that ~ohn briefly described to you earlier. And that trail conddor, there was something I was trying to figure out what additional incentive can I make to the city so they will accept the association park concept. What additionally could I provide that would be public oriented and it just hit me that this wetland complex here and I brought it back to staff. We would provide an easement, the land that would enable the be~nnings of a public trail system around this natural area, would that be something of interest to the parks commission. Well of course it was and it was a good idea and they embraced it. The problem with it is, is that not only do they want me to give them land. They want me to build it for them and they want me to grade the park down at Stockdale's and all these other things. We can't afford to do that and do all the other thiugs we're tqring to do here. So this issue has becon~ a very large issue and the only way that I can make it work is if psrir fees and trail fees are waived to the equivalent amount of the cost of the construction of these facilities that are of public benefit. And so I'm just sharing this with you tonight because it more than likely is a deal breaker for our ability to make this, purely from an economic standpoint. I would like to be able to say to the city, I'd be happy to do all these things but I'm not Santa Claus and I can only do what makes sense from an economic standpoint. And at the same time still be able to provide a very high quality community. And so you may not want to be dealing with these items tonight because we've made some changes in the reconnnendations in how those park and trail dedication fees are to be allocaled so I'll be happy, we can go through these. Each one of them if you'd like us to but if you're of the position of historically of the patios commission not to deal with those things, then we can move on to other items. It would be up to the Planning Commission. Conrad: Well, do we want to hear them briefly or do we want to just skip them? Mancino: I'd like to hear them briefly. Conrad: Okay, let's touch them but. Terry Forbord: A couple that are key, such as Gaipin Blvd so why don't you go ahead. Conrad: Yeah, let's keep on going. John Uban: I think on iron number Co) here, Terry talked about that already quite a bit. That we need to have the fees equal the construction that's being requested in addition to what we are dedicating and b~,ilding as an association facih'ty. The trails, under trails. The trail, we're suggesting it be incorporated is a 100 foot boulevard from Oalpin and here's a section that generally shows that and what this indica~ is that within 100 feet we can get the 52 foot wide road, 10 foot boulevard on either side. There can be a trail on _this side also. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Put a 10 foot trail in and we have additional land here.yet on the edge of the right-of-way. This is a very comfortable cross section that handles lots of traffic. Trails are good to have, I believe, in the corridor or the right-of-way. It's safer. There will be light poles here. They'll be illuminated. They'll be more watched because safety is a concern. If they kind of wander off and away from the road, there are some safety issues that are a conccnL Additionally, when we build our berm to keep our 30 to 40 foot back yard here, we'd like to build it and then just taper it right into the edge of the right-of-way and usually we do that in other communities and I know that the city is looking at similar beaming effects on roads along Highway 5. The frontage road and so forth. But this helps us to maximize our berming if we can taper it into the edge right there on just a couple feet. But this is a very good trail system many cities are using. This same design between 80 and 100 feet of right- of-way, depending on the road size. Terry Forbord: Now this exhibit represents what's proposed by Lundgren Bros and we're showing you to demonstrate that clearly the proposed right-of-way would be able to, is capable of including the road improvements and the proposed trail John maybe you have an exhibit that may show what is being proposed by staff. John Uban: This is park staff. Ten'y Forbord: Parks commission, that's correct John Uban: This shows the 100 foot Galpin Boulevard right-of-way. And here we'll have over 24 feet between the road and the edge of the right-of-way and then they're asking for a 20 foot trail easement added to that which combined wonld certs_inly be 140 feet of right-of- way or easement combination which then we have the trail set farther back. Was closed to traffic and then when we try to put our berm in and keep our back yard, we have much less room in which to do that because the trail doesn't want plantings involved to separate it from the road and so forth and keep it graded to match. Ledvina: Would that roadway be constructed with a curb and gutter? $ohn Uban: Yes. Ledvina: So there wouldn't be any need for ditches, okay. John Uban: This seemed to be son of wasting land here that it's more main~ in the long nm. It's less consolidated. I believe it becomes less safe and when you look at the rest of Galpin Blvd, especially to the north, and you realize you want to grade out this far, there are some si~ificant wetlands to the north that are hnpactcd that make the two that are on this Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 property fairly minute by comparison. So I believe the consolidation of road and trail, is a good practice. Other cities are doing it. To minimize wetland filling and other activity like that. Terry Forbord: Now we reco~i~e that in the past the city has used these principles but what we're suggesting is that just because it's been done before in the past, doesn't mean maybe it was the best idea. Because this particular type of cross section on this proposal of 140 feet combination of right-of-way and easement is a huge swath of land that goes along any route and it will involve the filling of more wetland. Eventually the cutting down of more Irees in those areas where it's going through that are wooded, and we feel that you can readily accommodate all the same functions within the proposed right-of-way without any additional Hempel: Mr. Chairman, let me just interject something here. The typical section proposed there is fairly accurate. There is suffident room to build a trail section within the 100 foot right-of-way. The problem comes when you come to an intersection where there's additional turn lanes. Turn lane medians that expands that paved section out even wider. That does restrict where the trail goes. In some cases the trail may be right up to the back of thc curb. We understand the intersections like that, maybe it's not that bad...and so forth. Similar subdivisions that we've recently done along Galpin Blvd, we have incorporated the Irall section into the 100 foot right-of-way. Carver County Public Works DeparUnent had sent us a memo regarding this. Their recommendation though is if we want a ~xail section, for it to be outside the 100 foot right-of-way. We are currently working with Carver County Public Works Depa_rm~nt to change their minds on that since most likely it will be a joint cooperative project to upgrade this county road in the future. So our concerns I guess would be the trail..Jntersection would seem possible, an additional turn lanes and medians at the intersection. Mancino: What jurisdiction does the Carver County public works have on it? Hempel: It's cutrentiy under their jurisdiction...out in their right-of-way. Eventually it may be turned back over to the city as a city su'eec Terry Forbord: Dave, would it make sense. Just make sure I understand your concern at the intersection. If there's a mm lane right here is what you're saying. Is that that trail should be able to meander in. I don't think that would be a problem for us to accommodate that around turn lanes and things. I think that makes sense. The only thing we're saying is to make that, to add that huge swath through the entire length, one it's overkill Two, it is going to impact wetlands and it's certainly going to impact the quiet enjoyment of these people. That berm now will be right off their dex2. That berm will come right up to the Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 deck of these homes under the proposal and nobody will have any back yard space along here. I think there's a way to get around that. Conrad: Interesting issue. I think City Council will deal with that one. We'll all have our own opinions but it is interesting because that is s major, well I'm going to abbreviate my conunent. The trail there is very important and I can see why Park and Rec wanted it and I can also see why you don't and it's better. I can see both sides of the issue and I think we don't need to get involved. We'll let Terry Forbord: Just to clear that, we do want the trail. Conrad: Right. Right. John Uban: Then we continue I guess basically on with that trail issue. That once again we're asking that the fee and park fees for trails make up the difference for any, thc construction that the Park Corranission may request. On the trail that goes along the south edge of the iohnson/Dolejsi property, this major walk along the wetland that we've just talked about. The city is asking for a connection up into that subdivision, which we think is a good idea but we're having a hard time finding an appro~ place and we wanted to msire sure that that could happen without wasting a lot that we've already gotten approved so we're suggesting in our narrative and to work with the city and we think that there is an easement, utility easement that can be used that would also be used for the city to gain access to the sedimentation ponds that are also being built in that are~ So I think if we can work creatively with the city to combine utility easements and access for sedimentation pond and a possible trail connection that might not be suitable for bicycles but, you know it would be probably steep but can be walked. That that would work out very well and we'll continue in that direction. The other, on Stockdale to the south. The Park Comrrtission had wanlnd to make that acquisition a contingency on the approval of the Song parcel which is, it's out of our control and it didn't make sense to us because we're doing so much anyway that just making it contingent didn't, wasn't something that we felt was appropriate and was not an issue that we could control, is the problem, And we will work with the city. We'll work with Stockdales to make sure that something reasonable can talin place but we are dedicating an additional trail on the nature wslir. We are building our own parks plus, if no construction is involved, still paying all the park and trail fees for both develo~ts and only asking for credit should they ask...That sort of summarizes I think the issues with park and trail. If there are any other comments. I'll move onto number 11. grally it's just a clarification. We have really no issue with number 11. Number 12. We want the street section that we have proposed in the subdivision and the fight-of-way dimensions that we've proposed, to continue and these are on two very specific areas. Number one, we have all the roads, the thru streets are all 60 feet in width, the right-of-way and standard 31 feet or even, I think larger on A Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 street. On the cul-de-sacs we're proposing just on these roads to have 50 feet of right-of-way with the smudard street in there and that allows us just to be a little bit tighgr here and especially on this cul-de-sac which is cul-de-sac B, we're able to pull as far away as possible from Galpin and give as much room as possible to this park. And so it's imp~t for us to have this 50 foot right-of-way. And the other place that we're having a fight-of-way reduction is on H and I which is the street that goes up into the woods. And here it's going to be 8% in grade, a little smeper to minimize grs~cling. It's narrowed up specifically to save trees. It is narrowed up with a 40 foot right-of-way and with a 24 foot wide road. To expand that back to a city standard or even a 50 foot right-of-way with a standard road will spread the actual consmwfion for the road itself. It will expand the area where utilities will have to be placed. It will expand back into the wooded areas the allowable paths for home development. All of this will have an impact. In fact we looked at just the road co--on and if we expanded the road itself and we found about 9 trees might be t_~lren in addition to what is there, which is about, it was over 200 caliper inches of oak that would be removed if we expanded the right-of-way and the road surface itself. And these a~e really critical and we think the city really has to make some judgments here. We've been working to minimize tree loss to do a good job and we really have to look at creative solution~ and this may not always mean the standard road and the standard right-of-way and standard consmwtion techniques. And we're committed to using the best possible. In fact we'll push the envelope of tree preservation in trying to coordinate all these utilities to follow a single corridor. You have NSP. You have Minnegasco. You have the telephone company. You have the cable company. They all like to go everywhere and then you have the driveway and we are going to try to do whatever possible to coordinate all of thi,~ and create single enUances into sites, Mancino: So you're asking for kind of a double bang. You're asking one to get smaller wad fight-of-way to bring the houses in closer to the street and you're also asking for 20 foot setbacks on particular sites due to tree preservatiom John Uban: Right. Some lots we may want to be set back farther if the front yard trees can be saved. A greater amount in the front yard versus the back yard. It's really hard to predict at this time but them are a number of sites where there are more trees in the from than in the back and it's vice versa so each one will be approached differently and customized but we're looking for the maximum flexibility to maximize tree pmsa~ation. Terry Forbord: Let me just embellish for a minute. It's not our desire to create any health, safety or welfare issues. It's not our desire to make maintenance, snowplowing, those types of things any more difficult for the city. We are not going to gain any additional lots or anything like that because of the way we're proposing this. But what we are trying to do, and this is a commitment I personally have made to the Carlsons and to the Songs. This particular area in the northwest corner, we probably spent 50% of our time just talking about 45 Pla~nirtg Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that during the negotiation process. Mr. Carlson and I personally walked this site oh 3 to 4 times and then I've walked it a couple times with the Songs as well as about 6-7 times by myself. Trying to figure out how can we build the road there and save the 4 foot sugar maples that adorn that whole landscape in there and the magnificent oaka And so that area is one area that I think deserves unusual consideration by the city of Chanhasse~ But also, let's just talk briefly about the other areas when we're asking for these :50 foot reductions. Remember Mr. Uban just pointed out that this be cul-de-sac areas. These roads don't go anywhere. They're just cul-de-sacs. There's not a health, safety, welfare issue here and it's not going to hnprove maintenance, snowplowing, or any of that to any degree whatsoever. If it was, we wouldn't be proposing it to you. All the rest of the streets are under the same design standards of thc city. What we're trying to bring forth to you is from what we keep hearing back from the city of Chanhassen over and over again as far as preservation, less roads, but we also are trying to make sure that we're sensitive to health, safety, welfare. Conrad: Well Paul. Dave. What do you? Hemal: I know from an en~neering standpoint it may be somewhat different than planning's viewpoint on it. From a safety standpoint I guess as it states in thc staff report, I think the most devastation or disruption I should say to the right-of-way area is the installation of the sewer and water, storm sewer line and the public utilities like the gas, electric and telephone. We've discussed previously about trying to consolidate the utilities and gas, electric, telephone and we're still working on that with these entities. However, the sewer and warn' installation I guess is probably the major disruption to the area. It may be possible by uses of construction techniques such as a box, which is where they can nam)w up the trench with less disruption area but otherwise typically your utility trench at the base of the trench is 3 to 4 feet wide and from that point it should go up at a 1:1 dope. So ff you're down 12 feet, you're out 28 feet at the top. That's per OSHA standarcL Anything less than that you're in violation of the standards. In addition to that, you've got areas where the soil will be back cast over what they call the spoil bank Now that can again be reduced by these construction techniques called a box but...Typically we've seen, or we've heard these techniques being employed but when it comes down to the actual construction, it's much more difficult for the contractor to drag the box along and to get the box. One day all of a sudden it's back out to 28 feet wide at the wp and the area of di~ then is the same as the 30 foot wide street section. I don't think we're gaining much by trying to reduce the street pavement section out 24-26 foot wide. Right-of-way limita Once we give up our rights w that right-of-way, there's no ever getting it back. The houses will be built. 15 more years down the road if we need to add a sidewalk, add a uail, reconstruct the road and so forth, dig up those utilities for maintenance repairs, the houses are set back from that right-of- way and the area will be disturbed anyway. Removal of additional 9 trees. On a 900 foot long sueeL to get the added width, I don't know if that's such a sacrifice or such a Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 compromise if you look at public safety. As far as giving enough stre~ pavement for pedestrians to walk. In a 24 foot wide pavement section, that's barely enough for 2 cars to pass on the street. Mancino: But you're comfortable with the 31 foot wide pavement are~? Hempel: That's our standard. Mancino: That are on most of these streets except for I-L Hempel: Right But I think the applicant is proposing that Where they're deviating from the pavement width is on streets H and I in the more sensitive area and we agree. That is a sensitive area but on the other hand we think the construction in itself is going to take it's toll on those trees whether or not you have a 24 foot wide street or 31 foot wide street Mancino: And your suggestion is thc 28? Hernpel: Well, I'd like some clarification. I guess is the 28, is that back to back or is that pavement width7 If it's pavement width and we include the curb and gutter, you're essentially out to the 30 foot wide street section that we normally wouldn't have an urban section like this. 50 foot right-of-way. That has to do probably more with setbacks around the houses. In this area if it, due to the sloping terrain of the, kind of ]iin-~ a knob..Jt's kind of a ravine so ff by reducing the fight-of-way width it helps keep the houses up on top to save trees, eliminate grading, we can, staff can live with that. But these other right-of-way areas outside where it's, what I'll call sunshine lots where there's mass grading already, we see no reason to compromise the 60 foot right-of-way in those area. Conrad: Paul, any comments on Dave's comments? Krauss: I think you've heard us both on this issue many times before. It's one of the few things that we tend to approach it a little differently than thc engineering deparunent. Wc tend to encourage a little more flexibility in those things. I understand the problems the wider right-of-way causes. I think it's possible in all probabih'ty to construct, we used to build all our streets in 50 foot right-of-ways. Now it wasn't ~ There were always problems that cropped up. I think when you go look around the Twin Cities, a lot of communities have 50 foot as a standard. There are some communities that have much less and I wouldn't encourage much less. I mean..2 don't know. I'm comfortable with the position. I don't want to recommend that you ignore the recommendations of the engineering depamnent that they made in good faith. On the other hand, if it's not hurting anything, and it works well on one street, why doem't it work well on the other one. I think it does Plapniug Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 provide a little bit more flexibility... Conrad: Okay. We've got a lot of points going through here. It's going to be tough for us to react to your proposal on thc words. I think you've got to give us some global perspectives so we can give staff direction on this. I'm not sure that thc words in your recommendations arc, we're going to, as we wind this thing up and we've been at it for an hour and a haft now and we haven't even talked yet. The key things arc going to be lost. Ten'y Forbord: Pardon me7 Conrad: The key points are going to be lost ~ you're making so many points with the number of pages that you have here. The 27. The 31 points you know and we're not going to give a motion that's real intuitive. It's hard to react to all the things you're bringing up fight now. And my point is, I don't mind heating them but when we make our motions, we're not going to be able to extract this and that from one and impose it on the other, what I'm saying is, you've got to make sure we understand like you did on frails Ten'y, what your, the key points and you've got to make sure we ~ the issues involved. Maybe not the wording as much because I don't know that we're going to incorporate the wording that you're suggesting. And the other point I'm making right now is, we have been at it for an hour and a half and you know, we're going to listen to your points but if you can give us the essence of what you're saying without spelling it out in the words because I'm never, we're not going to echo your words in our motion~ I'll guarantee you that. We're not bright enough to do that. For 31 points and to remember all the things that you've said. We're just not. And more than likely what we're going to do is tell staff to take a look at some of these issues, which is probabiy what you're setting us up to do anyway, which is okay but again, we're at 10:30 and there's an 11:00 curfew, which I'd readly like to stay tuned to. And there is another item on the agenda. So the bottom line is, not to say we don't want to give you the time. But I do want to make sure, don't ret us lose sight of the key issues because you're hitting us with a lot of stuff. And I don't know that we're going to be able to. Terry Forbord: ...issues right now and we will work the rest of the items out with stuff. I believe that the remaining key issues. Krauss: I don't want to interrupt that but you did raise a valid point. We do have another fairly significant item that's on. It's getting late and this is kind of traditionally the time here if you don't think you're going to get to something, you might want to offer an expedient way out and place it first on the agenda next time. Conrad: Well we're not, we haven't talked yet and we're not going to get to it. Pl~ning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: I echo your thoughts. I want staff's opinion before we deal with any of this. Mancino: Yeah, I want staff to tak~ thia. buss: No, you're in the middle of something here but I'm wondering relative to the next item with the Centex one which is also signifi~t in size, isn't going to get heard tonight. Is that going to be finished or should you revise and. Conrad: Is there somebody from Centex here? Aanenson: They're out in the hall Conrad: They're out in the hall Mancino: What's our agenda look like next meeting? Krauss: The next one isn't so bad. Conrad: Come on up for a second. We're taking a lot of time on _this issue and we have typically an 11:00 curfew. We find that our decisions after 11:00, I'm trying to tell you that we don't do a real great job af~ 11:00 and I really try to get us out of here then. My preference would be to invite you back and put you first on the next agenda, if that is okay with you. If it's not okay, we may table it anyway tonight. I'd have to poll the commissioners. Does that put any undue hardship on you if we promise you'd be first on the next agenda? Centex Representative: What does that do to our City Council schedule. Aanenson: It's my understanding you have kind of a drop dead date at the end of the month. They want to get to Council by the 25th. Mancino: We have another meeting. Aanenson: It has been done. We haven't always had Minutes ready. The Council likes to see those. The only way we've done that before is Nann... Mancino: But we may be able to because it's conceptual only. I mean it's not a preliminary plat. It's a conceptual. Aanenson: They want to get conceptual from the Council by the end of the month. 49 Planning Commission M~eting - October 6, 1993 Krauss: I suspect it's probably something we can turn around. Ledvina: But it comes back to us as a prelimim~ plat. Conrad: Preliminary plat later on. Farmakes: Well I'll throw out my opinion. Thea~ are large developments ond I don't think we should be pigeon holing them into a time frame that is inapproprim~ for the size of development that they are. Conrad: Yeah, I think that's lrue. So I guess I'll put it back on stuff a little bit here. Do you feel we could mm it around? You know it's sort of. buss: In all fairness to the applicant, ff they get knocked off the agenda tonight, we'd probably owe it to thew.. Conrad: Okay. What's our agenda like next time7 Krauss: It's not as bad... Conrad: Yeah, I really don't want to talk about it wnight. Seriously, brining it up. Centex Representative: Staff understands our issue. If that can be worked out, I think we could, oo Conrad: Okay. Well we're maybe haft way through what we're talking about. I couldn't even tell you we're going to get you on at 11:00. But again I have, I'd rather not. We'll send you home a half hour early but I guess it will be our commitment to have you on first the next time through and staff will have Minutes ready for City Council for the meeting on the 25th? Centex Representative: So the next time will be 2 weeks? Conrad: 2 weeks from now, yeah. Thank you. Okay. John, you're back on. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, taking your comments to heart and we wilL..smaller items we will work with staff and we're just trying to bring them to the attention of the commission, Conrad: Well I think it's a good exercise Terry but you're going to §et us lost and again, if you can hit the key points and the ones. ~0 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Terry Forbord: We could actually go through. John Uban: We have just two. 21 and 25 are almost identical issues, lust quickly the Song parcel that they are retaining is a 9 1/2 acre parcel on the north side. They want to build a substantial home on the site. They want to have their own driveway, as they had before, on out to Galpin. The city staff is saying that they won_Id like to have the driveway come between these two homes and come up into the site..And on our mitigation plan we're adding onto the wetland mitigation in this area and it's really kind of a draw through here. I kind of like to keep that separate and we'll have the Song's have their own entrance. I don't think a single family home's going to impair tm/tic on Galpin and there are plenty of other home~ that are, Prince for instance in a similar situation. Carlson's and the like. And we would like to have that versus off...ravine and the mitigation area. Terry Forbord: Actually I can put it more bluntly. The Song's do not want to access through an urbanized neighborhood community for their ~ home~ This is a dream of their's. Always has been. To locate a substantial cusWm home up into that area. They would like to be afforded the same treatment as others in the city have had or may have larger parcels of propaXy. Where they have a meandering driveway that goes through the woods and their own private entrance. And this would literally be unaccep~le to them. It would mean...to their property values. It would not even be the ambience feeling or anything for them if that was required of them. Conrad: Okay. Now I don't even need to hear a counter. Does anybody want a counter point? Oh do you? Okay. John Uban: The next issue. Conrad: Wait, wait, waic We're going to ask Paul Krauss: We've never allowed a direct access of any home to a county highway when there was a subdiviaion going in. We simply don't do it. There are reasons for not doing it. From a safety standpoint. It looks like it could be easily accomplished from a gr._ding standpoint. We understand Mr. Song and Mrs. Song need to...turn lanes and acceleration lanes and everything else that we're making this development do. It's pretty much smndmxi proced~ Conrad: But if they subdivide thdr propaW, it won't be going through thi~ Krauss: No. No. That's true. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: They'd do it as a separate parcel Krauss: Conceivably, you know equally possible access through the Carlson property. You know these are both properties that nobody's anticipating developing in the foreseeable future but at some point down the road they may develop together. I don't know. But we're ~llcing about a new homesitc, a new driveway. It is not been the past action. Conrad: Okay. It is not there now? Krauss: No. Conrad: Okay. Hempel: They have a sanitary sewer line also that will be going down to the common property linc at thc same location and it makes sense from an access maintenance standpoint and sewer lines also will have a driveway there for future maintenance. Access to the sewer manholes. Maybe he brings up a good point. Maybe this cul-de-sac should be extr. nded to the property line for future access in the future. Maybe it can be an access off to Galpin in the future and tied into the Carlson property. So there's different alternatives out there but for a single driveway access back out to a county road... John Uban: Just to point out. There is an existing sort I~f a field service road that comes into this area off of Galpin. Krauss: Isn't that the Lake Ann Interceptor though? Mancino: Yep. ~ohn Uban: Yeah, that goes through there too. Hempel: Is that wooded too there? John Uban: Yeah, this is all wooded through here which is south and so then the cul-de-sacs are going to have to go, penetrate the woods and we're going to attach all of this as a natural area back here. Was our thought and our design. Terry Forbord: The next item would be item number 28. This just has to deal with the feeling of a neighborhood community and the irr~portance to making sure there's some continuity in the monmrr, ntation for the entrances. We would have preferred that there would 52 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 only have been one entrance off Galpin Blvd into this neighborhood community but obviously that is not probably going to be a conceivable notion for the staff. They prefer that we had another entrance down at the southern portion of the property in this location. Well, all of the entrances to this neighborhood community will be extrerrwfly well appointed with fencing and landscaping and berrnin§ and irrigation and signage, etc, etc. Far more than what you have ever seen us do in the city of Chanhassen before and consistent to the projects we're currently doing in Medina, Plymouth and in Apple Valley. To take that away from us at another key entrance to the neighborhood community would make the theme of all of this fall apart. First of all it would look out of place. They'd say why would you guys do all this job up here and you didn't do it down here. So we find that the median in this area and the other theme features that create the synergy of this whole neighborhood are very important here as well as it would be here and on the entrance on TH 41 which is already been approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Conrad: Paul, do you want to? Krauss: David... Conrad: What do you have to do with it? Are you taking over the planning? Hempel: Well actually it's kind of an en~neering item. The maintenance. Conrad: Ah. That's where that came from. Hempel: Maybe I can just brush on the main thoroughfare street A there. I did talk with State Aid offices. It's our recommendation that the street be built to State Aid standards...it's a corridor for future east/w~t collector. MnDot actually had no problem with a landscaped median out there as 1on§ as there was...in terms of sight distances and so farth. So based on that I guess...but on Street A, fine. I guess it probably goes the same with Street E, is it? I know it's somewhat different from our attitudes in the past but I guess if we do it at one intersection, like Terry said, it only makes sense to do it at the other... This is probably going to set a precedence though for the rest of developments in town. What I'd like to do is speak with our utility department, maintenance crews as far as snowplowing goes. If there's maybe some design that they would_ rather see. Some limitation on the widths and so forth. $o maybe working with the developer here... Conrad: Okay, good. Thanks Dave. Terry Forbord: One final comment. We would like the ~ve and the recommendafion~ that we have submitted to you tonight in writing to be entered into the record. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: For sure. Terry Forbord: Thank you. Do you have any other comments John? John Uban: No. I think the important things really are the consideration of the street designs to save trees. The trail in the right-of-way on Cralpin versus leaning into the subdivim~n- And I think a lot of these other issues we'll continue to work with staff on them and get them Terry Forbord: We'd be happy to answer any questions that we can for the Commission. Conrad: Okay. Well I'm probably going to open it up for commissioners. Well, we still have a public hearing. We still have some people that want to, maybe want to say some things. So Terry, thanks. John; thank you very much. Appreciate your work. Public heating. We will open it up for any other comments. Jerome. Are you going to keep us here for a while? Jerome CarLson: No. Conrad: You want to get home don't you? Jerome Carlson: I'm not long winded. This street. I think you're going to have a challenge with the Song's but I'll let them argue their private entrance business. I don't think they see their 9 1/2 acres because they're very dear friends of our's and they rely on me to someti~_'mes voice some of their opinions but I think they would see their 9 1/2 acres not as a part of the subdivision but as 9 1/2 acres. A substantial piece of property which might wanant it's own entrance. But I will let them address that. What I would like to address is the question. Dave, are you suggesting that there is in fact no difference between a 31 foot wide road and a 24 foot wide road in this area here? Hcmpel: That's a different question Mr. Carlson. The limits of dim~ption that will occur betwe~ the difference? The street construction is not being the rosin disruption factor. The utility installation and sanitary sewer and water installation, that is going to create most of the disruption. When you put a street on top of that area, the area of disruption will be 30 feet wide. Jerome Carlson: Well, I'm a little bit ignorant except I know thc territory and I've walk~ that property umpteen times. I probably could name some of thc trees by now I feel that close to some of them. And quite frankly if there are 9 sizeable trees that have already been identified as being sacrificed in addition to what is already going to have to go, something Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 has w go. I understand that. But our agreement hcidentally, there is a conlract that exists here between myself and thc Song's and the developer and I thinl~ we have some power and some rights and I'm going to fight hard to maintain every singlc tree on the street. I mean I went down and measured on Sunday, a very, very busy day. Took a 25 foot tape measurer and I measured Cedar Lake Parkway and I'm telling you in Minneapolis that is a busy street on a Sunday in the summer. From the edge of the ctn~ to the edge of the curb it's 26 feet. 26 feet. And I'm listening to all this talk in the city that we've got to have 60 foot wads? I ~ I've got to honestly tell you I think that some real serious rethinking needs to be done. And those roads are still just fine. They're being used by more cars travel that road on a Sunday than would travel this road in a year. And so as far as how do you put the trench in, maybe some creative thought. Put thc trench in before thc road goes on. Move the utilities over to one side. If you want a sidewalk, put the sidewalk over then where the utilities item, ended up. Put thc road on top of a 30 foot width that's been disrupted. I mean let's, ff we're serious about saving the environment and the trees, then let's get serious and look at this thing and these other 50 foot widths that end up in cul-de-sacs. I'm sony. Give me a break. And the trees too. Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chair, if I could respond to that a little bit. We have streets 22 feet wide in the city. Carver Beach is a prime example..Am~on well from a drainage standpoint, from a snowplowing standpoint, from a safety standpoint. Close intersection. Not the room for pedestrian tra/~ and so forth. Our current smndant is 31 foot wide of pavement width is standard and it's used throughout the city and the other comrnnnities as well In l~innetonka they do reduce street width in some situations. Again though, I'm not sure that reducing the pavement width is going to save those trees. If it's possible to maybe massage the mad fight- of-way around to protect these trees, I'm all for it. The streets can be saved with retaining walls. Some unique construction techniques and installation of utilities can all be employed but that's all I can ask the developer to do that. We're willing to listen. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, just as a footnote to that. The sanitary sewer depth on that road is only about 12 feet deep. So the trenching that will be required, that is the deepest pipe that's going to be in that road. The wa~ linc will be above that. The trenching that will be required for that 12 foot depth will not go beyond into the ~ and I think the burden of proof should be on us to be able to show you we will That we can put those utilities in that con~or as proposed without going beyond it. Conrad: Okay. Good point Terry. buss: If I could add too. I mean again we've been supportive of modifying ~s when Irees...~ we think on street H is in evidence of that. But one of the things we wanted to clarify with the developer is exactly what trees we're saving on the street right-of-way. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 It's not clear from docunumtation that we have. I'm pretty convinced they're there. I mean I can see that they're there but that's the one area on the site where we really need to designate ~es in the front that we're m~ng extra measures to prou~-t and make sure that they are there when they're done. And there's a condition to that effect Conrad: Yeah, Dave brings up some valid points and I know what you're speaking of Dave. Hempel: Similar projects with subdivisions...pneumatic gopher where they plow gas, electric, telephone lines underneath or through the root systems of these trees that are on boulevards to savc them. Thcy're going through the 9 yards to do it. Well the concern is that the root damage though is sustained during the construction that 2-3 years down the road, they would die anyway and do we end up taking them out, the city, because they're within the fight-of- way or do we have the developer. Mancino: You know but the other point in here is, even if we don't save u~e~s, any more trees, we do have an area that is heavily wooded. We have less paved area and people will start planting trees, even if they aren't saved right around thc streets. They will start planting trees closer so that it just reduces visual impact of the pavement and still be safe. Conrad: Okay. Any other public comments? Anything else? Anybody here for this? Okay, is there a motion to close the hearing. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hearing. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Conrad: I forget, it's been so long. Jeff, we'll start at your end. I don't know if we did. Farmakes: We can start at my end again. Conrad: Is that what I did? So I should stare Fro'makes: No. No problem. No angry crowds here so I cam I guess I'll start out first with a couple of conunen~ The issue that the staff made regards to Lot 36, Block 4. That turn around that's there, the best I could sec it opted for the turn around was, was on the presentation drawing. It's sort of a skewh showing approximately what the setback is on that lot. The turn around on the end of the private driveway. It's like adjacent to the setback to the wetland, is that Krauss: No, it's not clear. We wanted a design detail of that. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: It looks like it's going to be pretty fight in there. buss: Well, it's probably okay. That's something that we need to work out in the final optiom Basically you're not looking to be able to mm a pumper around...but you need to be able to kind of K mm your way so usually it's a matter of flaring out the last driveway and doing a little bit of extra pavement. Farmakes: Do the houses, will they be set back far enough so that again the shared driveway that there are 10 cars parked out in front of the house at a party but they're not out into someone elses property. Krauss: Those kinds of things really have not been problems over thc years. They require this _thing be paved to a width of 20 feet. You can park a car on that and get around it. Farmakes: We haven't had a lot of houses develop out here that are 10 feet apart. 20 feet aparc Excuse me. I've seen those types of problems farther in town where some of the older developments, they were some of the old flu-rehouses and so on, they have some of these shared private driveway areas and multiple properties encroaching on it. And sometimes, usually when they first start out, the neighbors...but as different people move into different houses, it doesn't' always work out that way. I know that if I had a very socially active neighbor next to me, and he was constantly parking on my drive, if it was abused I'd probably ~ire. issue with it. Particularly if I had something going on at the same time. It looks like a very nice development. I'm not even going to ask how much the houses are going to go for because I can probably guess. Although it's not an issue here. It looks like the sm/Fs done a lot of work on this. I guess I want to wuch a little bit on the issue of that we said we weren't goin§ to do on the issue of the park. I think that particularly in the transaction where we're discussing connective issues in the city and the trails issue is what I'm talking about on the collector streets. That we should be cognizant of that because we're probably looking at these things on a larger scope than just the park. We're also lookin§ at how you get from point A to point B in the city and it looks like a lot of times the parks afford us, or these developments afford us the opportunity to do some connectivity with them. I am concerned about the trail. I think that's, Cmlpin is a collector mad in our city and I think that also should be taken into consideration with that trail. I don't have a problem with the island. That isn't an issue with me. The park. I don't have a problem with the private park. I don't have a problem with the concept of it. I'm not going to get into the...or anything. I think it's great that we don't always consider neighborhood parks to have bs_!!~el_d.~ and these large expanses of property that more often than not aren't being used. Only heavily used during a small slice of time. 1 like the idea of small, intimate parks for neighborhoods. Meaning that that's what they are. That there's a discernable difference between that and a community park and sometimes we lose, I think in Chanhassen we lose 57 Pl__anning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 because of the pressure of some of all our kids being crunched in at one time into these soccer fields and baseball fields and thc time problems that's created for use on that. We kind of see that as a solution to our problems and we try to stuff it in sometime~ where it doesn't belong. So 1'11 back out of the park issue. I'd like to talk about procedural issue. Any time I get these things where we've got sever~ it~ns to look, I'd just as soon table ~ automatically. I think that there are i~ems that should be worked out with staff before we get this. I remember making this exact same comment last _time we did ~ If there's too many issues to be covered here, and if we're going to do that, we should just clear the entire board and we should take, I think discuss 10. Vot~ on 10 and then go onto the next two because absolutely by the time 2 hours later we're on 28, I've forgotten 1 to 10. And the issues that we're dealing with here, on many of them, it seems to me these are issues that could be worked out but I'd like to hear stuff that stuff can't agree on- These are the disagreements and this is what you can't resolve. I don't think what's included in here is _things that you can't resolve. That would certainly speed up the meeting and it also, I feel like I don't have access to the staff's opinion when we're here discussing these things ~ind of extemporaneously without anytime to think about them. Mancino: So are you suggesting that we table this? Farmakes: I would like staff to respond to some of these issues on here. There are some major points on here. Philosophical. I don't have a problem with that but I would like to know and allow staff time to respond to these things. Rather than just arbitrarily get hit with several modifications to an ordinance. I really think it would be difficult to include all these issues inside a recommendation. If you feel that they're not a major issue, but it seems to me there are some major things in there that we may want to comment on. There are a couple of them that change quite si~ificanfly how they read and many others don't change it hardly at Conrad: There may be 3 or 4 issues that we should be reacting to tonight. Farmoires: Yeah, and that's what I think we should have spent our ~ ~g here. Especially again staff could have the opportunity to respond to those issues and we wouldn't be hit with this at the last minute. I'd like to see _this stuff in the packet. The last thing I'll talk about, I think I forgot about 3. If we give ~t for trees, if it seems to me we should encourage what that credit is by our approved list. That we're not talking a 2 1/2 inch sumac or something like that. If there wasn't anything there at all, no natural growth and we we~ requesting them to put in trees, those ~ do not come from the approved list? City list7 Krauss: I think we asked, if we didn't put in the condition that they should, that's supposed to be in there... 58 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: It says trees to be selected of the city list. I was wondering if that. Krauss: That's what we're talking about. Farmakes: If that...to that sentence. Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. I guess that's it Mr. Chairman. I do have a feeling that I have other comments to rp_s_lre on here and I feel a little, without knowing what the driveway to the Song property and what thcy're proposing, I would not be supporting that until I got a pretty clear on what is expected to be happening to that property. If it was going to be subdivided in the futtuc, it doesu't sound like I will be. Conrad: Yeah. You can't make any, you can't assume it will be. But on the other hand, yeah. You can't assume it will be. Nancy. Mancino: A few comments. Paul, what happens to the park and trail part of the staff recommendations? Does it now go to them to read through your sta~ report and make decisions on7 Krauss: Go w? Mancino: Okay. So what I'm reading in here about the park and trails and the developer would like the language changed in the reco~tions on the parks and trail area. What's the process? Krauss: The normal procedure here is, Todd Hoff'm~ doesn't nozmally come to Planning Commission meetings but he is normally present at the City Council and in nmch the same manner as I respond to questions you raise, he responds to questions the Council may raise relative to those recommendations and the Council makes the final decision. So there will be airing of those issues. I'm certain of that and we'll of course pass these comments along to Todd so he's prepared to deal with those. Mancino: So it doesn't go back to the Park and Recreation Commission? Krauss: Not unless the City Council refers it back, which they've done before. Mancino: I'm just mostly going to respond to the staff's xccommcndations from Paul's report, l:rtrst of all I'd like to say that I'm really quite pleased with this development The 59 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 environmental sensitivity that is shown on the site plan. I live just down the street from the Song property so I'm very intimately aware of it and am very concerned about how it is going to be developed. So I'd like to pass on a few of my thoughts. I'm going to tak~ to get these thoughts according to the staff report on page 23. I'm just going to use Paul's recommendation list as my guide. Number 1, I have no changes. Number 2. I am nOt in favor of reducing fxont yard setbacks to 20 f-eec I have recently visited some subdivisions where the 20 foot setback is used and as I enter this particular subdivision, there is a feeling of very high density on each side of me. The houses ate big. They're close to the street. There is a large back yard area with trees but there is no balance between the back yard and the front yard. There are no frees in the front yard and there's just very minimal setback and it has, for me a very tunnel like feeling so that I wouldn't be in favor of any 20 foot setbacks. Number 3, on the Galpin landscape berm. I think that it is vea3r much the city's and the developer's intent to screen the abutting homes from car lights. To screen traffic, noise and to provide a safety barrier for children playing in the rear and side yards. So I would like to make sure that those goals are kept. And in places where homes are higher than Oalpin Blvd, I would suggest that we use massive plantings and in areas where the homes are lower or at the same level, that we do berming and landscaping. This is a quality development and in the future when Oalpin is a 4 lane highway, I want to make sum that the quality of life in this neighborhood is upheld. I'm making sure that we do have good berming and landscaping. Going on to page number 24, with wetlands. I agree with the number 8, with the staff's report only I have read two different clas~fleations in two different reports and I ask that staff and the developer make sure that they agree on clas,iflcation of the wetlands so ltmt the city's wetland ordinances are met and that primarily has to do with buffet strips. And in the staff report, it's on page 18 and in the developer's report it's on page 10. And if you refer to these two pages, wetlands indication on the stuff report for Wetland A is a natural type and in the developer's it's an ag/urban type. The other difference is in Wetland H. One is an ag/urban and on the other it's naturaL So just please get those in line with each other. Going back to the staff report. Number 9. Tree preservation landscaping. Number (e). I would, as a Planning Commissioner, like to see the expanded tree conservation area. I know that the one that we have been given is not comply. I would like to see a completed one. In addition, the developer states that they ate removing 10% of the trees for the roadway. For the right-of-way, etc but there's no mention of the percentage being removed for housing and I would like to see those projections on how many total uees will be removed for the entire parcel. Parks and trails I will leave alone. On page 26, number 12. Streets. I am very much in favor of smaller street widths and for them to be used in the right setting and under the right conditions. Where they can save t~es. Where they can save the topography of the natural land. So that I would be in favor of keeping the right-of-way for B, D and O at :50 and H and I at 40. I would like to see Chanhassen have more intimate, more neighborhoody, more smaller streets. Number 20. Page 27. Development contract I would like to be msd~e aware of the writing of the development contract. Being a northern neighbor to this project, I Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 have major concerns about quality of life issues isfising from the work days and hours of the development of this project. Especially because it will be going on for maybe 4 to 5 years. So I would like to be aware of it. I don't know, how do I participate in that? Krauss: We can answer that now. There's a standard. Hempel: Standard work hours are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Friday and then on Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No work on Sundays or legal holidays. That's the standard in thc development contract. Of course as we've experienced this year with the wet climate and with the conditions we've had, there's been a request for variances to that to try and pick up some of the time. Those are on an individual case by case. Mancino: So you mean for 4 or 5 years I may be hearing construction on Saturdays? Hempel: That's correct. You will hear new home construction on SaUndays fight now. Mancino: And what do, is there anything the Planning Commission can do about that? Hempel: I'm not sure if the Planning Commission can. It would m__lm City Council approval... Krauss: I'm honestly not certsln if it's an ordinance or if it's just the way we write our development contracts...I know that it takes a Council action to deviate from it, but that's... because when the Council is asked to deviate from it, they're not being asked to give a variance to an ordinance. They're being asked to allow a change in the condition of a contract. I suppose it's possible, if there were particular reasons on a particular development why something ought to be throttled back. Mancino: Is there a sensitivity tO the hours? I haven't found that. Krauss: Well, I mean we've established thc, this was established by the city to mitigate the worst problem~..people out shooting nails into a roof at 4:00 in the morning and these kinds of things happen and rather than deal with it on an ad hoc basis, a standard...written into the contract But you know, Dave is right. I mean you've got to honestly realize that that's an unfortunate aspect of living in this community during it's development. That the sounds of things stacking up and nail guns kind of work as the back ground noise for a time. Mancino: Well I'll take it up with the City CoundL Thank yom My other comments are the landscape median. I would like to definitely for the entrance on street A and E. I think 61 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 that it states a uniqueness to the neighborhood which I like. And that's it. Conrad: Thanks. Matt. Leddna: I'll go to the conditions also. Looking at condition number 2 Paul I'm not sure I understand what we're talking about in terms of this 6 foot setback for garages and 9 feet for...areas. Norw~lly we're talking about 10 feet in both of those instances, isn't that coxrect? Krauss: Yes. This was a request of the developer and I believe it's similar to the condition that was...What they're asking for is they're saying that our ordinance requires 20 feet between houses. They'll give us the 20 feet but they want to be able to shift things around. Have a little more latitude to that and it's primarily because you're going to wind up with a nice tree on one side of the lot and you want to shift things... Ledvina: I see. Krauss: It really seemed to be no skin off of our necks to allow them to do it as long as they had the obligation to demonstrate to us. Ledvina: 16 on one, 14 on another, stuff like that? Okay. Alright. And on number 9. I think you mentioned it Paul I'd add a condition relating to custom grading plans. The applicant shall prepare for appropriate lots as they needed them by city staff. I don't know if you want to do it just you know, over the whole thing or just specific areas where you want custom grading plans. Krauss: You know I was talldng to Commissioner Mancino this morning about that and I guess if I had my druthers, our ordinances would specify that there is no mass gr~_ ing of residen~ parcels. And on this particular, I don't know if the developer finds that acceptable or not. I think it's preferable but certainly we can go in and list the lots that have the trees on it versus the ones that are out in a corn field. Ledvhuu Even just like, for example, Block ? or something like that. Just doesn't have to be real complicated. I don't think we're concerned about that aspect so much like lots 2, 3, 5 and maybe there's some in 4 that we would want to look at but. At any rate, however you want to crack that. Getting to the right-of-ways on the streets and the street widths, etc. Condition number 12. I think that for streets H and I, I believe that the proposal that the applicant has put together is reasonable and sensitive and I would support that but on the other hand, the streets for the streets G. Or I should say, all the other streets with 50 foot fight-of-ways. I think that I don't see a real strong need there for reducing that right-of-way and I would suggest that those be expanded to a 60 foot right-of-way. If it doesn't amount to 62 PlAnning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 increasing the pavement width, you're still agreeing to a 31 foot pavement width, I don't see the problem if we're not disturbing sensitive areas...additional right-of-way and I think we should have that. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. I think maybe there's a misande~._.nding. May I clarify? Conrad: Sure, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Before Commission Scott. The only reason that that's proposed in that particular area is to minimize thc grs_ding because the house will be pushed further back. Because there's a front yard setback requirement from the edge of right-of-way so when you narrow the right-of-way, that means the house doesn't have to be pushed so far back in those areas. So we won't have to grade that far back. That's the benefit is that there's just going to be a lesser amount of gl's_ding. And I know it's k-ina of hard to understand but you ~ the front yard setback from the right-of-way. If you narrow the right-of-way, that means the house doesn't have to be as far back. And in these areas, it means you'd be pushing, you can't get 60 foot Ledvina: Is the entire right-of-way automstjcally graded? Terry Forbord: That's correct. Ledvina: It is? Okay. Terry Forbord: So what happens is that you're gaining 5 feet all the way around on each side...5 feet on that side is essentially what you're gaining. And it may not sound like a lot but it all adds up. That's why we proposed it Hempel: I think that whole street B though, that's proposed to be graded. Is that correct Terry? All the lots. It's kind of a mass grs~ding on those. Ten'y Forbord: In the open areas, there's some mass grading. We're trying to limit how far back we have to go into there with a building pad....probably addressed it better but the building pads, you must grade for the foundati~ of the homes yet you don't have to go 5 feet further back. 8o you're saving 5 feet on each side of that road by doing thac But if it saves the cost of the grading and further hnpacc That was the only reason. Ledvina: Okay. I can see that. Let's see ~ As far as, I guess I'm just going to touch on the parks and the Irails. I guess I agree that you can have a smaller open area. I think if the 63 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 larger open area, the 250 feet square is going to mean reducing landsca~ areas or whatever, there's trade offs there. I don't know that those are hard to make. I think a smaller is just as effective as 250 square feet. Or 250 foot square areas. It seems to me that, and ~ me if I'm wrong Paul but is the Parks Cowmi~4ion asking for them to pay the trail fees and then they're also asking them to finance the constru~on of thc trail fees7 Is that like making them pay for it twice? buss: All I can tell you is it does sound like that to me. If that's the case it certainly, you can question the equity in it or...require on the subdivision. That really needs to be clarified. Ledvina: Well, that's what it seems like to me as I read through this and I don't know. I think just to get that out in the open. Other than that, I certainly respect thc opinions of the Park Commission. They work very hard in things that relate to the trails and in general I would defer to their recommendations here but I think the overall game plan and the value of the development should ~y be taken into consideration as some of these issues are ironed out here. Let's see. Then as far as the private drive onw the 9 acre parcel I guess I would support staff in requiting that that driveway not be allowed, given the configuration that we have here. I think that it's possible that some changes be made to B street to maybe accommodate that drive in some way but I'll leave that to be worked out but I would, I do think that the additional driveway may not be wan'an~ so. Other than that I really would commend the developer for an excellent job with this parcel I think it's going to be a wonderful area to own a house. Conrad: Boy I'm sitting here thinldng what we're going to do after we stop talking. And if we've added any value to this. Nnmber one, what has to happen is that I think some of what Lundgren has presented in wording, I think a lot of it is appropriate and I would hope that by the t/me this get~ to City Council, that we can get it so there aren't that many areas of difference. Because I don't think the areas of difference are very big in most of the cases, At least the way I read it. But it's real hard W digest what is being said and for some lay people who aren't as familiar with the issues. I honestly don't know where to be~n. You know Jeff, there was a point where you said table and I really don't know that I need things tabled. Farmakes: I wo,la be perfectly happy to vote on the staff report reco~fions. But I will not, I don't think it would be appwpfiate for me to vote on this until staff has a chance to respond. Conrad: And I think that's appropriate. $o as long as representatives from Lundgren don't mind that. It re, ally is di/rtcult to react to what you present without having a stuff prepared to look at everything. I think we'll react to the staff report and I think it's really. Planning Commission Meeting - Octot~ 6, 1993 Mancino: You don't want to see it again7 Conrad: I don't. I personally don't need to see this again. I really like the proposal I think there's so many nice things about it that it's really neat. Them are some lmy Sings for you that you've got to get through and some of those things we're not even going to react to tonight within the park and trail systems. In concept, they're really good. I like thc trails coming down to Galpin, which is no big, great shakes. I don't have any insight how big they should be. Where they should be. I like the trail system around the wetland. I think that's really neat. That's just neat stuff. You look for the neat stuff that the community can get out of a development. There's some neat things here. Most of the other things I will leave to thc professionals to handle. I do like the narrow streets and I would like, and Dave I respect everything you said. I understand what you said. I actually understood what you said and it made sense. Yet I like narrow streets and I think here's, I would like to see if we can nm_ire that happen. And you know when you ~nd out that we're only putting the sewer 12 feet down and what have you, maybe we're not disturbing that big an area. I'd sure, my recommendation tonight is to try to make those narrow streets work. I live on Horseshoe Ctuve and if you've been there, you know that that's mighty narrow. That's far narrower than what we're talking about. I love it; It's terrific. Nobody corr.m, lains about it. But that's not necessarily relevant for tonight's conversation but it son of tells you where I'm corning from. I'd like to think we could make it work. If it doesn't work because of safety, because of exactly the facts that you bring up. They were going to go down, we're going to disturb 30-40 feet anyway so what's the point. Well, if that's the case. Well yeah. That's practical Let's not being playing with sky when we're going to disturb but again I flfink I heard Lundgren say, Terry say he'd like to work with us on that and prove that it can happen and I'd like to see that proof. I'd like to see that all parts work toward that. The landscape medians, yeah. Of course. You've got to have two. There's no difference between one and the other. That's cut and dry in my mind. Paul, your l~y points. The big conservation areas and forget about these onesies, twoies re:es. Yeah, absolutely. There's just no doubt that that's, I like, that's the way to manage. Preserve the big stuff and we can't get into the fine management and I don't know Nancy. Maybe you don't like that but I really do like going for the bulk and letting individuals have some interaction with maybe some of the de_m__il~ So I like the overall concept of what's going on here. One thing, and I don't know how this is ever going to end up in a motion but in point number 8. Staff had some concerns about basin D. How much it could handle and you know I just didn't get the feeling that staff was real convinced that basin D was going to do it's job. Needed more information. Well, that wasn't worked into any of the conditions. At least the way I read the conditions so that probably fits into 8 someplace, and I don't know who up here is ever going to work that in but it may happen. But if not, I would hope that somebody could look at that. I think that's on page 19. Halfway down. Basin D will also receive significant in~ in runoff to the basin, increase blah, blah, blah, blah. I just dkln't see that reacuxl to in the report. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 Throughout here the staff report kept talking about 250 square feec Now _this park is bigger than 250 square feet so when this hits someplace, let's correct that. I think that's on a side if I'm not mistaken, right? Versus 180 foot on a side but it's not 250 square feet in my mina__ That's a small park and you can't play frisbee in that small an area. I think in the future, when a current free, well. It's been said. When there's a tree that applies to, and is being credited to what a developer is obligated, I think we do have to make sure it's one of the trees that we like. That's for future type of stuff that we've got to make sure works. I _think: I have a pretty good feeling that the trees in _this proposal are going to meet that. Thc need, I think they will be of good quality. I guess thc only place, I don't know. The access for the Song's. That one I'm really split on. You know it's like, geez. That ~ is going to be developed. Somebody who maims the motion can persuade me on that one. I dian't have a problem. If you've got 9 acres and we put one road in off of 9 acres, that's not a great deal although that's certainly not what we'd like to do. But I would hope that that criteria is not a make or break type deal for this development. It's a terribly nice development. I'm very sensitive and that's not even, you know. That one's not an issue to me one way or another. I think the staff recommendation is the recommendation they should have made. I guess it's up to the Planning Commission and City Council. If we care, it could go a different way but the slaff made the right reco~tion- I guess I could talk about it a lot longer. I have no idea who wants to make a motion on this and what you say. But if somebody has a clever way of addressing the issues and summarizing the points, I welcome them to take a shot at it. Ledvina: It's my opinion that there are too many things nnresolved and as much as I'd like to keep things moving, I'm not comfortable with passing it along at this point. I know that's not what you want to hear but. Conrad: No, that's fine. Your choice. Mancino: I'm going to have to agree. Farmakes: You have my opinion. Conrad: Your opinion. Farmakes: I would be happy to vote on the staff's recommendations with a couple of points that were brought up here. The issue that you just discussed last, I recall that we had an 11 acre development that was subdivided. I think the issue here that it's a private driveway, setting precedent for private driveway. The issue is obviously it's a large enough parcel to probably ask for a connection to the highway if it was a development. Conrad: Oh for sure. It would have it so I don't know. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Farmakes: Considering the amount of large scale ~ out that way, it could create a problem by letting that happen. Conrad: Yeah. I guess that issue shouldn't get us hung up here. I don't think we care about that one. I guess Matt wants to see some of these things ironed out. I don't know that I have any more insight inw this that, or I don't know that I need to hear staff come back or Lundgren come back to me. I think if Terry wanted to get concurrence and naxrow in on the points, he could very deHnitely we could bring it back and I think we could clean this up a whole lot. And bring it back and look at it and review it in a half an hour. Yet I don't personally feel a need to do that. Matt, you do and that's. Ledvina: Well could I ask the developer a question. Would you like to see the proposal moved forward with just thc staff conditions or how would you like to see it? Terry Forbord: Well, I have a great deal of confidence in Chairman Conrad's comments. He's been doing this a long time. He's certainly seen enough of me over the years, I believe' he knows that we do what we say we're going to do. I think that the outstanding issues, the staff has had an opportunity to hear what the comments generally are f~om the Planning Commission. They know where we stand with those and I think a lot of those things can be worked through. We submitted this proposal to the city probably sometime in July and we've been working closely with the city in different components of the staff on this for a long time. And the staff's really busy because they have a lot of proposals before them and you ali probably recognize that because you're seeing them ultimately. So we would really like obviously, to be able to continue to move this forward. If we could incorporate some of the comments that were made by each of you this evening into a motion and then with some general directions to staff and the applicant can sit down and work through the details on some of these outstanding issues, would be satidactory to us, Conrad: Paul, a motion to approve that has a split vote goes, what happens? So it will go, actually it will go up with no reco~tion, l~n't that correct? Krauss: If I remember Robert's Rules of Order. We have our Assistant City Manager here who is going to take his masters degree in public adminislration. Conrad: Oh then he knows. If he doesn't know, he fails fight? Krauss: I honestly thought a tie vote is equivalent to a negative. Conrad: It's been a while since we had one. It might be. Is that fight? Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if the Planning Commi.~sion feels more comfortable with tabling this item. h never is the posture of Lundgren Bros to Iry to make any of you feel uncomfortable. Obviously it would be something we would prefer not to do but I don't want any of you saying well Lundgren Bros msde us feel uncomfortable tonight so we. I don't want to do that. If you feel more comfortable with tabling, then we would accept that. Conrad: Nancy you're probably, I think. Jeff I'm just gues~ng here and verbslizing a strategy on this one. Matt would like to see it come back. Jeff and I probably could let it go through based on staff report and Terry would take his chances of working with staff. Mancino: I guess I'm the youngest. Conrad: You're thc one that can move this one way or another. What do you think? Where do you want to be? Mancino: I'd like to see it come back. Conrad: For what reason? Mancino: I'd like to iron out before we Eet to City Council some of the details. Conrad: Which ones7 Mancino: The ones that are, I would like to integrate these two. The recommendations from staff and the reconm~ndations from the developer and get these two integrated. Conrad: And you'd like to see them yourself? Mancino: Yes. Conrad: That's your posture too Matt? Ledvina: Yeah. I don't think that we need 4 hours next time. I mean I think we can do it in a haft an hour. So I think all the issues are on the table. I'd also like to see some more disonu~ion with, and maybe this will automatically happen with the Park and Rec Board too. I think that there's some star issues thac Mancino: Big issues. Ledvina: Yeah, and I don't know. I don't want to force the process. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: Okay. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? We would rather be denied than §o back to the Park and Rec. We would walk away from this deal in a heartbeat if I have to go back to them. Mancino: So, we will not get the ps~ and rec uails. There won't be any decision there until it goes to City Council. Conrad: Well, thc Park and Rec has made their recommendation. And you know, that recommendation is really there and so for you to say, send it back. I don't think that you really have the fight, the authority to do that. You can agree with. We, when we send thl, up, we can be saying. We can make comments about their comments but it's not going to go back to them based on. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I didn't know that. I guess then, when you talk about not addressing the park issue, then we're really responsible for addressing the park issues and saying what we think and working those things through. Conlad: Well, there are some things that can come back to us. There's no doubt. I think the street issues. There are some valid things. To come back so that it's put to bed here so when City Council gets it, it's real clean. There are some of those issues. And I guess the consensus is, we want to see them. Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Ledvina: I move that we table Case No. 93-3 for PUD for the, I'm sorry. Is that right? Hold on. Table Case No. 93-3 PUD until stuff has a chance to meet with the developer to resolve some of the outstaoding issues. Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: Second. Ledvina moved, Farmake8 seconded to table PUD Case No. 93-3 for the Song. CaflMn property proposal by Lundgren Bros until staff and the developer have a chance to meet and resolve some of the outstan~ issue~ All voted in favor and the motion cm~-ied. Conrad: I really want to be clear. StoiCs going to go back, and Paul left. Now it is late and I'd rather not be here either. But Dave, maybe you can take notes because I'm not going w. There's a good reason probably for Paul leaving. But anyway, I really want to be real specific in terms of the issues. There are 31 issues basically or whatever. To integrate the wording and language that I don't know is too far apart. But I want to make sure that 69 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 knows exactly what issues we want to review real carefiflly. Jeff, can you summarize the couple that you thought? You know a lot of these are going to be. Farmakes: Number 3 should be revised so that it, I have no problem with the information that was inserted but it should reflect the next sentence. It should be modified so it relates to the next sentence. So it's approved selection of what they're being credit for. And I guess the issue of the park, I don't agree with what they've put in and the issue of option 5. I don't think the city should enter into that. Conrad: Okay. Farmakes: And agsin, I had the feeling that I didn't want to m~ke comments on this blue sheet because I haven't had time to digest it and properly think about it. I just got it right here in the ~g. I feel a little uncomfortable dcciphcdng which, those ai~ the two particular ones that came to mind. The other issue, I would support the smaller sue. ets. I don't have a problem with that but the issue really wasn't dealt with precisely here. The problem I have with this is procedural Not so much of what they're ~ldng. I just don't think we should be reviewing information like this where the recommendatious arc be/ng modified like this. It does not allow us time to, you know I'm just repeating myself. It doesn't allow us time to review it. It doesn't allow staff time to support it. Conrad: Nancy, did you have some key? I know you have some key issues. Mancino: Number 12. Thc proposal for right-of-way I think is a key issue. Conrad: Which means, in my mind, and I'm going to put words in all We'd like to try to make it work, right? Isn't that, okay. We want to see that that 40 foot right-of-way can work and basically so it comes back and we can see and we can all three parties, or however many we have here, can say yeah. It will work so when it goes to City Council, they'll say yeah. We can see why we can slip thc standards. Okay. Mancino: Thc single family access to Lot 9. The Song's new property or where they're going to put their new house. Thc 9 acres. Kind of resolve that. Conrad: More than likely staff's going to still come back with the same recommendation. Anything else that's real key7 Matt, while she's thinking. Anything that you can jump in with? Ledvina: Nothing new other than what I indicated in my comments. 7O Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino: The north/south street, and I don't even know if it's on here. One of the recommendations in thc staff report is making sure that there is a nm'th/south street, whether it be H or something west into the next property. Is that on this blue sheet? I thought it was. Do you know what numbeg/ I ttxink that's a big issue to resolve. And maybe you were fine with that. I thought I saw. Terry Forbord: Oh it's 27. Mancino: 27. Conrad: Anything else? Olmy. Terry. You're standing up. You want to talk to us. Are you going to lecture us or are you going to. Terry Forbord: Can you tell me when we may be appearing before you next. Krauss: Two weeks from txxlay. Conrad: Yeah, it shouldn't take long. Terry Forbord: Can we be first? Krauss: We sort of promised that. Terry Forbord: Thank you very much, all of you for taking all the ~ I think that a lot of times our presentations take a lot of time but I think when you look back, and you drive through these neighborhoods in a few years when you're waWhing them, you'll be happy that we all spent this kind of time because I think that the neighborhoods will present themselves in an image that you all hope... Conrad: Thank you. CONCEFF PLANI~D UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.~9 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURal. ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT I~ESmENTI~L DEVELOPMENT COMPIle. ED OF 21 BUILDINGS OF EITHKI~ 8~ 10 OR l~ UNITS IN EACH. ~ UNITS ARE TWO STORY~ SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION W~TH ATrA~D ONE OR TWO CAR ~ARA~ES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN ~ ~O~ CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULEVARD~ GALPIN BOULEVARD CARRIAGE HOMF~S~ CI~._NTs:~ REAL ESTATE CORI~RATION~ (BETFY O'SHAUGHNESSY). 71 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to table the Concept Plan for PUD ~Y3-5 for Centex Real Estate Corporation until the next Planning Commission meeting due to the lateness or the hour. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. MODIFICA~ON TIF DISTRICT NO. 2-1 AND 2-2; DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2~ Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: Arc there any questions? What are we in? Arc we in a public hearing? Gerhardt: No. The public ~g will be held Monday night at the City Council. What you're doing tonight is approving the changes within the plan that they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and your development plans of the city as a whole. I think the comprehensive plan outlines that the 40 acres north of thc Timberwood development would be a school site and if it is not a school site, it would be a medium density residential development This summer we entered into an agreement to purchase that land...school district. In concert with that, the Planning Commissioner Mancino has been sitting through the Park and Rec recreation center task force in looicin§ at expanding off the elementary school site where we would use approximately $2.3 million of tax increment dollars to add a gymnasium and then enhance what is a typical elementary schooL_full sized gyffL Raising the roof by 5 feet. Taking it from 20 to 25 and putting in a wood floor instead of a tile floor that would be a typical gym in an elementary school Thus we would have some priority over programming of the elementary school Have one additional full sized gTm for our own usc and additional meeting moms, fitness center and storage. They're also looldng at a running track that may go around both of them... The second thing in the plan is that we would acquire parkland, the low area associated with the Chan Business Center. With that, that would be along with the Bluff Creek lxail system and there is appro~im~_~ly 2 to 3 acres that are buildable down there...to build a recreation totlot or multi purpose rec. The little fitness center. Mancino: Todd, how many acres is that7 That you're buying for $115,000.007 Krauss: Isn't it close to 107 Gerhardt: I think it's 14. 14 acres. There's estimates from $187,000.00 down to $45,000.00 so I think I added the two and divided them. Mancino: Isn't there any park dedication in TIF districts? Is there any park dedication in the 72 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 business districts? Gerhardt: I think the Park and Rec Commission chose to collect thc fees in lieu of...purchase thc land when increment became available. Krauss: They wanted both. Mancino: They wanted both, okay. Gerhardt: That's typically how we did the Lak~ Susan Park next to Rosemount. We collected the park and trail dedication fees from the development and then used the inc~rnent to buy the land. Mancino: I have no other questions. Conrad: Okay. Anything else Todd? Gerhardt: No. Conrad: Do we have any questions? Jeff, anything? Farmakes: None. Conrad: None. Good. I have nothing. Is there a motion? What do you need us to do Todd7 Aco.,slly we need. Geflmrdt: A motion to approve. Conrad: Yeah, there is a reco~tion. Mancino: I move that the Planning Commission adopt ~lufion No. 93-1 finding the modification to the TIF District No. 2-1 and 2-2 and Development District No. 2 consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan. Conrad: Is there a second? Farmakes: S~,ond. Conrad: Any discussion? 73 Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 6, 1993 Resolution 893-1: Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commimi_ Oll adopt Resolution No. 93-1 finding the modification to the TIF District No. 2.1 and 2.2 and Development District No. 2 conMstent with the City of Chanhas~n's Comprehensive Plan. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. Conrad: Do you need signatures on this thing Todd? Gerhardt: Yeah...I'll get it to you. I've got to make the modification of the date on the Resolution. Conrad: Well, I don't want to hear any more. Do you have anything to say to us? Ledvina: Can I talk about one thing? Conrad: Sure. Ledvina: For the PUD for the Centex thing. The area that was identified in the notice was wrong and I don't know if that affects if people look at that and say, hum. That's not me. Mancino: It's the Song's property isn't it? Ledvina: Yeah, this is the Song property so when you renotice. Do we have to renotice? Krauss: No. No. As long as the legal's ~..the Attamey said we don't technically have to but we should fix it... Ledvina: lust to let you know. Conrad: Anything Paul? Krauss: Briefly two things. You are, in terms of office. Chairman Batzli has told me he's not going to ask to be reappointed. Jeff, your seat is open as well. What we ask is that we have an indication from you if you want to be reappointed so when the ad is put in the paper, we can tell people that we have a fully open seat or. Farmakes: I'll do it again. Krauss: The second thing is, you're going to get a notice from us, if you haven't already. 74 Planning Commission Meeting - Octol~ 6, 1993 You asked us to schedule a bus tour. Farmakes: Received it today. Mancino: On the 16th. Krauss: Yeah, right. Do we have some interest there... Well we'll be more than happy to do it. If you want... Conrad: I want to do it. I am out of town. Farmakes: It is worth while. Conrad: It is absolutely worth while. Ledvina: If you can do it some other time too, whatever. I'm lc/nd of rni~ing a lot of those ~ings so I want to. Conrad: That's a good one. I'm in Iowa. Mancino: This is the Highway 5 tour right? Kranss: Yeah. I asked Ka~ to invite the Highway 5 task force members as well as the City Council. If we get 20 people on the bus, that'd be... Conrad: Are you going to go out to the Arboretum too7 Krauss: We were going to end it at the Arboretum and have lunch out there. An early lunch and I spent a morning with Peter hiking around the Arboretum and he thought, I invited him to give 20 minutes and sum up the Arboretum. He didn't think he was going to be able to be there but he though he might have one of his staff people there. Fro'make: I have a quick question. Was that the two items you were discussing? The Colonial Grove thing and the letter. What happened to that item? I couldn't figure out how they got 8 runabouts, which are 16 feet or better, on a 35 foot dock because it doesn't add up. Krauss: I wasn't presenL I was... The Planning Commi~sion recommendation of 3 boats was forwarded to the City Council. The City Council was short members that night and, as I understand it, a motion was made very quickly for 8 boats and it was over with and done. There were then, I think Court MacFarlane came to the follow-up meeting and expressed 75 Planning Commission Meeting - Octol~ 6, 1993 some concerns. I don't remernber exactly what he said. I'm paraphrasing but why would the Council action on this beachlot be different than all the other beachlots where it was based on some factual basis. Then someone on staff and apparently some of the City Council received one or more phone calls that implied that some of the...infonnafion that was received... Colonial recreational beachlot may have been given duress. And I don't know that happened. We didn't try to ascertain if this was true or not. In fact we did nothing about it. At a following nmefing Coundlman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendod, brought it up and said they were real uncomfortable with what happened. We'd like to vote to reconsider it. That was done. We were asked to come back and bring Findings of Fact. That was done a week ago. Two weeks ago. Gift Whitehill; representing the beachlot, was in attendance. Chimed that he had, wasn't persona~y invited or something. I don't remember exactly what...but he was fairly upset The Council then continued it to Monday night. Fammk~: As near as I can figure out with that oper~on, even if they were fishing boats, which on Lotus and Minuewashta is very proportionate rrmch more to runabouts. They were 16 feet more. There isn't enough running feet at the dock to get that many boats for overnight swrage. So it doesn't make any sense to begin with. Plus the boats can only get so close. To get both sides of the dock, it doesn't work out in running feet. You've got a lot more boats than you've got docks. Krauss: Well I think it's fair to say, I mean staff's position on it. We typically do not take positions...factual data as we saw it and passed forward your recommendations. There's been a tremendous number of accusations that I personally reseni~l towards my staff about implications that we tried to tip things one way or another on that. Ledvina: On that partiaflar 0he? Krauss: Yeah. Farmakes: Also, they were the ones that came in, I don't know if we're. Of any of the ones that had come in, I thought that one, I felt the most uneasy about it. I felt like we weren't getting factual information. But still in all, I felt that it was important to remain consistent with how we dealt with the other ones. There were as many people who said that there were. As many people who came and said there weren't so I didn't see any credibility to what they were presenting. But we're not here to say you're telling the truth and you're not. Ledvina: I voted for 8 boats in that instance but I did that only on the basis of what was presented in front of me. I mean the people that did come in, they were there with their letters at the last second. Tossing them in front of us and I don't care for that. At any rate. 76 Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 Conrad: If you had a chance to hear Court MacFarhne, who was the Chairman of what. Surface Water. No, what was it? Krauss: He was the water usage. Conrad: Water usage or whatever. And when you hear the bac~und to the whole scenario, you know absolutely and we're still on tape now. But you know absolutely that boats were not permitted period. At that point in time, and that's the original interpretation of staff. Staff's original interpre~tion on that property, that boats were not permitted. So when we granted them 3, that was 3 more than what the contract ~ally, the permit. Mancino: The original Conrad: Thc original permit gave them rights for. A little bit, and a different opinion Jeff. And this one's closer to home so I'm probably a little bit more Mas. Yet on the other hand there was a lot of reason. The timing of that was when there was so much going on on Lotus Lake that people were really concerned about outlots so they were watching what was going on in that area. And plus the task force that was out there was watching every outlot at that point in time, especially on Lotus lake. So the task force, so all the numbers that were coming in were really validal~xi by the surface water usage group. So that's what Court came in and said, hey. We were watching. The numbers that staff had turned up in their audits, those are the numbers that we used when we were managing _this and trying to come up with recommendations for what beachlots should be permitted w do. But prior to that, they had no rights to have any boats. So when we said 3, that was 3 more than what they really had a right to do. So when they got 8, that was pure fantasy. That was just fantasy. Farmakes: Thc staff report I read though said that they had 3. Conrad: There were 3 there probably. Fannakes: But they weren't supposed to be. Conrad: They weren't supposed to be there, right. They were illegal at that point in time. Farmakes: See as I said before, 35 foot. That's 70 running feet both sides of it. You can't get that many boats. Krauss: At this point Cliff Whitehill, representing the beachlot has, and stated it in a mecthg cnviromncnt...sue Dick Wing for liable. We're not...You elect a Council person to make judgments. It's not...to do so and thc City Atwrney felt comfortable with that...I wouldn't be Planning Commission Meeting - October 6, 1993 surprized if it would up in litigation. Conrad: Oh there's no doubt. Krauss: The City Council...3 boats. I think it's fairly safe to say that the... Parmakes: 8? I thought it was 9. Klauss: No, they didn't...with that and that was one of the things that Cliff Whitehill was fairly abusive wwards Kate about. In Cliff's letl~r there's some kind of a comment along the lines of, we had 9 out there in the past and we could have asked for it but we're only ~king for 8. Farmakes: See, I read that as 146 feet, running feet of boats. How do you get that on a 35 foot dock? Even if you put it on both sides, you'd better have to put it on the dock too. It doesn't make any sense. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chair Conrad noted the Minut~ of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 15, 1993 as presented. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meetin~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight. Submitted by Paul I~rauss Planning ~ Prep~ by Nann Opheim 78