The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1993 10 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 1993 Acting Chninnan Scott called thc rmeting to order at 7:37 parc MEMBERS PRESENT: loc Scott, Nancy Mancino, left Farmaims, Matt Ledvina and Diane Harberts -. MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director, Bob Generous, Senior Planner;, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer;, Diane Deso~e, Watrr Reso~ Coordinator; and Sharmln Al-$aff, Planner I PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 89.59 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD FOR A 232 UNIT Ri~.SmKNTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRIIi~ OF 21 BUII.DINGS OF EITHER 8~ 10 OR 12 UNITS IN EACH. THE UNITS ARE TWO STORY~ SLAB ON GRADE CONSTRUCTION WITH ATI'ACHIiID ONE OR TWO CAR GARAGES. ~ PROPERTY Il LOCATED IN ~ SOUTHWEb~ CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY $ AND GALPIN BOULRVARD~ GALPIN BOtm VAgO Cngm E HOM S, RgnL gSTA COgP0gAYIO (aErY O'SaXU m '). Public Present: Name_ Address Marian Schrnitz Tim Dcmpscy Dan Herbst Dan Blake 8190 Galpin Blvd. 8241 Galpin Blvd. 7640 Crimson Bay Centex Real Estat~ Corporation Paul Krnuss, Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle presented the staff ~port on this imm. Chnirman Scott called the public hearing to order. Dan Blake: Thank you Mr. Chairman, tnemtna's of the Commission. My name is Dan Blake. I represent Centex Re~ Estat~ Corporatiom As Patti said, we're really here for some direction. There's been a lot of discussion on _this site as we worked with staff earlier this year on the road nlignment of the frontage road and the park issue and we finally decided we needed to just get a plan in so that we could start fo~mlizing the process and where the city Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 wanted the park and where they want that road. And I think we've gotten awful close to accomplishing that. I'd like to, a little bit of site information. Again, this is Highway 5 and Gnlpin. Some of the natural features. A big wetland area...do~ here. Develop a piece of high ground down at the bottom of our site which the park department has indicated it is their desire for park acquisition of the part of the park system here... There are some areas of trees. Generally lower quality wethnd...type trees. Further down the wetland there are some trees on this side of the lmoll...ff you go out there today, one of the most si~ificant features is a very high natural berm ~ when Highway 5 was cut with trees, evergreens on it now, roughly in this location. It's the requested Highway 5 widening of right-of-way which includes that tree line. I'm not exactly sure what impacts those trees are if you widen Highway 5...I would guess that a portion of it may be lost...The buildings, this is an artist rendition of the buildings. They are 12 unit mwnhouse buildings. 6 units on either side. There's also 8 and 10 unit buildings which is the game building as some of thc middle units. Currently we're building this exact product in Eden Prairie and Apple Valley. We just last year complel~ a project of a very similar building with the city of Mendota Heights so the building design is pretty much established...our intent to build. Again the attached garages. ...and I think what that does for some of the concerns of the Highway 5 issue is provide some varied exposures. I have a drawing back hem and I can pull it up. It kind of cuts through the site but it's awfully small Given the scale of the site, it was hard to depict but we're trying to show you, this being Galpin on this end. The western boundary of the site with the varied impact of the trees and the building. This is the 3 buildings that you see here. Down here and here and here. And then the big open existing wet meadow wetland and then some of the existing forested wetland which is through here. That kind of shows you the general look from Highway 5. I think that is one of, Paul referred to as a concern. I think it's just kind of an unknown yet what that Highway ti impure What exactly this is looking for and what exactly this would look like. Another cuts through the site the other way. Shows Highway 5 here. The existing tree room. The proposed right-of-way. Landscat~g berm, the parking drive and then the buildir~gs so this kind of gives you a sense of the scale in relation to Highway 5. I believe it's 265 feet from the edge of the building to the center line of Highway 5. This would be the dimension from hem to over the~. Mancino: Excuse me, is that a 2 lane Highway 5 or is that a 4 lane Highway 5? Dan Blake: This is drawn as existing. Mancino: As existing? Okay. Ledvina: Where do the other 2 lanes go then on Highway 57 Do they go to the south? Okay. Planning Commisaion Meeting - October 20, 1993 Harberts: What are your homes scllin§ for in Apple Valley and Eden Prairie and Mendota Heights? Dan Blake: Eden Prairie the price ranges from the mid '/O's to the mid gO's. Apple Valley's a little less than that. Scott: Can you pins or minns $10,000.00 estimate, given that development, can you estimate what the sale prices would be for this partiogar project? Same range roughly? Dan Blake: Same. Similar. Maybe a Utile, further up than Eden Prairie. Maybe a li~e bit less but a lot of the same site characlm~ti~s~ h has a very prime view units. A lot of FI1 say secluded, privacy units. Not too many highway units... Beyond that I guess it'd be easier for me to answer questions either now or as you see fit. Scott: Okay. Any questions? Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, the report discusses, the staff report discusses the buildabih'ty of the area in the vicinity of units 17 to 20. Have you done? Dan Blake: We've done, we have brought engineering out to do soil borings on the site. We did deep regular soil borings on _this site but because of access, because you can't cross this wetland, not very well They jnst from the other side walked in and did some relatively deep hand auger borings, in the 6 to 8 feet down range. The u_ n suitable soils range from 2 to 6 feet over in this area...half a foot of topsoil nnd sandy clays below that. We're not exactly sure what our opinion is. Is it for sure buildable. It's buildable at some cost but that's exactly...too cosily. I think as big of an issue this is going to be, the construction of this mad which the city I believe is impm~mt no rrm__tter_ what goes in here and they have agreed to participate in the, at least the permitting process of getting that road across that wetland. Harbens: A question for staff. What's the opportunity to try and focus some priorities for affordable housing with this project? I just came from a governance committee and my understanding is the Governor's putting together a blue ribbon task force to address housing. Kranss: Well, I think as most of you are aware, the city has had a concern with affordabih'ty of housing. We have broached the idea to a couple of developers. I guess we really don't know what kind of flexibility we have at this point and we're having our bond counsels and some other folks who work with us on financing issues put together what our finandng options are so we can go back intelligently and talk to developers. We're also having, we've commissioned a study. Fred Hoisington is wofldng with major _emplo~ in the community and he's surveying the/r...to ascertain what the needs are for housing. What can they afford. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 What do they look for. What sort of incentive program is most useful to them. I think it's fair to say that certainly as soon as we have our ducks in order, we'd sit down with this developer. We've already talked about sitting down with another developer who's on later tonight and trying to at least tinker with some of these units to make them a little more affordable. I'm hoping that we move forward on that a little bit in the next month or so. I believe there's an item on that for the lIRA agenda tomorrow night. Harberts: I think it's going to come to a point where if the dries do not take a lead in it, that the government's going to force the issue in a way that's not going to be very positive for the community and that's the message I basically got tonight at my meeting. Krauss: Well they've kind of been hinting at that for quite a while. The problem is they took away all the tools we had to do anything about it. You know we have to stretch the envelope a little bit to do much of anything. We used to be able to sell mortgage revenue bonds. Used to be able to do TIF districts for housing and they Wok that away and then they complain that you're not building affordable housing in the suburbs. Well the fact is, we the city don't build anything. We depend on the private sector to do it and they can't deliver it I think what you've got here Wnight is a fairly reasonably affordable product. Farmakes: The other thing that disturbs me is that the government has shown an abysmal record over the past 30 years of doing a very good job of project housing. And I don't believe that once you get out~le the realm of market, and start dictating a large scale project housing, that if the city approaches this, that it does so on an individual housing type basis. Because otherwise I think that we're approaching a serious can of warms and I'm sure many developers will tell you that. And what bothers me about this is government is never very good at producing something that the private sector can for less at probably far more efficiently targeted to the customer. That doesn't take away from staff but. I/muss: Well we don't know what thc options arc but none of these options have been explored, and franidy...§overnment su~idiTed housing. The approach that we've been looking at is to try to tinker with that offer for example of first time home buyer assistance. People can often...but they may be strewhed to meet the down payment and there are ways to develop a small pot of money that over time allows people to get into those homes and it's blind. I mean these are owner occupied homes. We won't know who's in them. Farmakes: And I think that's more innovative. But as I said before, thc tendency when you ask how much are these houses going to cost, for information that' fine but to get inw dictating what that's going to be, that's a little worrisome to me anyway and the other thing that bothers me, I don't believe that that's really going to solve the problem because what's happening here, when we look at medium d_en~ity profit housing, and...honsing quite often the Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1~3 assumption is well, thnt's affordable housing when in fnct I think thtt the last year that you've spent here you've seen that that's not the case. That in many cases this higher density housing is up, in some cases up to the $200,000.00 range. So some of the other issues that Paul had just talked about are not necessarily large scale development type situations but issues of financing and so on, which I think are fine. And I support that. Harberts: And 1eff, you're ~y correct with what you've shared but I think there's some, and Paul's quite aware of some of the political perspectives. From inner city versus suburban areas and basically when you get into housing, you get into that because they don't care what market demand is out here. Fnrmnkes: And that's fine but what I would submit is that they're two separate divergent interests there. And one was born out of the other and there is, we don't need to go over metropolitan politics for the past 20 years but it is, Minne-q_polis and St. Paul have tried to not only curtail the school system but also housing and it's to their advantage. And then they've used their political clout to do that. And certainly from the southwest suburbs, we're new to our political clout and we are I think doing a pretty good job anyway, finally of respon_ding but I don't want to use _this forum for thaL But I do have concerns about this and I've seen this on occasion where we get to the higher den~ty issues of trying to accomplish this. There's nothing wrong I believe with s/nDe family housing and incorporating some of the issues that you're talking about. There are some innovative programs that are being done with that and curiously enough they're being done outside of the realm of government. They're being done through religious non-profit organizations and they're being done with philanthropic direction from architeclmal firms. And I think that that's far more efficient to deal with it that way I think in the end. The homeowner is probably far more inclined to take care of rather than rely on someone else to take care of their home and so on. And I do think that again smaller is always better with that sort of thing. Than getting very hr§e scale developments and that's the sole purpose of it. Scott: Okay. Any other comments. This is a public hearing so if there's anyone from the general public that would like to speak Please go up to the microphone and give us your name and your address and we're interested in your comments on this particular project. Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin Boulevard and I have some questions that are not being addressed as far as I can see tonight. And there's basically three so I won't ~ake too much time. The one was wha~ was brought up earlier and that is, as I understood the zoning or the guidance with the Highway 5 corridor was that this be low to medium density housing on this side. I don't understand why you want to plan this higher density in an area that's kind of far away from the corp of city services that should be offered for that kind of community development. ...people I think Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 would like to be closer to bus lines, shopping, and other things like that so my first question when I saw this was, why not the northwest corner across from Target. That'd be a lot closer in. Be a lot handier. That also brings me to my real concern and that is that that inUmsection has been upgraded to support that kind of added traffic. On Galpin Blvd we are a cam'idor and that's true for the industrial complex in back of us. There is a 48 unit housing development on one side that's going in with another large development on the other side that's going in. Right now ff you try to gain access to Highway 5, either in the morning or come at it in evening hours, it's quite tricky and those houses haven't even been built yet. I don't know if I can show it on this but that intersection of Highway 5 is not quite blind but it's not a very visible intersection and when there's a grain truck behind you and you're turning left, there's traffic coming at you, that inlm~oection of Hunderlxnark Road looks ~ minor. So it's a very scary place. What my concern is is I have not heard anything about either the widening of Galpin, putting turn lanes in so that people aren't lined up for half a mile down the road. The developrtw, nt as shown, on almost all of the units and there may not even be development on the other units closer to TH 41 but almost all the units are on the Galpin side, which would indicate they'd probably use that as an egress to Highway 5. I think as a safety issue, I don't see how you can advise planning of this type without some kind of improvement to that intersection. Not only for me as a resident but for these other people, these people who buy these houses, if they choose to. So for that reason as a local resident...what are you §oing to do about the traffic problem. It's already bad. It's going to be worst with the existing projects alreatdy in place and thi~ one would really add to it. Thank you. Scott: Paul, do you want to tak~ the density que~on and then we can probably talk about the roads Dave. Krauss: Well I think I touched on thc comprehensive plan issue before. The comlm~hensive plan was done based upon how this community would ultimately look when it was completely developed. It was done with a cotrannnity wide ~ve. It was done with an eye towards getting a variety of uses in the community so that there was balance in thc community. You're talking about a site and maybe...and I guess some of the Planning Commission...with Highway 5. Just to the west of this is 170 acre industrial pazk. Industrial oWw. e park. And to the south of tim is all the industrial uses that Chaskn developed along Highway 41. So this is an area that's surrounded by intensive development. The north side of Highway 5 is also uitimately going to be brought into the MUSA line and will be developed. We've already received a petition to bring it in. We apprecia~ the fact that this sort of housing often times has somewhat different access needs although I don't think it's particular true in this case because it's an owner occupied. The need for immediate proximity to downtown is not as great. However, that's why we're building these streets. To get people to downtown. To schools. To recreation without having to go onto Highway 5 all the Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 time. Relative to, I guess I can leave thc bus aspect to you but we've talked to Southwest Metro about ultimately providing bus service on these parallel access boulevards because that seems to be where the people can be and it's a much safer way of working it than running down Highway 5. We also do have a...amount of medium and high density housing around the central business district. Some of it's being filled right now up on a hill~ just north, a block north of Target there's 220 unit of townhouse there. The site which was mentioned, there's a lot of people who would love to see medium density housing out there. In fact that's what it's guided but it's also the site that's owned by ]~kankar and it's being operated as a church and it's not being developed. But it was developed, that's what it's being guided. We share Mr. Dempsey's concern with the C-alpin intersection. It is not a safe intersection. There was a school bus accident there, I think it was last year or the year before. We're well aware of that and I guess I'll pass it over to Dave to talk about what we have in the works Harberts: Just one question Paul What was the, I think the gentleman brought up about the northwest comer on Kerber. Was it? Krauss: That's the Eckankar site. Tim Dempsey: I didn't l'~HT~, fLU that was owned by them. Harberts: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Krauss: I'll be happy to get you a copy of the comp, plan. Harberts: Alright, thank you. Mancino: Dave, could you talk about a stop light there on Galpin and Highway Hempel: As Paul mentioned it is a very hazardous inlm~iection. We've had a few accidents there. Trunk Highway 5 is under the jurisdiction of Minnesota Department of Transportation, MnDot. Galpin Blvd is a county mad. County Road 117. The City has been working with the County on a joint cooperative program for the future upgrade of Galpin Blvd south of TH 5. With the recent residen~ subdivisions going in down there, it will warrant an upgrade. The comprehensive plan that was prepared some time ago, the EasU:rn Carver County one which has been used as a guide lately, or up until now I guess, dictates that it be a 4 lane road at some point here. The other driving force behind this obviously the school site. That will include mm lanes onto TH 5. A full intemection with a traffic signal on Galpin. It's my understanding that the city and Carver County is petitioning MnDot to do a signal justification report, which is the first step in order to get a lraf~ signal installed at the Planning Commi~ion Meeting - October 20, 1993 intersection. So it is in the works for upgr~__ding the intersection-..as well as plans for upgrading Galpin Blvd. Widening the turn lanes. Mancino: Do you have any sense of timing on this? Krauss: Well possibly. I mean we've been wozking with the school district, architects and, as Dave pointed out, the County and MnDot and I was in a meeting with them last week where it was pretty clear that concurrent with the development of the school, which is opening in the fall of '95, that Galpin would be improved to a 4 lane status. I'm not, I mean ultimately I don't think, the jury's still out about whether Cralpin needs to be improved to 4 lanes. I mean I really shudder to think about that, south of that are~ But it certainly needs to be, have some of the kinks taken out of it and worked. But north of that area from the intersection of the ~t collector up to Highway 5 now looks like it will be improved concurrent with the ~ing of the school, and as Dave points out, we have begun talking to MnDot about temporary signalization. One of the problems we're dealing with is the Highway 5 upgrading was supposed to take place, I think in '95 not too long ago. But then when the 5 cent gas tax was vetoed, everything started getting dorninoed on back and now, the last I heard, they're looidng at 1998 maybe. But l~nDot is also realizing that they have very significant safety problems that they have to address well before that at TH 41, Cral~ and Audubon. So there will be something. We have every expectation that there will be something in place concurrent with the opening of the school, which i~n't too far out of whack with when this development might come on line. And we should have a lot more information on that certainly by next time this como8 back on your agendlL Scott: Okay. Mr. Dempsey, did those comments help your understanding? Tim Dempsey: Yeah, but I'll stay tuned. Scott: Okay. That's good. Yes ma'am. Mary Schmitz: My name is Mary Schmitz and I live at 8190 Galpin and my concern is the safety issue also. A high density area like you're talking, 232 units. You can anticipate at least half of those have children and you're talking at least 100, maybe 200 children living in this area. How are they going m get to the school across the street? Are they going to be running back and forth? This began an issue with the Chaska school over at Highway 41. They had that huge development, children are constantly running across Highway 41 where there's no other way other than walking way down to the light, which they won't do, and they're rtwning across Highway 41. Again, I've lived there about 15 years and the traffic just keeps increasing and increasing and increasing on that road. It's even a hazard for me to walk across to get my mail and come back. I really have to be very alert and really watch Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 199:3 when I walk across. Now you're talking about 6 year olds and ? year olds running across Highway 41. Or Galpin Boulevard and I just have a concern that you're creating a hazard by having that many children so close to a school district without some kind of control of how those children are going to get back and forth. The buses are not going to go across to pick them up. They're too close so what is this development going to do to solve that issue? $co~ Are there any other comments? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public he~tdng? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to dose the public hearin~ All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Farmakes: One quick question before I give my comments. You're talking about inanition yet to come. If we approve this concept, preliminary. They're basically looking for a critique correct. We're not committing to anything here and I will refer to your recommendation number 2. It's kind of saying they should have some additional forth coming information such as so and so and it goes on. Should we be limiting the information that we should have forth coming to that or should we leave that more open ended? It seems to me that perhaps there's some additional traffic information here in coordination with the school There are other egg and chicken type information situations here that really kind of need to look at the same time we're looking at development for that property and surro~maing properti~ How they fit in together. At least that would be my, and I don't know if that would be my consideration. I don't know. If the developer certainly is in a position to provide us with that. They're talking. The County, we're talking School Board. We're talking, do you feel that you have a handle forth coming on that information? How it will fit up with this type of development? Krauss: I think on the roadway issue specifically, that's out of the developer's hands. That's really our responsibility to push and I think conveniently there's a lot in the works now to make that happen and we should be able to get out information on that. In fact I think you're going to see the preliminary plans for the upgrade of when...I think November 17th, you'll see what it will look like at that point. Farmakes: So we have some time lines conver~ng here then? Krauss: Right. And I think thc devclop~ made a good point that a lot of things aren't resolved until somebody sticks their head up and people can take shots at it and come up with some concerns. As far as in condition 2. V~nethcr that's open ended or restricted, I'd encourage you to be as forth coming with other things as you want to have information on so that we have direction and the developer has direction. So if there arc other areas, certainly Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 roadway issues and traffic are things that we totally to expect to have information on. Farmakes: Okay. I would also, when you do get that information, is to have Public Safety response to cross over situations. Children. How that would be affect~ to access phygrounds and so on. At the school across the street On the Highway :5 issue, or how this fits into the Highway :5. I would like to see an assessment of that as well How units 18, 1, 5 and 8 fit into what we're doing there. We spent really a considerable amount of time to the north. What was happening to the north and not quite as much here to the south and it seems a little ironic to me that the first development we get is of course to the south and not to the north. But I guess that's to be expected. 1 like in general, I guess I should say, Centex. I think that Centex, just to throw out a comment. I don't know whether it's appropriate or not but I like your corporation. 1 like your developments. I think you did a nice job of CruD' Farms. This is a different division of your company but I think that they also provide quite good value for the money in development. So I like seeing your c~on developing in Chanhasseo. Since this is a PUD, I for the life of me can't figure out how you do much else with that piece of propcrty. It's a difficult piece of property to develop. And I guess I would like to see further information across the way on the developability of that property that they sort of did hand auguring on. I'd ~ to get a response whether or not that is s~t infonmtion or that's sufficient engineering information for them to proceed or if they'll have further information by the time we see this again. Getting back to the Highway 5 issue and how the 1, 5 and 8 fit into buffering and how that fits into the goals that we set for that. I wanted to define that a little bit more for you with buffering. I hope that we do not wind up with a wall: a 2 mile wall on the south and north with nothing but higher d_en~ity situations where if we just see walls of that type of development. Similar to like what you see on 169 going north. There are occasion~ where you drive by ~ you see, you drive by for a mile and you see nothing but that type of development. I'd like to see a little bit, ff not different kind of zone, at least more creative uses of bcrmlng and trees. Plantings. Othcrwise I think we're defeating. We certainly would be defeating it just to do it on the north and not do it on the south at the same time. I would go back and support that we modify the recommendations on 2 to expand. I would encourage anyone to bring in, that we add onto that. Certainly the issue of the in--on and public safety and how this fits into the Highway 5 goals. That's the end of my comments. Mancino: Okay. Actually looking at that Jeff I can see where if you're going west, well actually east or west on Highway 15, that at least you have that big open space of wetland so that there will be some good viewing from Highway 5 to the south. The wetland will ~ that up. Paul, has anybody talked to the three homeowners on that south side of the frontage road that are to the east of this development? I mean as far as they're concerned. If I were a landowner on Galpin, on that west side of C-al~ and I saw the comprehensive plan and saw that it was guided single family and then all of a sudden it's going, it may be changed to 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October ~, 1993 medium density, have they been notified of this? Krauss: Well they've certainly been notified. Mancino: Have they been notified that there is a change that may be, the process may be starting. That sorrw~ne has come in and asked to put medium density. Krauss: We're not actually, Commiss/oner Mancino it's not actually clear to us exactly what's being changed. The guide plan has a l~esumption of road alignment for that east/west road. The current alignment has shifl~ and you know to the point where it's kind of lm'd to d_e~ne exactly where that line will be. And now knowing what we know about the wetlands here, there is no real, I mean we had anticipated and I remember when this came up in the comprehensive plan. We knew there was exteasive wetlands there but had some understanding that there were areas of high ground where cul-de-sac...w the south were able to be pulled in. We now know that area is entirely wetland and is forever pro~ected from development. So I think that the single family area, the low density area that we spoke about in the plan, in all likelihood doesn't exist. But we can provide you with some additional comparisons between. Mancino: Wcll and I also think that thc existing homeowners there should know that this, because if I look herc, the road went way up north and it would have had the medium density area in a much smaller. It would have just, it would have been a much smaller area so I'm just saying that I think these homeowners need to be able to respond to something that you'll be changing around thent Krauss: We can certainly do that. Mancino: And I'd like to hear. Krauss: I honestly don't know if people have been in contact with Kate or not. I know the last contact I had with anyone were the calls I received quite some time ago so it wasn't Mancino: So none of them have been con~ on this particuiar issue? Krauss: Other than the normal notice procedure, no. I don't believe so. Mancino: Okay. I agree with Jeff on the concern about setbacks and just how Highway 5 and Galpin and all of this is going to relate and how it's going to be a safe area. That there won't be a lot of noise. There won't be a lot of street lights, crc so I thinir a lot of attention 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 has to be paid to the landscaping and berming around the developmenL And any other, I don't have any other thoughts. New ones other than what he said. Scott: Okay. Matt Lcdvina: I guess I would also agree with Jeff's commcnta I think there's dcfinitely some safety concerns that we need to have addressed. Look~g at recommendation number 2, I'm a little concerned nbout the density and also the coverage, hard surfnce coverage. These units along the north look pretty fight to me in terms of how they're laid out. But I understand we're looking at a conceptual here but I just, and I know that's pan of your evaluation but that's a comment I'll w_s_ire at this time. And I had a question for Dave. As it relates to the driveways or thc accesses off the proposed frontage road. Is that number of accesses acceptable or how do you see that? Is that a problem? Hempel: We always encourage to reduce access points where we can...and it's a question of it being a collector fi'ontage wad like this. Ledvina: I look at it, it doesn't look wo bad on the east side but then on the west side, two of those driveways are ~ fight in there but I don't know. I think there's actually 3 driveways there. Krauss: Yeah. There's a mud of 7 curb cuts and I think the...~y willing to look at but it's these 3 possibly fight in here. Ledvina: Right. That's just something that I noficexi that I know it was an issue with one of the other developments we're going to see tonight but if that could be revisited in m-ms of safety. I guess other than that, I think this proposed development is certainly appropriate for the site and I would support the conceptual from this point. Scott: Okay. Diane. Harba~: My comments have been shared. I guess mine were basically in the public safety area. I noticed that the Fire Marshal noted the need for turn arounds. I think it was 14, 1 and 19. Dave, did you, did someone get a chance to maybe just look at that internal circulation? When the Fire Marshal put his memo together, did he look at the internal circulation to make sure that it was adequate for the vehicles and things like that? Hempel: He did briefly look at it and we had some conversations. The driveway entrance, the units on the south side of the frontage road, kind of in the east area. He was somewhat concerned about that. I recommended thai the loop sweep around the back of than and I 12 Phnning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 think that can be easily accomplished. Harberts: I guess mine were just to reinforce the public safety issues, circulation. I thinlr they're nice homes. Nice units. I think it's going to be positive so. Scott: Thank you. Mr. Blake, what is the furore of the project if let's say that the high ground where it looks like you've got 5 buildings slated. What if that's not profitable for you do build those? Are you still planning on, or is that something that you're considering, or what do you think is going to happen? Dan Blake. That would certainly be a big factor in thc doablcncss. I don't know if that's a word or not. Scott: It works. Dan Blake: One of the things we've talked with Park staff at least about, and I think with a little bit talked to the rest of the staff, especially when this was maybe going to be looked at as park. If this didn't get built, does the park department want it? They were looking at this entire wetland area as a park area. And if they did want it, would the city be interested, would the city be able to justify co~g a road across here. This is, in my rr~nd~ the most significant issue of this project which really has nothing to do with our project It's already been proclaimed that the road needs to get from here to here. So that issue stands no matter what goes on this site. If we drew, it can be built. That's ~y not a question as how expensive it is being built because we can do it, I believe we can do it within regulations, and ...even necessarily as much of a phnning issue as just a structural issue. But if it's too costly then we need to look at how does that affect obviously the cost of the whole project and the construction of this road through here. And sewer and water that go with it, that really are to be serve a bigger area is a big factor. You know this project may work by itself if it was just this piece and a road to here and that's something we looked at and I think we'll continue to work with the staff...what's the best combination. Scott: Okay. Well I support this. Approval of this conceptual plan so can I have a motion please. Dan Blake: Can I ask a question? Scott: Sure. Dan Blake: Pardon my ignorance but there's a lot of discussion about the Highway 5 impact and I know the city's been looking at that for a long time. We're a little confused. I don't 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 know if when you talk about more creative berming and landscaping, if that was more creative than what this plan here ~ts or ff that means more creative than what's out on 169. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be trying to hide these buildings or make them more a feature. I understand the objection, or I believe what I understand is that the city doesn't want maybe a bunch of 3 story fiat walled apartment buildings. Fammkes: I think the first statemeat probably than the last I would try to make, the typical guideline I think are goals are set out, and Paul might be able to provide you with that. Dan Blake: I _think we have them. Farmakes: I think the issue is to attempt to work that into the existing landscape and the existing landscape in many people's minds, although it's subjective, is probably more the wetland area than a development. People want to continue to see open areas, balanced areas and a mix as they drive through. I believe that they do not want to see a parallel wall of a single type of development covering it up just because it happens to be by the highway. I think you get a certain type of development and certainly I think ff we can get a mix of that going on and some, as I say some creative hiding of some of these issues. Parking. Some of the buildings themselves go a long way. This is not a huge developnumt plan so I'm not. Dan Blake: Right I mean we're talking about 3 buildings and..~facing ends to the highway. The higher peak or the fronts, which have a little more character and that was kind of our allempt to respond to the concerns of your staff. Farmakes: I think also your particular development is one of the first in this particular area that we've been discussing. Dan Blake: I realize that. That's why it's a little bit hard to know exac~y what... Scott: Well if you hide them, that's probably a good two word description of what Highway 5 task force is looking for. Mancino: Well yeah, not only from the Highway 5 perspective but from the homeowner's perspective too. We don't want to be looking onto this huge highway and having lxaffic noise and lights and everything else and the safety issues if there were children. Farmakes: Although we've been working on this now for, what is it? Going on 2 years now. We have yet to finalize but we're in the process of doing that now. Where those requirements are going so lead time may still be a bit out but I thinlr that there's a relative 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 199:3 concurrence at least for the most part as to what would be good to see inbetween Powers Boulevard and Highway 41. Highway 5 so, and I don't think that this is counter productive. I just would like to see us refine that more as to where those buildings meet up with the highway. And I see that as additional information to come so I personally have no problems with this and I'd entertain any motion. If somebody wants to do it other than modifying 2. I would fully support staff's recommendation. Scott: Okay. If someone wants to take a whack at a motion. Ledvina: I would recommend that the Planning Cornmi~aion recommend that the City Coundl approval of the conceptual planned unit development/FF3-5. The applicant being Centex Re~ Estate Corporation subject to tho conditions outlined in the staff report with modification to condition number 2 to read, the applicant shall submit additional inform _s_ _ti on and more detail on issues such as tree inventory, perspectives from Highway 5, compliance with Highway 5 goals, traffic considerations for the Highway 5/Cmlpin Boulevard intersection, public safety issues as it relates to increased traffic on C. mlp~ Boulevard and the proposed frontage road. Also, as it relates to density and i .mlervious stuface ratio. Mandno: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi~fi~'on recommend approval of Conceptual PUD ~-~ subject to the following conditions: Xe The applicant should confirm soft conditions and wetland boundaries on the site prior to preliminary plat submittal. The applicant ~ ~ubmit additional information and more detail on hsues such as tree inventory, per~pectiv~ f~m Highway 5, compliance with Highway $ goals, traffic conai~mfl~ for the Highway $/Galpin Boulevard in--on, public safety issues aa it relatea to incretmed tml~c on Galpin Boulevard and the pro~ frontage road. Also, tm it relates to density and impervious surface ratio. The area to be mitigated should be dedgned with areas of deeper pockets to trap additional sediment and nutrient loading that will occur as a xcmiit of thc development. The mitigated areas should also have diverse contotuing to allow for the establhhment of different vegetative zones. The storm water pond must meet NURP standards. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet (average width of 10 feet) around the wetland is required by thc city with an additional s~ setback beyond the buffer strip of 40 feet. 4. An additional trail easement (20 feet wide) should be congdcred along Galpin 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Boulevard as well as space for berming and landscaping. e The applicant should formally petition the City as soon as possible for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service if they ~sixe service by next s~. 6. The frontage road should be designed and constructed to meet Sm~ Aid standards. e All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's Sumdard Specifications and Detail Plates. All storm sewer systems shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and storm water retention pond shall be designed to meet thc City's water quality standards (NURP). e The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide thc financial security to guarantee corr?~isnce with the conditions stipulated in the development contract. 9. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal memo dated September 23, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official memo dated September 27, 1993. 11. Compliance with the PUD and Highway 5 Deign Standards and respond to other issues raised in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PyBLIC HEARING; CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED HIGH DEN$1TY {190 DWE~G UNITS) AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES ON 6:2.05 ACRF~ OF PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND A2 AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86FH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF IIIGHWAY 101 AT 80'tH STREET, btISSlON HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIE~, Public Present: Ns~me Address 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Dick Putnam Don Jenson Greg Pskekke Dennis Mm'hula Al Kliagelhutz Greg Blaufuss Dave Nickolay David Nagel Jo and Mike Mu31igan Bob Armstrong Mark Jesberg Jo Larson Rottlund Homes Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services 8600 Gre~ Plains Blvd. 7116 Utica Lane 8500 Tigua Circle 8550 Tigun Circle 8400 Great Plains Blvd. 8407 Great Plains Blvd. 8590 Tigua Circle Shannin A1-Jaff presented thc staff report on this item. Chnimum Scott called the public hearing to order. Dick Putnam: Mr. Chninrmn, my name is Dick Putnam. One of the partners in Tandem Properties. Don Jenson from Rottlund Homes is here this evening and can explain a little bit about the unit types, particularly the new townhouse version that's been added to the plan. Greg Pksekke and Dennis Marhula are here also from Westwood Engineering if there's any technical questions. Al Klingelhutz who's one of the underlying owners of the property is here also and would be the owner that retains the commercial site. I think to rnal~ my presentation go fairly quickly, because I think the staff report highlighted a number of things. What I'd like to do, if I could, is point out to you tn'icily the changes between the first site plan, which is fight here, and the second one. It's sort of the good news, bad news joke. The good news is, we've made a number of the changes. I think we've i ,mlm~ed the plan dramati~y. The bad news is, we have more units. And someone asked, well how do you do that? Is it a slight of hand or smoke and mirrors? What it is is looking at the boundaries of the site. Urflilm most site8 that you have that can't expand and conUacC Because we have a freeway on our south side and TH 101, or the proposed new TH 101 on our west side, and 86th Street can move because it's going to be relocated, we have the luxury of I guess efficiently moving some boundary lines around a little bit to work. That plus a~d_ding a third unit type in the townhouses allowed us to utiliT~ the site much bettex than before. If you noticed before there were a number of, because of the way the buildings laid in there geometrically. If you think of using a square peg in a round hole, ltmt's sort of the situation. Whereas this one, by changing the bnildings and using different types, we were able to make it work a little bit bettex. If I could just start and sort of refer to the letter of October 4th that we had written. The changes, let's take the road changes first of all 86th Street in the previous plan looked tike it was into the wetland area. This one has been moved and the sidewalks so there will be no construction in the wetland area...to the north. Highway 101. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 20, 199~ What was shown in the original plan was a 250 right-of-way in width. And this curve right here, on the commercial area was of a particular degree. What this plan reflects is a 200 foot right-of-way for TH 101, leaving a 50 foot buffer strip from the existing right-of-way and 150 foot for the new roadway. In talking with the en~n_eedng staff and with Mr. Hoisington, that dimension works. The reason it was 250 before was to take in slope easement and construction. Well, we'll be doing that before the road is built so that wasn't necessary. Also the curve in this location has been changed slightly on the commewial and actually it's straight now for a distance coming up from the intersection- Rather than starting a curve like you see here. And then the curve proceeds up this way. Another thing that was done is the access we believe to thc conmlercial site was greatly in*tpwved, both from the city's standpoint and also for the property owner Mr. Klingelhutz. We've added an in/out about halfway between freeway ramps and 86th Street. Mr. Klingelhutz has reviewed that I believe with the staff and also with the State Highway Department and that's acceptable to them. Likewise we moved the access into the commercial area off of 86th Street. Before it was pulled way back and shared the access with the residential street. It's not been moved up to this location and has it's own access point in. One of the things that was brought up in the staff report before was that in the original plan they weren't sure that there was enough right- of-way and room for additional turn lanes if they were necessary because the commewial in this one which we're showing is a 80 foot right-of-way to the commerdal enUance and then a 60 foot that goes down to Tigua and the balance of the pwper~. The 80 foot would allow more than adequate spacing for the turn lanes that may or may not be needed. Internally the road system, before there was a central loop that you see on the north side and a loop on the south side. That has been retained but we've done it in a little different manner. The street that runs to thc north, and we'll just call it our new residen~ street, was pulled over slightly. Anywhere from 25 to 40 feet to make the lots adjacent to the 3 lots along Tigua deeper and allow us, at the last meeting the suggestion was msde that we should look at using a 20,000 square foot lot instead of a 15,000 square foot adjacent to thc existing home. We've done that we, in the process, took one lot out of here and one lot out of this area and these lots will now be 20,000 square feet. Also relative to that we had conversations with a couple of the homeowners there that expressed some concerns about the way the single family wodaxi with it and maybe if I could just quickly use the overhead. This is just a plat of the Tigua Lane area and then approximately how our road SySteiTl corning Off of 86th Stre~ going north would fit in with that- One of the issues that was raised was would it make more sense for these 3 homeowners to bring the north/south street over to their boundary line as a buffer or separation with their homes. And possibly the opportunity to subdivide if we needed to in the furore. I discussed that with two of the owners. I think the conclusion was that maybe that wasn't as good an idea as it sounded so in~td what was discussed with one of the owners and if all would like, is really putting in a low security fence like a chain link fence, 4 foot tall or whatever, that really defines their property and keeps the trespass issue out. It wouldn't be something that sticks out. Do it out of the black material so it doesn't stick out 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 and would provide that separation. I think the issue of brining the mad over though, I'm assuming at least was sort of resolved and probably didn't make a whole lot of sense. With that, if you see, just an excerpt of the ~hensive plan. This north/~u~ street is right here. This is Tigua. The intent of that is to connect back over to TH 101 through the adjacent parcel and that's something that can work and happen. Presently we just have a temporary cul-de-sac there and in the future it could be extended by that property owner. One of the things, and I might just as well jump forward here. One of the beauties of your concept stage is we can make changes real quicldy. As the staff had discussed, in the villa home area it was brought to our atten~n that because it was medium density, the 30% site coverage was required. We looked at that. Also I had a conversation with the property owner adjacent to us here about eliminating a driveway that was proposed here and here and said we could do that and that would allow a berm to wrap around that area. What, in just talking with the staff in the last day actually, and dealing with the site coverage issue. What I guess we would propose to do is ~ couple things. It solves ~ couple issues that were raised. The Larsons that live here had a concern just what their view as of thc units that were there. What we did is pulled out the 8 unit villa home and we took out a 8 nnit villa home here also. Again, by adding the townhouses which Don Jenson will talk about a little bit, it's giveo us a lot of flexibility to mix very corr~ atible housing types that are all ttifferent dzes and shapes. That allows us I think to do some _things, So what this shows is two 4 nnit townhouse b~ilttings here with an access off of the internal street and then one 4 nnit b~ilttlng here, access off the internal street That opens up an area that's about haft the size of a foo~ field as part of an open space area and allows the trail connection through thi~ location to go into the land adjacent to us that may be oity park in the future and oontinues that trail out of this open space area and the oenter of the site with totlot and benches and picnic area. That would reduce the density from 144 units total to 136 and would bring this area into that 8 unit medium d~ty category and would meet that intent. I think it also, it hnproves the plan. I mean there's no question. I again adds more open space around the pond and then the marsh that's there and puts the townhouse nnits up a little bit closer. Getting into the changes in the plan itself and I think they're quite numerous when you look at them. The comments were made at the previous meeting, that were very valid, that 86th Street was funotioning as a driveway for these multi-family buildings by having driveways going out to it. There's really no way to do much screening or softening of those buildings with that kind of a plan. So we turned around and in hot changed the whole idea of it. Oriented everything internal on both sites and were able to have the berming and landscaping along both TH 212 and Highway 101 which were proposed before. But also extend that now with a combination of ponds and bering, landscaped, what have you, along both sides of 86th Sueec With the ends of the bni~alngs in most cases adjacent to the road. Ha~ there's the townhouse units and here. It should present really a very nice boulevard entrance road. And I guess we felt that that was a good criticism of the tnvvious plan that we could work to alleviate. And I think that's done a pretty good job of that. Thc same thing holds true to TH 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 101. The buildings in this location again are end loaded to TH 101 with the berm so that you get what I think will be a nice boulevard appearance. The wegands provide, that are adjacent to 86th now, provide just a real nice separation and something the nnits call orient to. And if you retain that and make it an asset to the site, it should be real positive. One of the things that we also tried to do was to reduce the number of the larger buildings. I think in here it talks about the percentages but for example on the north side of the road there were 5 of the 8 nnit buildings, or the larger buildings and let's see, 5 of the smaller, 4 nnlt_ bnildlngs. What we've done with this plan is reduced the number of the large bnildings to 2 and increased the number of the smaller buildings, the 4 unit bnildings, 10 of those versus 2. So we've broken down the large number of bnildings and made them smaller bnildings. Likewise we've done the same thing on the south site. If I get this right, I think thcre are four 12 unit buildings now. The 8 unit buildings are these and then we've added now it would be, I should count these~ 32 townhouse units. I think we just increase that by doing thi~. 38. So there's slightly more of those. I think when, 1'11 ask Don to maybe cxplain to you briefly what that unit looks like and how it works. It allows us to do some things that wc weren't able to do with the larger buildings on this site just because of the tightness. Sandwiched between the freeway and the pond and the pond and the cormncrcial area. All of that allowed us to really I think do a ~ job of site planning. The commercial area, I believe that staff has met with Mr. Klingelhutz and I think they have a meeting of the minds as to what is actually envisioned on this site. It's a waiting game for all of us to see when 212 is actually scheduled. When 101 is improved in those areas and I think he's certainly amenable to waiting to have that occur. In the rnean~ the wetland that is located right in this area, which was the one refen~ to that was being filled, we aren't filling it. Neither is Mr. glingelhutz. The only way that's really going to be filled is if 101 goes through it and that won't be us doing it so we're not mitigating a wetland because we aren't filling it. Our construction won't do anything to that at this point. In fact it's a good way to tell where 86th Street will come in in the future if you go out and look at where that little depression is. 86th today the intersection is way down here so the new one's up here. I guess at this point I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Or entertain any suggestions before I turn it over to Don to just briefly show you the new units. Harberts: I have a question for staff. Paul can you, thc park and ride lot that's mapped on l01 and 212, is that just south of that outlot? Krauss: It's on the south side of the highway. If you imagine a clover leaf interchange, this is the northeast quadrant. The park and ride is in the southeast. Harberts: I think it's mapped for what, 200 cars? Krauss: I honestly don't know the size. That sounds about right, h's honestly in a state of Plszning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 flux. MnDot's got a few designs that they're trying to work out with l'un Ckm'y who owns Harberts: Okay, thanks. Mancino: Sharmin where is the, on Block 3, Lot 3 to the west of that is this lot that's already here with an existing home. What's the access to that home? It's on the north side of, do you see where I mean? Al-Jail: Where the horse farm is? Mancino: Yeah. Al-$aff: It's off of 101. Mancino: It is off of 101, okay. Farmakes: The trails that you have showing are on there that show up in the...is that, who's going to be maintaining those? Is that part of the developed project or is that? Al-laff: Homeowners Association. Farmakes: Okay. $o that's not a park issue? Al-laff: No. Dick Pumam: The only trails that fall into the public I guess would be the one along 86th Street and then the one going north on the new north/south street. And whatever happens if that parkland develops to the east of us. Mancino: Another question about that. Well first about, is there enough parking? Excess parking for this plan as it exist? I mean I don't see a lot of extra parking. Do we know if we're close7 Dick Pumam: We'll meet or exceed your ordinance because a number of these units have 2 car garages. AI-Jaff: And then there is off, on the street parking as well Dick Putnam: That's what these little perpendi~ stalls that you see idnd of scattered 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 around indicate, is the off street parking. Mancino: Thank you. Dick Pumam: Guest. Those are actually the guest spaces as opposed to the garage and the space in front. Let me ask Don to real quickly explain to you the difference in the townhouse Don Jenson: Don Jenson with the Rottlund Company. What we passed out in the folder is our latest newsletm' which came out ~ince our last meeting. It highlights the project that we have in Inver Crrove Heights where this particular product that we're also u'~g on this site was first introduced for us. We did see a need for it. Rottlund did come up with a blend of the back to back that still wodr~ with our villa line of housing and that's what the ~ townhome has done. Both in the Mission I-lills as well as other neighborhoods. The garden home itself, which is what we feel is a strong replacement for a housing need, is also profiled in the newsletter in the center. And then we had a graphic that was highlighted which showed really the scale of the end elevation, the side elevation if you will, from the villa building in the back to back form. The garden home which is still back to back design and the single family which of course is all part of this master plan. In response to the Planning Commission and in response also to some of the neighborhood, there was a question of well, shouldn't we have a slightly more different mit here and we were a little bit concerned of trying to make sure we could reach a wide spectrum of potential buyers. $o we agreed that we would see how well this particular product works. It's not been built yet. It is one that we hope will be well received in the marketplace. It is the, it ~ if you will then four different unit size types. We still have within the back to back villa design and these locations through here. Units that are a little bit over 1,050 square feet in the inlm'ior home and about 1,080 square feet in the end home. One car garage, two car garages. When we go with the buildings that are being called the villa townhome in this plan, they jump up about another 1,000 square feet apiece so that the interior dwelling unit, which still has a one car garage, is about 1,185 square feet as it starts out and we're up to about 1,250 square feet on the end home again with a two car garage. So in~ad of having one or the either building type, trying to reach both markets, what we're able to do is have 4 r~iir'er~t interior floor plans. The added benefit that we get with this particular b~ilHing, from a planning perspective is that we then turn the patios to the flip side of the building so inatead of back to back, which has a back wall, we then have a facade on the outside. That of course increases the obvious price of the dwelling itself but we felt with some of the amenities that we had on Minimizing the amount of impervious surface, separating the ddveways...done to the site plan and the locations and the main entry points through here as well as our ability to buffer and Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19~ deal with some of the dimensional oonstrs~nts that we had, is that it provided an excellent opportunity for the front facades on tho intm'nal str~'ts match. That was our intent and goal so that driving through the~'s not a ~tion of a great deal of difference between the dwelling units. Once you get inside, the buyers have a reasonable choice and what we have with that mix at this revised total of 132 dwelling units, is we still have close to 100 of our back to back buildings. Roughly 92 if my math was correct And we still have about 48 of this new villa townhome. So there's going to be, instead of a price gap, which is really relative to land use but everybody always ask, it's going to create about 4 different tiers of pricing for us and I thinir that that's what allows this to be in the neighborhood and still be a real comfortable mix as far as we're concerned as the builder and that we would be able to have success in moving through the neighborhood and getting it completed in a reasonable time frame. The one element that is missing in terms of a unit mix, on the north the site plan is benefitted by looking at the majority of the end units is that we're not able to bring as many one car garages in the garden home plan forward and we'll have to look at another site in order to accomplish that. Our buyer that we're looking for for that particular product with the one car p, amge is really widower or a widow, someone who's never marriexL They're really pretty set. It's an older buyer and there's not really a need to force a 2 car garage onto those particular segment of the population. It's not necessary and price is real important to people as they're downsi~.i-g. Regardless, I think it's a good chance for us to bring a new produce We did, as we mentioned last time, find that about 10% to 15% of all the buyers that came to any given neighborhood of our villas, which would be on what we're having on the south, were people of a little bit older age bracket and primarily they were buying on price. They wanted the newer bathroom ~ties. Newer kitchen facilitiea They wanted to rnai~ sure they had a...priced home under $100,000.00. In most cases under $80,000.00. They wanted the maintenance done for themselves. They didn't want to shovel snow or tak~ care of the lawn. Any of that anymore. I'm sure Centex plans the same thing..~-a so what we were able to do with the garden home is stay within that square footage total and hopefully...builaing products pricing in line with that so the people could get one level living, rather than two level living, and that's the whole mason for the garden home being created at Rottlund. So I guess that highlights our changes. Of course the scale of this builtting on the villa townhome. It's narrower. It's really not a whole lot ai~erent than single family home in it's overall width. The overall height...about 35 feet. Not a whole lot different than a two story walkout type home from the back. Patio's on the back side looking at the srnenities to the site. Interior floor plans. Four aifferent ones for this p~ unit. We do have the other elevations behind here if you wanted to be rm~inded of it but we had the photograph of the ~ to back in the packet there that we used ~ously and how well this happens to fit with it. This does have a little bit more of the gable ends which was a focus for some folks as to what the exterior facades ought to be. Scott: Any comments f~om the Planning Commission7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Farmakes: Can we be brought up to speed again on park commitment in relationship to the park7 I believe the park issue was forfeited in ~his case, correct7 Not forfeited but, could you just go over that again where that stands ourenfly. Al-laff: When thc Park and Recreation Commission looked at this, they said yes. This area is park deficient. However, the area east of Mission Hills is desi~ for future park and they didn't see any need to take any parkland on this specific site. Mancino: I think we were the ones that requested some son of an amenity. Farmakes: I like what happened down, I'll save that for my comments. Krauss: The Park Board also did request that there were some private recreational facilities added and that's been addressed. Scot~ Okay. This is a public hearing so if there are members of the general public who would like to ask questions, please come forward. Stale your name and your address in the microphone and ask away. Or comment away. Bob Armstrong: My name is Bob Arms~ng. I live at 8400 Great Plains Boulevard and I was wondering what, I'd like to talk specifically about the north side of this project that comes up to TH 101. I was wondering how it was decided to put this 200 feet from the old Highway 101. Scott: I guess my thought is that's just the reconunended route of the new, yet to be built, Highway 101. Krauss: Well, yeah. I meam we're in a position of MnDot isn't as far along as the city or as individual property owners are and we worked with MnDot to do an analysis of where TH 101 should be. It was completed 4 1/2 years ago, 5 years ago. Wc're ctarently in the process of updating that a little bit and we worked with MnDot in the intervening years to refine the interchange design which kind of orients everything. And what this project is based upon the current...of MnDot's current dedgn status of...which is the one that's going through the EIS and this is where they're at fight now. This is what they plan to do. And to an extent the way development occurs along there is going to tell MnDot, or whoever builds TH 101, this is where it's going to be. We don't have a quarter mile on either side. Bob Armstrong: And that's kind of where I was getting at. About 4 1/2 years ago we decided, through one of these processes, that Highway 101, the new alignment was going to go farther east. This project now has pushed it north. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: This project isn't pushing anything anywhere but what changed in the int~rvenlng years is when MnDot was aligned, was doing final design. Final prelimins~y desist, n; or whatever MnDot calls it, for the interchange, they changed the orientation of it a little bit and it's the alignment of how TH 101 crosses the 212 corridor and how the off ramps connect onto those. Bob Armstrong: You're saying you have a better cra'yes and accesses to 2127 Is that why this is being pushed this way? Krauss: In part. They refine how the ramps were corning off of 212. They refined how intersections would occur with 86th Street and would eliminal~ Lake Susan Hills and it basically reoriented the interchange by a few degrees. Where the roadway goes from that point or north of 86th Street up to what we built last year down by the creek, that's open to some analysis right now. We've got four al~ves on the board that we're loolring at, any of which can be built in what's being proposed here. Bob Armstrong: This project here doesn't give any of those 4 alternatives. This cuts you down to 1. There is no alternative if this thing goes through the way it is. To 101. Krauss: No, I don't think that's true. We've had, Fred Hoisington is working on developing those 4 altm~mtives for us as is planned and has dealt with us on that. Bob Armstrong: And I could be wrong but I think that this thing only lets you come, you know when you're saying we're not going to be doing the wetland. Originally that road was going to go between those two pieces of wetland. Now you're forcing the road to go through that wetland and these houses arc being taken another 50 feet away than I am and reduce that ...by warrant. And here's another vicarious little problem. There are two people that are going to lose their homes because of this deal If this road now is pushed over that way. At least. Krauss: No, that's not the case. Well, they may in fact lose their homes... Bob Armstrong: Then what are you going to say to those people? Why are they losing their homes? Krauss: They may in fact lose their homes depending on which ali~ment is talam. They're considerably north of here and where this is being shown over here has no bearing and you could still pick any of the 4 alternatives that are being looked at. It's just a ms__tt~' of ben_ding back to the west and getting onto the original alignment or the existing 101 alignment or the Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 other two alternatives that arc being looked at. This alternafivc, this development is not limiting those choices at all Scorn Paul, would it be appropriate, at least my understanding is that MnDot is basically going to call the shots for the location of and foot the bill for the portion of 101 that goes from the 212/101 interchange up to 86th. Krauss: That's correcL Sco~ And then what happens after that, we're obviously trying to parmer with them. We don't know. The city of Chanhassen may have to pay for it. Krauss: We're trying to put thc city, as residents, in the driver's seat of dec~aing where the city thinks it's going to go because I think what's going to happen is MnDot's going to punt on it and it's largely going to be a local decision. Scott: Yeah. And that's because even though it's called State Highway 101, thc State of Minnesota considers it to be a temporary highway, is that the? Krauss: Since 1934. Scott: Yeah, so it's not something that they want to have responsibility for so that's why it puts us in kind of a strange situation as far as funding and siting and locating the section north of 86th. Or where 86th will now be. Krauss: The intent or the crux of the question, this is not limiting our alternatives but we can certainly provide that information when this comes back again. We'll overlay the alternatives. In fact we're trying to have some additional meetings with the neighborhood on that with Fred Hoisington so that's in the process too. Bob Armstrong: Then I guess that's my point. I would really like to see how, what this does to your options for 101 and you've got it down to a pretty tight corridor there towards that industrial complex. Scott: In looking at it, it looks like there's about, and I'm just going to eyeball it here. It looks like there's about 700 feet from the intersection of 86th Street to thc northern border of thc project and I, perhaps thc folks from Tandem can correct me~ I'm just kind of eye bailing. Say there's a 200 foot easement for the highway. So that's a rehtivcly small section when you consider what's going to be happening north of that. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Bob Armstrong: And again I would really like you to take and consider, to really understand where and how 101 would look going through there and if you let this pazkway go through; you've got...you don't have very many choices the way I see it. And we can see an overlay. I'd be happy too. Krauss: We can ~y provide that. There's one that's not really repred~le. It's in the staff report and we can cenainly...to thc gentleman right now. But ~is does not limit the option. Bob ~ng: Okay. Scott: Is there anybody else who'd like to comment7 Dave Nickolay: My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8~30 Tigua Circle and I'd first of all like to ask the commission members if you've received the leuers that I directed to you? Scott: One is a hand written, 4 page. Dave Niokolay: I've directed 3 letters to you...came before you on August 18th and you had a let~ at that time. And then we were rescheduled, I directed a lett~ to you at the ~g in September. Scott: In our packet we have one ~ dated September 13th, but that's from, it looks like a David NageL And then there's a second letter dated Sep~ 12th that is from, I guess you and Sharon. And then we received via mail a letter also. So I guess we've received two letters from you. Dave Nickolay: And I fa,xed a letter to Sharmin and asked her to distribute that letter dated October 17th. Scott: Is that the one that was mailed to us? Al-Jaff: Yes. Scott: Okay. Dave Nickolay: I just wanted to make sure that you have those. And before I get started to address, which I think I addressed in all three letters to you, which I believe are consistent and I haven't changed my position since I came before you before. I just want to respond to Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 a discussion I had with Sharmin on Monday. In all the letters I've requesled a written response to my concerns and questions and it wasn't until Monday that in talking to Sharrnin that I discovered that that's not staff's position to respond in writing when someone like myself requests that so I've asked her, so it isn't her fault in terms of the way I've resmteA my last le_tt__et_ to you, which was a little bit stronger, who's supposed to be representing me? A resident of Chanhassen. I was not getting my questions answered by the city, okay? I've talked to Sharmin about that and she's going to address some of those issues, or direct other members of staff that I would like a written response to the issues that I've raised in the letters. She faxed me a copy of the staff report on Monday. I spent Monday evening re_~tting that and that was the first time, and that's maybe my naivety in this whole process, that I really started to understand the magnitude and the scope of thi~ Before that I'm dealing with public notices that are very ~hy. We don't know if we're talking about 190 units. Are we talking about 216 units? We're piecing this thing on the fly so it's very ~t for me to keep track of this. And so I'm asking staff and also for your coopera~n. I'd like to get some written responses to the questions and issues that I've raised. And I've not talked to Mr. Pumarn and the developers because up to this point I don't think the issues that I'm raising have to do with the developer. I'd rather woflc with the staff and the Planning Commission and if as a result of the actions that you take you direct us to work as neighbors here with the developer and staff, I'm more than willing to do that so I'd just like to start out with those opening comments. I've seen I think 5 different points in the recent letter to you and it should be consistent with the points I made originally. The first point, and I'm going to go through these real quickly so I appreciate your time and..~in the letter. The type of proposed development here, the density, the high density aspect of this is a major concern to me. I have the largest piece of property that borders this devel~t and the furore, that they extend the road that they just showed us here. I have 4 1/2 acres and I still feel, which is under my point number 2 in my letter, that there is an inadequate transition plan from the size property that I have and 1'11 let my neighbors speak for themselves in terms of their properties, The removal of one lot down from 8 to 7 I think it is, is not in my mind_ adequate transition plan. A fence is, that's okay but we'll talk about the fence issues in the future. We're not lalking about the real issue here and the real issue here is when I tnuchased my property 12 years ago and when I attended the ~gs when the co ,ml, rehen~ve plan was changing, I did not have a vision or was I led to believe that this type of high density would be put in such a small area. We're ? units. We have the capacity for 8 units on 40 acres and your report is detail enough. You can look at how many acres you're talking about here and how many units are going onto this. That still continues to be a major concern that I have. My point number 3, I disagree with the Park's reconnnendation. For the size of _this development and the number of people that are going to be here, and the uncertainty of that future park east of Rice Marsh Lake, the current path system that will go down on the south side of West 86th Sueet is going to make and push all those people down onto Tigua Circle. We're a dead end cul-de-sac. Where are those people going to go? They're going to end up 28 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19~t having, because of the discontinuation of the park trail with no plan for the future, there's nowhere for them to go but down into our neighborhood. And yes, I can live with a few neighbors. I can't live with 216 neighbors. The number of people that will be in these units. My fourth point is a large portion of this proposed dcvelopmcnt is the, what I'm viewing as a buffcr against the new Highway 212. It's on the news tonight as I'm coming home, unless the Governor and the legislature gets together on the gas tax, there is not going to be a new Highway 212 for anywhere in the near future. And so that highway is a long ways from being built and I'm really discouraged what I just heard here a few minutes ago in terms of the fellow that was up here before me. That the developers are going to drive where the highways are located. I think that's backwarcL That's what I thought ! just heard. Maybe I heard wrong. But whether it's Highway 101 or Highway 212, that's a concern that I have. Something that I just discovered tonight as I was listening to the report The buffer that is supposedly being provided between our three lots that border this and the Rice Lake Manor development and the 7 lots, were extended to 20,000 square feet. Well, were they extended to 20,000 square feet because of the sidewalk that is part of some uail that I have never heard of. I've not seen plotted anywhere. So were they extended from 15,000 to 20,000 because of the trail or were they extended to appease us in terms of some transitional plan7 I'm unclear on that. My final point is the current Highway 101 is totally insdequate to handle this kind of traffic. How are we going to turn off of 101 with this many people or gain access onto Highway 101 in it's current form? I can see in the future when it's upgraded, we have turn lanes, we have signal lights or whatever but in it's current form, just simply realigning West 86th Street and extending it into 101 is not going to be a solution. Beyond that I guess I'm looking to the Planning Commission to represent us the current owners of pwperty that are directly adjacent to this development and to do what you view is right. I strongly feel that this is not the right use for this type of land. It wasn't what I had envisioned when I originally built there. But I ask your cooperation in terms of looking at those of us that are there and the whole complexity of this project. We're literally going to be boxed in and I suongly feel that that changes the whole complexity of what Rice Marsh Lake was originally plotted for. We're just putting down another development next to a development that's already there and they do not look alike in any form or fashion- So I guess we'll take...~m the last commission meeting. I wasn't spedfic about what I was to ask for. I'm asking you to deny this request. It still has a lot of work to be done. I know understand the difference between a, what is this called again? The plan. It's called a concept plan. I found out on Monday that a concept plan is just that" You look at a concept and you either approve it or disapprove it. Make the changes to it. It goes to the Council and then I understand you start all over again. We come back before you again. Monday was the first time I found that out so I'm struggling with this. I'm trying to figure it out and understand it and I'm asking your cooperation in helping us deal with the issues that we've raised. So with that I want to thank you for your attention. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Scott: Good. Mancino: Should we have slaff address some of those? Scott: Yeah, I was just going to say. First question was the density as proposed being too high. I think Sharmin, in your staff report you addressed the, it looks like we have three different density, or at least 2 different density reqtfirements and your conunents, maybe you could restate your comments relative ~o the density. Al-1aff: Okay. Dick Pumam: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could help too just by answering the questions, if you would like. Scott: I think we were talking more about the comlne, hensive plan and city ordinances. Al-Is/f: Correct. This was studied in detail when the preparation of the Year 2000 guide plan in the comprehensive plan took place and that was in 1989-1990. Basically the area that is, and I'll point that on the plan. This area was guided medium density. Scott: And medium density is? Al-Jaff: 4 to 8 units per acre. Thi, area was guided for single family units and that would be 2 to 4 units per acre. 0 tO 4 nnits per acre. Scott: When you kind of made that sweep, we're talking about the single family area as pan of Mission and the existing developrramt f~r Rice Lake Manor. You kind of moved your hand around there and I was. You're talking right there? Al-Jaff: CorrecL The single family area. Everything else west of the single family area as well as this red line to west of the ~ area is proposed for medimn and high density and that is 8 to 16 units per acre. Scott: So it's part of the comprehen~ve plan basically? Al-$aff: C~ Scott: What we see is we sec large lot, low density, medium, high so it's a transition toward the highway. 3O Planning Commi~ion Meeting - October 20, 1993 Al-Jaff: Correct. I would also like to point out that Rice Lake Manor is built residen~ single family. Therefore under the zoning ordinan~ they could, if they should hook up to water and if they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, they could subdivide their lots, Mancino: So all 7 lots could subdivide? AI-Jaff: If they meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance, yes they can. Scott: Next question is a related question. Being the transition between the development and Rice Lake Manor. So basically what we're saying is we've got residen~ single fan-dly over at Rice Lake. And then we have ~tial single family here and then kitty corner we're talking about medium density. AI-Jaff: Coxrecc Scott: So your comments on the transition. AI-Jaff: The applicant has reduced the number of units from 18 to 16. The ordinance would allow them to put in 15,000 square foot lots. They are providing 20,000 square foot lots. Single family separating single family from a higher density is an adequate transitional area. Mancino: Well and actually, the single family on the east or Rice Lak~ Manor could subdivide to even smaller lot sizes than what we have seen proposed? Al-Jail: Correct. If they n,,e6t. Mancino: If they wanted to. At a future date if those 7 lots wanted to subdivide, they could subdivide into 15,000, is that correct7 Krauss: That is true. We're not sure if all the lots have that ability depending on where the homes are but there are some. I also think you've got to keep in perspective, Chanhas~n had one of the largest single family lot sizes in the Twin Cities. We take a lot of hits relative to regional issues about the elitism of having half acre lots or qtmner, third acre lots as a requirement. Now it's something that thc community feels real strongly about and it's a charac~tic that we've maintained. Well I guess I get a little bit concerned when we boar well that's still not big enough. It ought to bc bigger and it ought to bc bigger by nature of thc fact that it's next door to somebody else if the ordinance applies, unless you happen to be next to somebody with a different situation. We can't apply ordinances like that. I mean the standard lot dimeasion in Chanhassen is 15,000 square feet. The lot's being proposed exceed that. We're buffering a single family neighborhood with a single family neighborhood. I 31 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 think that to thc extent that thc traditional planning approach calls for a hierarchy of uses, you have a case fight there where it's being done. Scott: And then also the impetus for the change from the 15,000 square foot lots that we saw in August to the 20,000 is basically about public input, Planning Commission input and so forth. And then also too, basically from what I understand. One lot was removed from Block 2. The street was ~ to increase the lot size. And then the trail was added due to input from the Park and Rec. That was another issue. Now as far as the Park and Rec Department has determined that this meets their park and rec requirement with the trail around the nature wetland. The picnic area if you will there. What is the status, does the City of Chanhassen own the property that is, they're in negotiation? Krauss: No, I wouldn't even say that. We met with the owner of the property a couple of times and it's, to the best of my knowledge all of the land was designated, or most of it is ac_ms~ly connected throul~ Lake Riley I41~h Apartments. The same partnership that owns that and the adjacent property. That goes all the way up to Rice Marsh Lake. They know, in fact we had their atwmey in here complslnlng about the co .mprehensive plan. They know that that area is cle~gnated for future park acquisition. I think we're in the minds~-~t right now, unless the Park Board comes into a signitqcant store of cash, which is unlikely, that while we're expecting 212 to be built in a somewhat reasonable time frame, as Mr. Nickolay points out, it keeps getting pushed back now. But 212 is going to sever the ap~t from this property and make it fairly inaccessible. We have every ~tion, or hope I should say, that we can work out an arrangement with MnDot where MnDot through the condemnation process would buy the entirety of that site Izcause it has no legitimate developable access from the property owners and then in turn sell them to the city. Or that we would be in a position to purchase that property. Scott: Okay. Are there any other comments from the public on this particular issue? lo Larson: My name is lo Larson and I live at 8590 Tigua Circle. I'm a little questionable, or unsure about whether the lots on Tigua Circle can subdivide or not. I know that you're saying if they meet the minimum lot standards but I think we may have covenants in our development. I'm not sure but one neighbor had mentioned to me once that they were told by the original developer that he made it so they cannot subdivide it. And so I don't know if it can or not be but I don't want you to assume that they can be subdivided because they not be able to. Another concern I have is, I don't quite underslaud about the land to the east. If that is clesi~ for futura parkland or not. I do know fln~er east that the Slate does own land abutted fight up to the Eden Prairie line. I know the State does own that and maybe in the future the city will be getting that back but I'm not too sure about the land right to the south of me and there's one parceL..more to the east. I'm not sum if that is planned for 32 Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 20, 1993 furore park or not at all and I just would like the develop~ to check on those. Scott: Can you respond to that Paul7 Krauss: To a point. I think the best thing we can do is bring maps to a future meeting or to thc meeting with thc neighbors because they're illustrauxi better. The park that we talk~ about is south of Rice Marsh Lake Park is designated. It is shown on the comprehensive plan. We do not own it. We would like to. We do not have access to it at this point. We would like W. Eden Prairie is working on a comparable park facility on the/r side of the city line which would form the east boundary of this park and they're working with MnDot to put a trail that comes around that Bear Path development. The golf course development and goes underneath the fuv. u-e 212 and would enter into the common ~ line of the park we're proposing and what they're looking at doing. The State does own some of the land on the Eden Prairie side and I think that was because there's a program called the RALF tim& It's an early buy program for protecting fight-of-way. We also have that availabih'ty of funding here but we haven't been petitioned by pwperty owners to do it. So we, the State does not own any of the land in Chauhassen. Scott: Okay. Is ~ anyone else that would like to speak as part of the public hearing? Yes sir. Mark lesberg: My name is Mark lesberg. I live at 8407 Great Plains Blvd and I live in one of the houses that might be taken out if 101 is rerout~xi according to one of the alternatives and I've just got a question. I think Mr. Putnam might be able to answer it. If, acco~ing to these three units, are they drawn up with the highway as proposed if it would ~ out one of those? Or could it go either way? Because when we bought the house last year they said that when Highway new 101 was going to go behind our house. And if it does, if they wouldn't stick to that, I don't know ff they'd be able to put these three units in here. Harbe~: Question. Who's they? Mark Sesberg: Thc developers. Hatberts: No, you said that when you bought your house they said that the road was going to go behind your house. Who are they? Mark Jesberg: That's where the mad was platted out to go. Krauss: I can expand on that 33 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Mark Jesberg: And the realtor told us that and we saw a little map with the proposal and it was after we moved in that they came in with the new alternatives. Krauss: Well, when this house was put on the market we got phone calls on this for a good year I think. Dave got them. I got them. Sharmin got them. The realtor put up a blue line print I think in the house that showed what had been selected alternative routing. The selected route the city developed 5 years ago which went through the back yard basically of this house and we continually got questions, well how far does it wind up from the house and the answer was, we really don't know. And I think a lot of buyers were dissuaded lmm that because of that reason. What's happened is, based upon the ISTEA program, the federal program that allows you to design more sensitively with landsca~g and trails, based upon MnDot's potential for revising of how the interchange is going to world, we took the initiative of saying, well maybe we ought to re, assess what we had down on paper 5 years ago because it might not be completely appropriate. The process is not complet~ yet and one of the alternatives does take this house, and another house, but off setting that is the fact that the road is a whole lot further away from the many more homes that are on Lake Riley. I mean so there's positive points and negative points for all the alternatives. One of the alternatives is to do absolutely nothing, which is in all probability what would happen if we didn't take the proactive role, which means that ultimately you would have Highway 212 interchange dumping out onw old Highway 101, which is something that I think most people in the community would find intolerable but MnDot may well be inclined to do if some initiative isn't taken. There arc four alternatives. They're still in discussiom We have had one meeting with the neighborhood group. We're going to be having another one. Then that will be coming through the Planning Commission and City Council for official mapping with it. I don't know the answer to it but I do know that we're not limiting the options based upon this plat. Mark Jesberg: Okay. $o would some of these houses, or these three would they. I/muss: They would stay under any of the four alternatives. What happens is the roadway shifts away from this plat. If the aim'natives that as I recall...moves it further to the west, are selected, the roadway twists back over that way quicker and comes away from these three units that you're looking at. Mark Sesberg: $o if it goes behind my house, like when I bought it like they thought when we bousht it, they would still Krauss: h should be able to stay fight here. And we'll have thc overlays for all those alternatives for this and demonstrate that for you. Planning Commission Meeting - Octo~ 20, 1~3 Mark Jesberg: So they didn't decide to change and make new alternatives because of thc new development corning in? Krauss: Oh no. We start~ that process a year ago. In fact we've had continued discussions with MnDot over the last, well I've been with the city 4 1/2 years. That entire time frame. Mark Jesberg: Okay, thank you. Scott: Good. Is there any other public comment? Mike Mulligan: Good evening. My name is Miire Mulligan. I live at 8501 Tigua Circle. A neighbor of David Nickolay's. Across the street from Io Larson. My property is east of David's. Somebody mentioned the word elitism here a few minutes ago. I'd ~ to t~ll you that we're very sensitive to that son of thing, reco~izing we do live on large lots. I paid $50,000.00 for my lot 10 years ago and you should know that over half of it is in the swamp. A good share of David's is in the swamp. The house south of me, formerly occupied by Tom Kiingelhutz, probably a third of his lot is in the swamp. These lots are large in size but a good share of them, of those lots are unbuildable. We don't have 4 or 15 or ? acres of dividable lots there. You or your predecessors allowed these lots to be platUxi like this and we do have a problem, as you can see that David explained very well I think we do have a responsibility to lry to address _this transition from the lots that we do have to something somewhat less dense than what we're looking at. With 4 to 8, did you say, living units per acre. That's not what I see when I drive around the rest of Chanhassen, the new areas. Thank you. Scott: Any other comments for the public healfing? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearin Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Harberts: A question I have for Dave. I didn't see in _this pack letters from, or review by public safety as we did in the last project Have they looked at it? I guess some of my questions I have you know for instance you, what lot is this. The 6 units and 12 units just on this side of the pond. You know it goes to the end. Should there be turn arounds? Have they looked at this in Imms of circulation and public safety? Hempel: Maybe Shamfin can address that one but. Harberts: I didn't see it in the pack and usually. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - October :20, 1993 Hempel: We have looked at the access points. We were concerned about the individual driveway access points that came out onto 86th $ireec Those...were eliminated for the most pan. Harberts: But some of the. Hempel: Turn arounds and so forth? Harberts: Yeah. I'm just surpfi~. Scott: Well it's conceptual too. Harberts: I know but so was Centex and I guess I was a little suxpfised that that same iniorrnafio~ I didn't know if it was a matter of time or because there's been so much change and stuff but I certainly have an interest I guess more from the public safety, traffic managom~t, that perspective. $o I would just. Al-$aff: The Fire Marshal has reviewed this and he said at the present time he is comfortable with what has been presented. Harberts: Really? Okay. Well I think you know, just broadly speaking, I like this concept better than what we had ori~mlly seen. I like the, I don't know, I'll call them the collectors. The main collectors in each of the areas. When I look at this, you know the request is to rezone to a PUD and thc idea with a PUD, as I undersmmi it is that we give something to get something back which hopefully then as we try to see is in the better interest of the community. One of the things though I question is the preservation of dedrable site characteristics. That's one of the things that we're supposed w be getting but yet in the staff report it talks about the grading. The grading plan wasn't changed and the fact that this had the rolling hills and wetlands, can you just give me a little bit more in,iht in terms of why it wasn't changed. Al-Jaff: The applicant didn't submit a grading plan. However, the applicant feels that they will have to mass grade the site in order to get the type of units that you see along the northern portion of 86th Street. Stuff is still trying to work with the applicant to make sure that we don't get as much as grading as they are showing. Harbens: Okay and what I recollect from our last discussion point was that that was one of those points ltmt we felt strong on to try and go with the topography of the land he~. So I guess that would be one point that I would stick on. Or at least try to see some more discussion occur. I certainly, I guess with my recent involvement, and we talked earlier Jeff 36 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 about housing and things like that. I guess I like the opportunity that we have here where we see the mix of income housing here. I think that's great. I deal with the region. I deal with government on a day by day basis. When Paul made a connnent about elitism. As long ns you're address is Eden Prairie or Chanhnssen, they don't care what your street address is, they automatically in a sense put that elite after it. So it's just one of those stigma's that on a regional sense, ns Paul is saying, is that we have to deal with. When it's a priority of our community nnd I think that's what makes it the type of community that we all in a sense take that ownership pride in. I can understand what the people living there for a number of years, with that open spnce. I'm certainly a person that enjoys open space. The more the merrier but I think that we have a PUD. I think the city, the community is certainly benefitting from the proposed development. There may be a few more tweaks and stuff here. I think this is an improved plan than what we had originally seen and with the two areas that I talked about, especially with the topography and the hon_~ng, those nrc two things that I think are things that are certainly going to benefit the community. I certainly nm interested to hear what the fellow members of the commission have to say. I think when a developer comes in here, it seems thnt they've been working. I think we've tried to go ns much ns we can. I sense that from the developer mo. Trying to in a sense make this a nice transitional piece. I understand what the people are saying nnd I think it is kind of frusuating when Dave, sharing with us his process that he followed in becoming more in tune with the process that the city, well that's established for this. And you know, I certainly have to commeM you for following through for the number of years. Personnlly I think the, fi'om a governmental perspective, it certainly is impo~t for that public input and we certainly have to be aware of that and ensure that that doesn't get sacrifu:ed. But at the same time, when we on the Planning committe~, we need to keep that entire community perspective in tune here nmi that's what I'm trying to do. I would cerUdnly, ns I said, I see this ns a very favorable segment to the community ~ I cena~y support it. I'm off my soap box. Ledvina: One of the things that Mr. Nickolay mentioned was the possibility, or situation with trails on Tigua Circle where there would be people that would be led down there and there wouldn't be anywhere to go. Is that really the case? Or could you explain that to me. Maybe I didn't understand that. Krauss: Honestly we're a little bit stumped on that one. There would be a new trail connection being proposed that runs up a new street that would come back here, around to Highway 101. A trnil out this way to 101. A tntil this way to the pa_,-k and then ns ! understood from this afternoon apparently, as was indicated, substantinl portions of the lots to the east are on thc Rice Marsh Lake wetland. The City wok a conservation and trail easement over portions of those properties and I don't think a trail has been built. But it's my understanding that the easement would preserve so there would ultimately be a uail around Rice Marsh Lake down by the lakeshore. So those are the likely locations for the 37 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 trail. All of those would route folks away from the Tigua cul-de-sac. Ledvina: Okay. And one other thing. We talked about the inae. ase in traffic on 101. You know as a result of this development. Existing 101. What is the timing for this thing actually being built7 I imagine it will be phased in over a period of years. How does that dove tail with Highway 101 and the progress of that actual construction, or reconstruction7 Krauss: The unfortunate answer is we honestly don't know. The contract letting date for Highway 212, where it's going to start in Eden Prairie, the cturent date I think is November of '957 '957 A1 Klingelhutz: '95. Harbens: First phase7 Krauss: Ri~t Harberts: '95. Krauss: That's the contract letting date. Now this is, this section of highway is in phase 1 of the 212 program. Unfortunately it's the last phase of phase I because they're going to build it from the east to the west. State Highway funding is in a state of disarray. There is additional federal dollars out there now to complete highways that, this is a highway that's been talkod about and in the design approval process for 37 years. There is additional foderal money but it's match dollars and the State House last year had a 5 cent gas tax proposed that was supposed to meet the match and would have allowed a lot of pmjec~ to stay on schedule. But at that time they're talking about an increased fodeml tax and the Oov~or decided he was going to veto the gas tax on the presumption that the feds were going to put a major gas tax on. Anyway, there's been a lot of press on this lately. But in fact the feds only put a 4 3/4 cent gas tax on, not the large one that had been proposed. It's being res~ again this year. It's coming up on an election year and I think you have...in the papers speculate that this is not a good year for it to pass either. Every time this happens, it is truly like a dominoes test. I ~ every priority MnDot has gets knocked back And it makes it very rlifficult to react to things. Now you complicate that by the fact that MnDot has never accepted any authority to do anything or responsibility for 101 and everything that's been done on 101 to dale is done because the City of Chanhassen did it and paid for it. And we're running out funds to do much more. And we've managed to it without assessing anybody. It was done through tax increnamt districts in the downwwn and the industrial parks that generated sufficient funds to make improvements to Highway 101. We can't keep building state roads for free forever. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 19~J Mancino: But can we, I mean isn't, it's our responsibility to be planning well and when we plan big developments like this and we don't have the roadways to support them, I ~ what's happening here? Krauss: Commissioner Mancino, we've been doing everything that we can do to make the bah roll. As I said, we've actually gone out and built highways for them and handed them the keys. Nobody else does that but we've also tried to work with them and we've been proactive in developing where this roadway's supposed to go and doing environmental studies of where this road is supposed to go. We had a meeting about a month and a half ago where we asked representatives of Hennepin County, Carver County, Eden Prairie, MinneWnka, ourselves to sit down, and MnDot, to sit down and say this is not a situation that's wlerable and we need to find a solution to it. It's going W, I'm not going to promise a quick response. I ~ getting all those agencies to agree on something at con~iderabie cost is not going to come easily or quickly. But we have established a frame work for that to be done. Ledvina: What's the timing for this development this side of TH 101 or 2127 In terms of construction. Actual con~mction. I ~ how would it be phased? Dick Pumam: Assuming the project's approved, we would hope to begin the first phase of it next year. Next spring. Bnsed on our experience with the project in Eden Prnirie, we're probably looking at a 3 year build out cycle. To be finished, assuming the ~ Stays. $0 if we started in '94, we'd be finishin~ up in '97 probably. Ledvina: Okay, thank you. Krauss: Well I think this is one of those situations, it puts us in a very uncomfortable position. We've recogniT~d the limitations on this mad for years. Is it the straw that tn~okc thc camel's back? I mean is it this developer's fault or is it Lake Susan Hills or remember Chan Estates. Or Tigua Lane. I mean everybody's contributing and thc state, you have an assun'q~tion that the State highway is going to be built to meet the demands being placed on it. It hasn't been happening here and we find it as frustrating as everybody else. Ledvina: On the issue of the public parks, I guess I am willing to accept the pa~k commission's recommendation. I think th~ do a really good job of taking a look at the big picture in the planning of the locations of all regional patios and I see that the trail system here is fairly well planned and the connections seem really good. So and then the use of the wetlands for trail opportunities, I think that's a real nice amenity. Let's see. I guess as far as the neighboring owners are concerned I think that we have gone beyond what, or the developer's gone beyond what the ordinance requires. I think with, from the overall sense of planning that this does flow fairly well and I think bringing the street over is definitely s., 39 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 further to the west is definitely a good thing for thc change in thc plans. I guess I'm comfortable with that part of the development. I share Diane's concern as it relates to the grading. I recognize that this is a conceptual plan and I feel that, however I feel that flaings can't be laid out in somewhat of a vacuum. I'm not saying that this is but beca~ I do scc some sensitivity in thc road design and the layout to account for the topog~hy but at the same time I'm, when this thing comes back as a preliminary plat I'm going to be looking at thc grading plan very closely to see that we try to nainimi,x-, the earth work. As we discussed, I would support the taking a look at how this development fits in with the ali~t option. [ tlaink that would be helpful for the public and Paul mentioned he'd do that so I'd like to see that. I think that's the extent of my conunents. Mancino: Mr. Nickolay, you said in one of your points that you felt that there was an inadequate transition from your pwpa~. That area to the other, to the single family area on the west. What would you suggest? Do you have some suggestion that you could make to us? Dave Nickolay: I think that there could be a nnmber of things. One, lots that represents something that's more of a balance for the size lots that we have would be one option. And I'm not talking about multiple rows of that type but I'm talking about the boundary line that exists and we've got ? backed up against 3. The street is a buffer in itself so I'm not concerned about what happens across the street to the, further to the west. But 3 backed up against 3 sounds like a fair compromise, I never contemplated a subdivision, that that would be something that you could do. You could set the wne for us. That that indeed is the only alternative that we have to come back and appear before you with a concept plan and whatever we have to do to do that. Beyond that, I don't have another solution. Those would be the two that would satisfy mine... Mancino: Okay. And you did hear staff make the, tell you a nme bit about our ordinance and the 15,000 square feet and that the developer has come back with upping that to 20,000. Dave Nickolay: Yes. I undersland that. Thank you for asking. Mancino: Sharmin~ you ask in thc ropart about an EAW being done for this developmcnt and you asked if thc Planning Comrrfission belicves it would assist in making a dctenninafion. How would that benefit us to have an EAW? What would we find out from one? Kaauss: I've been working with EAW's since...I'm a proponent of the process but...you can get the same level of information simply by asking...The EAW process provides the mechanism for coordinated asses~ts for a variety of issues. Environmental issues. ~ issues. Related to air pollution. This project does not meet the minimum threshold for an Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 EAW. It's always the city's prerogative if you elected one. We typically haven't but you do have that prerogative. The project was getting close enough, I mean it's not that far away from the threshold...In my own experience it's equally effective and probably a little more efficient in terms of time and responsiveness to just state, we have concerns about uaffic. We want information on it. We have concerns about, and if you did have concerns about wetland. That that be responded w. Filling out an EAW form is something that I think a lot of consultants have a fixed price on that one. EAW's are us kind of a thing. Scott: Highway 101's are us. Sorry Fred. Mancino: I had some questions and some thoughts on thc recommendations. One of my thoughts was on the cormnewial on 17. Recommendation 17, which you also wanted to have some suggestions and the Planning Commission's input on the corn _mercial are~ And I would just like to add that I like the concept plans outlining the first sentence on 17. Recommendation 17. Concept plans outlining general layouts with alternatives, building masses, square footage limitations. I'd like to insert in there, grs_tting, bnilding materials, architectural design, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for thc commercial area. So as a Highway 5 task force member, those were some of the specifics that we talked about in conceptual plans that we saw in some of the areas on Highway 5 and they were very helpful So I would also like to see those included in conceptual plans for this commercial development that's part of it. Also, I'd like to see the Highway 5 dedgn standards used here, and suggestion out there. And I think that's something we might want to think about in expanding to the 212 area. Using some of our deign standards for Highway 5. I also am concerned about the grading. The massive grading that's done north of 86th Street so I would like to add that as a recommendation. That tls_ding plans be revised to minimize mass grs~dlng of the site. This pertains to the multiple dwellings on the north side of 86th Street. Otherwise I am really pleased with all the additions. With what the developer's come back with. I think you've listened well to ns and thank you. Scott: left. Farmakes: My turn? First of all I'd like to address some of the people who came up to speak. I know your homes are in _this area and you're concerned about obviously what goes in there. Often times how this process works seems very busitine and I don't want to be parental or to sit up here. We're volunteers just like you are. We also have houses in the area. We're not paid for doing this. It is a volunteer type situation for people who are contributing to their comrn-nity and a lot of times we get a difficult position where our neighbors come before us and they say we don't want _this here. It's not a matter of us sitting up here and saying hey, we don't want it either. There are rules and regulations that we follow here, just like this process is a pan of a process that's dictated by how our city is set 41 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 up and that is set up by how the state says our city can be set up. This process that we follow through that I think this letter here is talking about. It takes some study to figure out that process. It is a di/flcnlt and often busitine process. It takes a lot of ~ not being used to it because many people come in when there's a problem with their property. They don't, they'll follow it and then it's fresh to them to come in and see, not necessarily know who to ask or sometimes they wish they would have more notification or more information and certainly the staff is here for that benefit. If you need more information or you feel unclear on something, please ask them. For myself, I would like to have responded to your letter. Unfortunately I would like to do it over the phone. If you would call me, I'd encourage anybody to call anyone here on the commission. I hope you don't mind that. But I don't have a sea~arial service and I don't, I would find it difficult to cozrespond in this type of situation. The city does not provide funds for that or service~ for that. But I'm happy to talk to you. This town is not that big that you can't just pick up the phone and call us. I would certainly be more than happy to talk to you what I know about it, the process and to try and see how you can resolve that but this is the process. The process doesn't take place someplace else. This is the ~ of public hearing and record and so on and it does take some study to figure it out and to know how to best utilize that. As the Chairman has said here, we're an advisory group. We make reco~tions to the City Council and they make the decisions. Those are your elected offidah. We mnke the recommendations based on how staff helps us with law and ordinance and what we can and cannot do. And a lot of times, so~ you sit up here and you wish that you could do something but you know that you can't do it. Because you're sim?ly not allowed to. The law doesn't wod~ that way. And any of us who have dealt with some legal issues, we know sometimes that it seem_ s very convoluted but that's the way the system's set up and unless we go through a political mute, that isn't going to change. So I'd reco~ if you have problems with this, that you contact your City Councilmen. Now the civic lesson has ended for today. I want to address the issue just briefly, I want to be comf~bie that you understand that a single family residential is based on minimums in ~, nnd it has been for several yegs. And a lot of this started out with the Met Council pressudn§ tier suburbs to reduce the m/nimum size of these lots. Harberts: Why are you lool~-g st me Jeff~ Farmakes: Because we had a discusdon here on a leader. Ctmnhassen at one time, I know Ladd said that in previous years entertained two tier single family zoning. That did not occur. There was pressure from the Met Council to get that down to city sized lots. We can go on at great lengths about the issue between nmm politics and the fact that we all exist because Minneapolis and St. Paul are he~ and we all exist for them. But many of us do not hold that opinion. I wish in some cases that there could be more of a transition but I think clearly somex)ne has to say that what we're dealing with her~ the developer needn't increase Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 the size of the lots beyond the minimum standards. And thc minimum standards are 15,000 square feet. The fact that there's n big house sitting next to a small house, as long as it's zoned single family, we cannot as pan of the ordinance say your house has to be as big as this house. Single family is a minimum nnd if someone chooses to go nbove the minim~m_ that does not stop someone else from building to the rninimnm requirements of the zone next to it. Common sense can prevail_ Negotiations can prevail but really the ordinance states what the requirement is and it does not say that one lot of one size has to be alike to nnother, as long as it's over the minimum. And unformnntely I say it over and over again. What we deal with here are minimums. And often those of us who went beyond thnt have come in for restitution or arguing that it's not the same as mine and yes that's true but those aren't the rules that are set up that we're playing by. And I agree. I think that the developer went out of their why. I like this plan. It's quite nn improvement. I also like to give credit where credit's due and the park issue, I believe we discussed here at the last issue and the trails. This did not go back to the park board nnd I really like what they've done because I like the fact that it's small in scope but it's very manag~t for that size and it offers a commons area in high density which I think is really important. It doesn't need to have 20 ball park-s and it doesn't need to take up many acres but it's a gathering place. That's what I think is important. I like the alternative plan that's been popped on there. Patched on there. I think it opens up the nrea more. There is a nntm'al buffer from the wetland going out to the east I think the fact that the properties that have been boosted up to 20,000 square feet is beyond what is required and I applaud thaL I like the direction of the street lining. I think that that's a major improvement over what was proposed. I'd like to see maybe just to throw a few more things out, I'd like to see a few benches to enhance the trails that go around that park. Or the trail that goes around the wetland, if that's possible. They're showing a few benches around the totlot but if there's a way again to help people enjoy that Getting out into the open. I'm a little, I want to make a quick comment that it would have been nice to have a little something more of a gathering nrea for the area above the road next to that Dupont of some sort. Basically there's, anyone who wants to utilize thc lot area that's, where it's mark with 1 would have to come across the mad and walk a considerable ways, I'm wondering if there's something that could be done to utili,,,, that property that's adjacent just to the west of the Dupont. Whether or not maybe we could knock off a unit there or not. It doesn't bother me how they realign the units. I think that they've done a nice job of that. The highway issue it seems to me is, at the present that's out of our hands. Until MnDot decides. MnDoL not developers that will decide where that road goes with input flora the city but as often is the case, those that pay thc most for it have the most input. So where that happens farther up really doesn't affect this panicuiar development, in my opinion. Where thc alternates, as I undcrsiand it. The public safety issue and so on. Those are all issues that are relevant and they're irnp~t issues and I would like to see those developed further. Sindlar to the last developtnent where we're going to get this type of density. That we make sure we have the support structures in place that will accept this type of traffic. Oh, grading. Yes, That was Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 the last one on the list here. I somewhat know that high density will require more grading because of the issue that you're compacting structures. So it will require more gr._ding than say a single fmnily type operation. $o I'm open to that. I'd like to see that minimized obviously as much as possible but I will look at that with interest when...that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, thank you. I too am inlnv, sied in the grading and I think that also too, something obviously we'll talk about minimums but I think something co,ld also be done with Block 2. That removing a lot or two from that area will probably have an insignificant financial impact to the project. However, from a mazkembility standpoint, I mean that's your baih'wick. That's really the extent of my cormnents. I support appwval of the conceptual plan so I'd like to entertain a motion to that effect. Mancino: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the Conceptual AHymval of PUD #93-4 as shown on the plans dated Sune 23, 1993 subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 thru 5. Conditions I flu'u 16 remain the same. Condition 17 reads, first line is changed to read, concept plans outlining general layouts (with allernatives), building nmsses, square footage limitations, grading, b~jlding materials, architecv, ual designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the conunercial area. Number 18 reads, the first line. Excuse me, the second line is mnended to read, the ha_rd surface coverage of the multi-family portion of the site located south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds the permitted 30%. 19, 20, 21 read as they exist. 22 reads, address the hard sm'face issue to meet requirements of the PUD ordinance. The hard surface coverage south of 86th Street and east of the wetlands may not exceed 30% of this site. 23 reads as is and 24 is a new recommendation. 24 reads, grading plans be revised to minirrlize mass grading Of the site as it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the Planning Commission recommend conceptual approval of PUD ~93-4 as amended. Ledvina: Excuse me Mr. Chair. I don't think we got a second. Sco~ Is thcre a second? Ledvina: I would second that. Scott: Now it has been moved and seconded. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Plannina Commim~ion Fecommend conceptual approval of PUD ~ as shown on the plans dated June 23, 1993, subject to Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 the f~llowing conditions: Xe The applicant shall realign 86th Street to avoad the ~ Individual driveway access from the multiple dwellings will be prohibited onto 86th Street. The plans should be revised to access the properties fi'om the private streets in lieu of 86th Street A traffic study should be prepared by the applicant to de~m~e the necessary right-of-way, traffic lanes and signal justification report. Staff anticipates the proposed right-of-way is inadequate. . All utility and street improv~ts (public and private) shah be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Derail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0%. e The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the MWCC, Health Depamnent, Warm'shed Districts, PCA and MnF}OT. Due to the size of the project, the applicant may also be required to prepare an BAW. All water quality treaunent ponds shall include outlet control stmcmw~ to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. Most likely the City will be maintaining the retention ponds and therefore the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be as a minimum 20-foot wide drainage and utility ~ts and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and tuff restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. e Sanitary sewer service to the site shall be extended in accordance to thc City's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan. If inlm'im service is provide from the existing Lake Susan sanitary sewer line, the appropriate utility and drainage shall be acquired by the applicant. In addition, the City will auth a/zc/perform a slmty to detcm~e ff there is excess capacity in the Lake Susan I-lilln line to determine limits of service. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the study. 6~ The proposed watermain in 86th Su~t shall be increased to a 12-inch water line. If the applicant installs the oversiz~ (12-inch) watea'ma~ the City shall credit the applicant by ~s of reduction in their 88~..~ll~ts for the ove~zing costs. Tho overs_izing costs shall be the diff-grence between an 8-inch ~ and a 12-inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in ~ce with the Fire Marshal's reco~tions. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 e Se o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds in conjunction with preliminary platting. The storm scvaxs shall bc desisned for a 10-year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the bctw~ the predevel~ and developed nmoff rate for a 100-y car 24-hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be design~ to restrict the discharge to the predevcloped runoff rate. Thc pond shall also be constmc~ to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional pondin§ on-site, the applicant shall wozk with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. The preliminary and final plat shall be contingent upon thc City Council authorizing and awarding a public improvement project for the extension of trunk sn_nitary sewer and water facilities to service _this site. The applicant should provide a buffer nre~ between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping mam'iah and berming. The applicant shall include a drain-tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of dischar~ng such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. The applicant shall dedicate to the City with final platting, the necessary right-of-way determined from a Ua_~c study for future and 86th Street. During construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, thc applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the reco~tions of the staff report and Engineer's memo. Allowed uses in commercial siU: to be restricted as described in the staff report. The applicant shall provide density calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right-of-way and wetland areas. The landscaping plan shatl be revised to add more trees along West 86th Streeg along Hwy. 212 and Hwy. 101 fight-of-ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 16. Meet the following conditions of the park and iv, cr~tion commission. 17. 18. 19. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts, etc. Be Concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's te~rninus and on "A" street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. Ce A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the '¥ark" site. In consideration for thc construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be delm~mined by the atilt for presentation to the city with documentation for verification- D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. Concept plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives), bnilding massing, square footage limitations, grnding~ building nmterinl~ nrchita:hu'nl designs~ pedestrinn access~ and development intent need to be developed for thc commerdal area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing thi~ area. Ownership is being retained by Al IClingelhutz. Still; both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We have suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreclam the Planning Commission's input. Site layout and design may be ~ble for a PUD Concept but there are many shortfalls. The hard surface coverage of the multi family portion of the site located south of 86th Street and east of the wetland exceeds the permitted 30%. Mass grading of the multi-family portion of the site will result in poor visual quality that possibly can be hnpmved to retain some variance in elevation. Wetland alterations appear at this scale to be excessive and it is unclear how water quality standards will be achieved. This concern can be addressed but may result in a need for additional open space. While not mandatory, we would like to hokl discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city hns been Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 actively seeking a ~s to provide more moderate cost housing for working farnili_~ and this may be a good site. Thi~ can be discussed fm'thet before the formal development plan is submi~ 0e It would be desirable to have the Hwy. 101 alignment issue resolved. This is beyond the applicant's control and we had hopped t~ have it completed by now. By the time formal approval is requesteA, this may have been finished but if not, the weste~ edge of the plat will need to be platted as an outlot in the intedm, The majority of the si~e is not impacted by this issue. 21. The project is not large enough to trip a mandatory EAW and staff is not certain if one would be useful in the discussion. However, if the Planning Commigsion believes it would assist in making a de--'on, an elective EAW could be requi_r~ and submitted with the formal PUD submittal. 22. Address the hard surface issue to meet rcq~ts of the PUD Ordinance. The hard surface covcrage south of 8~th Street and east of the wetland may not exceed 30% of site area. 23. Eliminat~ the driveway access located west of "A" Sm~ as shown in attachment 3." 24. Grading plans be revised to minimize mass grading of the site as it pertains to the multiple dwellings on the west side of 86th Street. All voted in hvor and the motion carried. (Thc Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: INTERIM USE PERMIT TO GRADE FOR SITE PREPARATION (IN EXCESS OF l,l~}0 CUBIC YARDS) ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINF..SS AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST 78TH STREET~ BETWEEN KERBER ANO POWERS BOULEVARO, T.F. JAMES COMPAOff. Bob Generous prcsentcd thc staff report on this item. Chahman Scott called the public hearing to order. Jim Hill: Jim Hill, Consultant for Charlie James. Scott: I'm sorry sir, I didn't get your name. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Jim Hill: Jim Hill. I'll apologize for Charlic not being here this evening. He's out of town. Out of stall and did not make it. The intent here is to prepare the site for thc first user and site plan which according to Charlie has indicalld he will be in within the next 4 weeks here...The sill as you know, the condition of the site, it has to be graded no matter what the use is...get an early stnrt. We're going to do some of the work before the winter socks in on us. I'll answer any questions if you have some. Harber~: Can I use it for All7 Ledvina: Do you need 40,000 cubic yards? Harberts: Yeah, I'd like to use a little bit for fill. Well I was going to ask him what you're going to do with this dirt. I know a wetland that I wanted to fill in. Scott: Any other questions for the applicant from the Planning Commiasioners? Jim Hill: Mr. James has two bidders that have supplied him bids for removal of the dirt and once he gets back in we'll sit down with thc responsible low bidder and we'll see roulls and so forth and work it out with staff. As you know those have not been delltmined because we don't know where the dirt is going.- But if we have a good idea where it's going, and it will be shared with you when we d~ine that Harberts: I have another question. This is a little more legitimate. What happens if you don't do the grading now7 What's the impact? Jim Hill: The impact is we don't start the first b~ilding this fall In the winter. The foundation. Harberts: Oh you're going to start the work? Jim Hill: The sill plan will be in in the next 3-4 weeks. Krauss: I think what it allows them to do, I mean there won't be any formal approvals until early next year but if the site is rough graded, it is possible at that point to put in footings over winter and they can start conslmcfion. Harberts: Okay. I didn't ~ that. Scott: Any other questions or conumnts7 This is a public hearing and are there any members of the public who'd like to speak at this public heming? Let the record show that 49 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 there are none. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public heaFing~ Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments please. Mandno: Comments. Only one question for Bob. Should we be stipulating in the recordations when the stock pile has to be removed? I mean putting a date on that. Generous: Well you could if you want, yes. It all depends on, they'll probably get it off there before any deadline...grading by the surnrrer of '94. In the summer of '94 and I wonld assume that at least by Seplmnber that's the end of summer. They'll probably have the construction on that part of it going by then. Mancino: Okay. That's my only question. Sco~t: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I really don't have anything to add. I do want to say that I thought this was an excellent staff report. You did a nice job Bob. Generous: Thank you. Scott: Diane. Harberts: Well I'll refrain my questions from the dirt in my wetlands in my back yard but I have no other questions or comments. Scott: Good. Neither do I. Can I have a motion? Harberts: I'll move approval that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #93-2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24, 1993 and subject to the following conditions numbers 2 thru 18 as identified in the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Harberts moveO, Mancino seconOe~ that the Planning Commi~on recommends Play.lng Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 approval of Interim Use Permit 893-2 as shown on the site plan dated September 24, 1993 and subject to the following conditions: 2. The City of Chanhassen will process the WCA exemption report and necessary paperwork to administer the WCA. e Runoff calculations for thc mnporary sediment basins shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The temporary sediment basins shall be designed in accord~ce to thc City's Best Managengnt Practice Handbook. 0 Erosion control measures shall be in place pzior to site grs_ding and be maintained until the site is fully restored and removal is authorized by the city. The applicant shall obtain and receive the necessary permits from the regulatory agencies such as the Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. e Applicant shall obudn and comply with the necessary permits for the demolition of the farmhouse and out buildings as well as the abandonment of the well and septic system(s). e All draintiles encountered upon grading shall be reconnected or relocated to discharge into the city's storm sewer system. Se The two existing farm access driveways shall be eliminalrd upon construction of the new site enUan~ off of Ir, rr~ Boulevard and West 78th Street The applicant will be required to apply and possibly obtain building permits for the retaining walls proposed along thc north slope of the property. 10. Upon completion of sit~ gl's_ding, an additional row of Type I silt fence shall be installed approximately 150 feet north of West 78th Street over the easterly one half of the site. 11. The applicant shall pay grading fees in accordnnce to thc Uniform Building C. ode, Table 70-B (Attachment No. 1). 12. The applicant shall enter into a grading permit with the City and pwvide the necessary financial seon/ty in the amount of $32,000.00 to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval for site grading. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 13. If material is to be hauled to or from the site, the applicant shall submit to city staff designated haul mutes for approval prior to hauling activities. Ail voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who abstained, and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RR~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 112 ACRES INTO 115 SIN(}LE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GALPIN BOULEVARD 1/2 MII.I~. NORTH OF HIGHWAY $~ SONG-CARLSON PROPERTY. Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Scott called the public hearing to order. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros~ We don't have a presentation for. you this evening. We feel that the material provided pretty much covers cveryth_ lng. We do have I believe 4 or 5 items on the conditions that we would like to discuss with the Planning Commission. Scott: Okay. And this is a public hearing but are there any members of the public here for this particular item? Let the record show that there are none so there is no public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to d~e the public hearing~ AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Harberts: I'm going to pass simply because I did not participate in the preseatafion last time. I was not here so I will look to the members that were here to maim comments. Ledvina: Okay. well I would ask that Tew] go through hi_s ii,'ms that he has in terms of the recommendations or thc conditions of the staff report. Some concerns that you have with those. Ten'y Forbord: Should I do that now7 Scott: Yeah. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. ~ from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will be addressing those issues. John Uban: Thank you Terry. We have been working even since the memo was faxed to the city at 5:00 so we're trying to constantly resolve the last few issues and what I just want to do is make some clarifications and that you may have a very clear understanding on almost every single issue. The condition number 11 for in~ance. This is one where we've been working back and forth with the city on street right-of-way widths. Street right-of-ways for cul-de-sacs. Staff would like to have them 60 feet and we would agree with that. We had wanl~l them to be 50 feet but we also have looked at a condition that could be added that the front yard setbacks for those homes on that part of the cul-de-sac could be 25 feet instead of 30. That way the actual homes won't have to move in relationship m the plan that we've cre~ted. So it's really just the moving, the legal moving of a right-of-way line a little closer to the house but the relationship between the street and the house actually stays the same. In addition to that, the Street H and I that goes up inw the woods on the northwest comer of the property, that is this area. We had proposed at 40 feet and staff would like to have it at 50 feet and we looked carefully at the utilities and so forth and how that would work and we think we have a resolution where we could add that it could, that it would be a 50 foot right- of-way and we're still trying to save as many trees as possible, h~ead of the 24 foot wide road, we'd go to a 28 foot street section. Not the standard but a modified 28 foot wide street That's back to back so it's a little bit nan~wer. But in that right-of-way the city would allow retaining walls and would allow the shoulder to slope back to match grs_ding very quickly rather flum the s~ndsrd large fiat boulevard that you would commonly see. So we could taper back in up to a 3:1 slope back to existing grade. And that also will help to save ~ and do the least amount of disturbing of root systems. So with those kind of modiflcafions~ I think we've reached a resolution that works very well for both of us. On number 20 and 24. It's really the same issue and this, we had a discussion about it and it is the access for the Song parcel which is their estate lot. It's not quite 10 acres. 9 1/2 acres. It's on the north side of the whole subdivision and they plan a home that will overlook Lake Hm'dson- They see this as an important pan of their resitt/ng their home. Their old home sits down here next to this pond they dredged out for a swimming hole and they would like to have their own driveway access off of Oalpin. It's what they have presently and they would like to have it repeated up here. It was suggested in the conditions that between these two houses, the driveway would go up through this area into the woods to get to their home and not create another entrance onto Galpin. We think actually, and at some point in the furore this was redeveloped and there would probably be some wad sysmn that would continue to serve all that land. Most of the properties in this area are very large land holdings and are being held by people I don't think will subdivide for some time. And_ an additional access point out here may not be that critical with tmf~ and so forth. We've talked both with planning and with engineering. Engineering is indifferent to which way it goes. Planning would like to consolidate and keep an access to the cul-de-sac. We think it's inaNpwpriate for the Song's. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 They certainly feel it's inappr~te to be connecting their estam lot to the end of a col-de- sac so we want to have it come out onto Gaipin. And so those two conditions, 20 and 24, we would just either like to have them struck or reversed to allow the Songs to have a simple driveway out to Galpin. Item number 25. We wodced on this and we'd just like to add to the very end of it to clarify the State Aid standards for street aid. That it would be built with a 7 ton section. And we've talked to engineering and we believe that is agreeable. 26 Paul talked about and that's what we agreed to and that sounds great. And so the last one is really item number 31 and this is a setback to a drainsgeway that has been unplatted, or sort of _unrecognized before and I want to point that out to you because I think a little wo much attention is being paid to it. I don't think it's as significant as everyone might believe. It is a drainageway that drains the pond next to the Song's existing home. It comes to this just is a wet swale that comes down and then finally joins the creek at the botwm of the ravine through here. And we ~y have a conservation area, a buffer area, setbacks from the creek bed up to this lot. We also around this man made pond, we also have a buffer area and a large settmck to the front of this building. And this swale runs along the side and if we then place another buffer and setback, 10 and 40 feet, we will significant reduce the ability to develop on this property. And we think that it isn't a creek. It's really just a swale that drains that pond and that pond seems to be draining quite a bit now because the Song's use a heat pump and the heat and the source that they use to extract heat is their well water so this overflows and keeps their pond level high and then of course the surplus drains on down. And so it's not really a wetland in our opinion but is a drainageway. So we thought, in_,~ad of 40 feet, a 20 foot setback would be good from a l0 foot buffer. So we can ~ then a protected space that would in combination be 50 feet wide with the drainageway in the middle. And we think that's more than adequate to protect that particular feature so we suggest that the setbacks in 31 be changed to 20 feet instead of 40. Those are our issues. We think they're fairly small at this point and we will answer any other questions. Ledvina: Have you discussed these with staff then7 John Uban: We've discussed all of them except number 31. Lcdvina: Dave, could I get your reaction m these then? ~ust go right through them. Hcmpeh Item number 11. Mr. Uben is correct We've had discussions regarding thc street width on H and L Thc fight-of-way being...50 foot wide fight-of-way over 40 and increase the street width to 28 foot back to back over thc 24. Cotnpwmising the boulevard typical slope which would normally be a 2% grade to allow for private utilities, gas, electric and telephone. Allow them to modif~ that to a greater percen~ of slope. To meet thc existing terrain much better. Also to allow them to place retaining walls within the right-of-way area subject to maintenance responsibih'ties placed amongst the homoowncrs association and that Pl~ning Commission Me~ting - October 20, 1993 can be done by a chain of title such as a development contrnct which they would be entering into. Mnking sure the nutin~ce r~sponsibilities... As to condition number 20 and 24. Harberts: Excuse me Dave. Can you go back nmi nddress the 25 foot setback request on number 11 versus the required 30. Hempeh Oh I'm sorry. Harberts: Do you have a feeling for that? Hempel: Right. It is our belief that we shouldn't compromise the 60 foot wide right-of-way on S~ B, D and O with those areas all being mass graded anyway. The applicant has requesl~! to maintain the placement of the homes, the gra_ding and so forth to accommodate their request for a :50 foot setback Or 50 foot right-of-way with a 30 foot setback. We thought well, we could live with' granting the 25 foot setback of those lots and get our 60 foot right-of-way. Essentially the house is p~ in the same location~ The same green space, and so forth. The city will just have the 60 foot right-of-way versus the :50 foot right-of-way. And I don't want to speak for Paul but I believe he's in concun~ce with that as well Krauss: Yeah. We've always supported the 25 foot setback and such. Now it's raised questions and...but I think Dave, in this case Dave is correct Visually it's not going to look any different. You're just talking about where the...The house is §oing to be exactly the same distance back, whether we get the full right-of-way and a modified front yard setback or the smaller right-of-way with...setback. It's exactly the same. Mancino: But what's standard right now is the standard right-of-way which is 60 foot and a 30 foot setback. I mean that's the standard so. Hnrberts: What are we gnining? Mancino: Pardon? Harbem: What are we gaining though by if we were to. Mancino: To go with the standard? Harbem: No. Mancino: To go with the reduce? 55 Plsnning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, maybe I can addre~ the issue. For those of you who were here at the last rneeting...just kind of talk a little bit about that. There's a number of real sensitive areas on the site that we believe as thc applicant, that the right-of-way should be significantly reduced from what is typical in the city of Chanhassen. Typical in the city of Chanhassen at least within the last 5 to 6 years has been t50 foot right-of-way. Prior to that they were 50 foot right-of-way. Prior to 6 years ago. So what we had come in in some of the sensitive areas we had asked for, in one area, zl0 foot right-of-way. In the northwest comer area that had the significant sugar maples and a red~ pavement of 26 feet back w, or excuse me. 24 feet street, 27 feet back to back. In negotiations with planning staff and the city engineer, trying to find a compromise that would satisfy their concerns and at the same time still trying to meet the objectives that we would be able to obtain through redtwed right-of-way and reduced pavement. We were all able to come up with some compromi.q~ and there were trade-offs on everyone's part. And that's how we came up with what you're seeing before you this evening. As far as the fight-of-way. I hope that answers your question of how we got to where we are today. Harberts: Thank you. Hen'q~l: I'll continue on the conditions. Number 24 has to do with the private driveway on the Song's parcel, Lot 9. Mr. Uban pointed out that engineering really, it does make some sense to have a driveway, a private driveway through the cul-de-sac to serve that parcel There's a sewer line that goes through there as well The driveway would be over that sewer line. On the other hand, if the applicant came in and subdivided down the road, Carver County would not object to another curb cut for that parcel Essentially it conld be. .. serviced off the county road anyway. $o it co~ld be served either access point. Scott: Would the County object to a curb cut for the private residence? Hempel: I did contact Mr. Bill Weber, the Assistant Carver County Engineer that, kind of laid out the specifics on it and they would grant the curb cut for that driveway. Ledvina: Would it make any sense to put a condition in there that the private drive would have to be utilized as a road if this property is subdivi&d? I mean does that make any sense? Krauss: I don't think we're clear on where the road would be. Ledvina: Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to restrict it in that way. 56 P/avning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: If I could touch on my concerns. I mean this is not an issue that the world's going to stop turning over. But we have always recommeuded agsinst additional l~rivate driveways entering onto county roads, without fail. In fact we're eliminating one with the existing Song residence with this plat. It's being served off the in~ street system. I'm concerned, I mean you could argue precedent one way or the other but is bis lot clit~crent than all the other lots we've refused to have separate driveways. We may have had combined driveways just because it's bigger or it's going to have a bigger house on it. Relative to the large estates in the area, yeah. There's a number of them in the area. $crotne Carlson lives nearby. The Mancino's live nearby. And of course Prince lives across the street. But I'll tell you, I was astonished by the fact that somebody's making apparently serious inquiries about dcveloping Prince's property. And when I first heard this I said, well is this just some ~ trying to do a deal He's wasting our time and then, you know I think Dave's been contacted by them and Sharmin's been contacted by them and it seems a lot more serious than that. So I mean the world changes and these issues come about. Thirdly is wherever we're having intersections with the streets, on Galpin we're required to put an acceleration and d~on and turn lanes so that the movcmcnt can be done safely. The driveway it's very tough to justify doing much of that at all So I ~ are we going to be horribly put out if the driveway's put in? No. I don't think it's a great precedent. Mancino: Well we've got it with Rottlund and Brett Davidson. We have two curb cuts there for those two developments. Krauss: They're streets. Maucino: Ye~, that's true. They're regular streets. But we didn't have them connect We didn't punch them through did we? I remember talking about that. Hempel: ...Mr. Brett Davidson to relocate his driveway from Gal~ Blvd to the interior streeL Scott: You're right. It was a similar situation. He had a home. His home didn't move though but he ended up getting acee~ off of the interior sueec Scott: Yes Terry. Terry Forbord: I don't want to talk about this too much because it's been belabored a lot but I have to emphasize how important this is to the Songs. Right now they have a 100 acre piece of property. It's au estate. They've lived there for a long time and they want to build 57 Planning Commiasion Meeting - Octobe~ 20, 1993 a significant home and they want to still live on an estate far the remaining years of their life. Now if they came in and this wasn't a proposal by Lundgren Bros but they just came in to the city and said we have 100 acres. We'd like to subdivide it. One's going to be a 10 acre piece and the other piece is going to be 90 acres. They could go through that process. The city would have to give them access far the two as long as they met all the crimia. They'd have a private drive far that. There could be another private drive far the 90 acre piece and they could do that. And then when they were done with that, then they could come back to Lundgren Bros and say, okay now we'll sell you the 90 acre piece and they'd have a plat of record with their own acces& I mean it's really important to them. If any of you have ever lived in the country. I don't know who does here and who doesn't. I have before and I wanted my own private driveway. That's why I wanmi to live in the country. I wanmt that type of lifestyle. Gran~! this area is urbanizing but I don't think that it's really si~iflcant to the approval of this plat. I think it's something that as the owner ar fee owner of their property, they should have the fight to have that private driveway...and I just wanted you to know that's very important to them and they personally will be coming and talking to the Council about it because it's so important to them- Scott: Continue with your comments. Ledvina: And then the last one. 31 I believe it is. Hempel: The street grades. We believe...Street A should be consmlcted to in accordance with State Aid stand__srds. We did discuss the item. State Aid does require a 9 wm 9 ton state aid does but we'd be willing to deviate from that standard to a 7 ton design since the applicant will be actually building the street and there will be no state aid dollars used to construct that street so we're able to by-pass MnDot's regulations. In the futm~ MnDot, if we need to go back and. Harberts: Reconstruct. Hernpel: Ri/bt, we can use State Aid dollars to beef it up to the 9 ton standard with a small overlay project. Harberts: Question. Why does MnDot have a 9 ton requirement then? Hernpel: MnDot has a 9 ton requirement because State Aid mutes usually. Harbcrts: Is it kind of like a blanket approach? Hempel: No, there's more commercial lrsffic. Track traffic mutes and so forth and the $8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 lighting of the roads and so forth. Collector type streets. Staff is comfortable with deC, lng the 7 ton standards, which is the city's current pavement design. 26, Paul had revised earlier that the street extension to the northwest shall be through another street located in the lohnson/DolejsifFm~ property. 31. I don't know if Paul wants to address that. Mancino: Is that a swale or a creek? Scott: Yeah, how's it classified? Krauss: I guess I'm reluctant to change it at this point. I mean we'll take the developer's comments under advisement but I'm not equipped to evaluate this changes at this point. I sent Diane home after the last item so, we can certainly, I mean if it makes sense to do it this way, we can bring that up. I don't know what to advise you fight now. Ledvina: Okay. Alright Well that's pretty much it. I would say though that I guess considering that it would just be a matter of process for getting that additional curb cut, I think that it's reasonable to allow that to occur with this proposal So I guess would support that at this point. Mancino: I agree with you too. On the Song property? Ledvina: Right Mancino: To go ahead. I would too. If I were the~ and wanted 10 acres and my estate, etc, I can, Dave wasn't so much, he didn't seem toO much against it. Kind of one way or another. I would support allowing the private driveway for that amount of acreage. Scott: Excuse me. What's the distance between the street and the curb cut? A couple hundred feet or what? Hcmpel: 600-700 feet. Scott: Ohl There's something about 300 feet between. Krauss: That's a minimum. Scott: Minimum? Okay so we're, oh you know. I/muss: You're well in excess. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Scott: Okay. That's fine. I'm sorry. Mandno: That's okay. That's a good question, thanks. Scott: That's okay. Mancino: Terry, I had a question about recommendation number 2 from the Planning Commission and it has to do with the front yard setbacks being reduced to 20 feet or the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result. Does that mean that, well obviously that's not going to happen in any of the area that's on the agricultural part of it. Anything east, you're not going to ask for a 20 foot setback Ixcause there are no trees to preserve on the easmm part of this land. On the western edge where you go up into Sueet H, I'm assuming that's where you're going to ask for a 20 foot setback instead of a 30 foot setback? Terry Forbord: Actually there's a, we walked the site with the staff quite some time ago but I think it's fair to say that through here and there's a few areas maybe right in here. There may be a consideration and then it will be, I think we determined that, the way I ~ it, the way stuff wants to do it is, ff we submit a building permit application and at that point in time when the survey's been done and it's de,'mined that hey, we can save something there. Let's talk to the staff and the staff says, hey you're fight. That's when we should rw_ke that adjustment because every house will be designed dif-fcrenfly. So I don't see that happening on every lot but if you've ever, I don't know if any of you have ever been on this pr~ but I know the staff has. Thc~e are 4 or 5, 6 foot trees, some of them. And if you are careful, you're going to be able to save them. And so there should be, we hope there's some hfitude to enable that. Mancino: So what I just want to make sure of is that on Street H, that if you have one house that needs to come up to the have the 20 foot setback, that all those in a row aren't going to do that. That it's only going to be those specific houses because of the tree preservation. Terry Foflx~: You're speaking of this street? Mancino: Yep. Terry Forbord: Now on this particular ~ because of the reduced right-of-way, I believe that, what was thc request? John Uban: It was for 50 feet of right-of-way nmi then up to a 20 foot setback. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Terry Forbord: On a case by case basis. Mancino: On a case by, on a house by house. Krauss: It's the same. Terry Forbord: That's correct. Mancino: Okay. And I'm refcrdng back to your Willow Ridge which has all setback, the right-of-way is 50 feet and the setbacks nrc 25 feet and they're every house regardless of tree preservation. Because a lot of the houses don't have trees in the back yalds so they have been, they have the 25 foot setback regardless. Terry Forbord: Yeah, some people have found that offensive. I would say the vast majority haven't but some people find that offensive. Mancino: Okay. Those are all my questions. Farmakes: I have no comments to make on this. I think we discussed them at length before. The issues that were still open and...I support staff's recommendation across the board. I'm concernccl about the Song issue. I realize that probably is arguable that it makes no difference. However, I support the Planning staff that either we should quant/fy how many acres it makes no difference or we should follow precedent on this issue. And I'm not opposed the saying that if we have a connection and we have over 50 acres or whatever. If we want to q,__~nlif-y it that way, that's t%e but I think it's a mistake just for us to. Harberts: Arbitrarily. Farmakes: Arbiuarily say well, it's a lot of land and we should let them hook up. I'm a little concerned about how we're going about evalunting that. Other than that I support staff reco~tions on this issue. Scott: I just have one question. I remember back in a meeting we had in January we talked about island cul-de-sacs and as I recall you don't like those. We were talking about rnnintennnce. We were tnlking about people falling down and getting sued, I mean it got to be pretty ridiculous but I see a couple of them and I just want to see how those fit in with the stuff, because I can't rip the ordinance off the top of my head right now. But I see them Hempel: StafFs gone through and reviewed those. You're right. The en~neering 61 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 depamnent's perspective is more the public w_arks, from a maintenance standpoint. We didn't like them. Maintenance headache. This situation's a little bit different than... Scott Are we preserving some trees? Herrq~l: Well, there are going to be landscaped median m~as and a homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of them. The city actually went out and performed some tests on snow plowing cul-de-sacs with islands in them. They went out to the Dinner Theater and it actually turned out, the snow plow drivers like them beuer. It was easier because there wasn't as much snow to be removed. Sc. om H~I a little snow plowing derby out there~ That's what you guys were doing. Okay. That's fine. Alright, anyway. I don't have any further comments. Do we have a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve the prelimim~ PUD of 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions. All the conditions will stay the same as in the staff report. Does anybody want to help on 117 Matt, did you have that written down? Ledvina: Yeah, sure. For number 11, it should read the final plat shall be amended to include revised street fight-of-ways on Streets B, D and/3 to a 60 foot right-of-way with Streets H and I to be 50 foot right-of-way with a 28 foot street section. Front ys~ setbacks for streets B, D and O shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setback. Mancino: And retaining walls can be placed within right-of-way on Sueet IT/ Ledvina: Yes. The use of retaining wslis and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Streets H and I. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, just one clarifi~on on thaC 28 foot wide street width is lim|llg to Streets H and I only. Street B, D and O would be your typical 31 foot wide slreet section. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, for the city's benefit I think that there was something over looked there. The city would like that the maintenance of those retaining wails be the responsibility of, when he said HOA. The Homeowners Association. We'd like to see it as the responsibility of the lot owner. Is that satisfactory? It does make a difference to the homeowner but the city does want to be protected there so we should. Hempel: The lot owner, it won't be on anybody's lot. It will be within the city right-of-way. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 That's why I'm wondering if the Association probably wouldn't be more appropriate. If there's some language we can work out in the development contract but if the pr~ owner doesn't own the property. Scott: Yeah. I think it's a homeowners issue. Mancino: Okay. 12 thru 19 remain the same that are in the staff report. 20 reads, the Song homes~ shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Blvd or County Road 117. Number 21 thru 23 reads the same. 24 is deleted. 25 reads, the last sentence reads, a street shall be consu'uc~ to State Aid standards with a ? ton section. 26 reads, the last sentence reads, the street extension shall be throuEh the 1ohn~on/Dolejd/Tumer property i~tely to the west 27 thru 31 the same. Oh 31, we want to add a last sentence that says staff will take the developer's comments under advisement. Scott: Can I have a second please? Anyone? Ledvina: I'll second it. Harberts: Discussion. Scott: Well it's been moved and seconded that we act on Cornmiss/oner Mancino's motiom Is there any discussion? Harberts: I'd like to just revisit what Jeff had said in terms of having some kind of criteria or some kind of rationale so that if this comes up again, we've got some kind of direction in which to look at. Scott: For the access off of Galpi~? Harberts: The driveway, yes. Scott: And we can, I would think surf being more familiar with existing situations. I think what we would do is just dircct you to, and I don't know whether this becomes an ordinance issue but something that, some guidelines. Acreage size and you qualify for these. Harberts: I ~ v~ need thc rationale wnight though. Scott: Size of pwpeny. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - October 9.0, 1993 Mancino: So why wouldn't we? Harberts: Well I think Patti had a real good perspective in terms of public safety. Mancino: As far as not having a light turn lane? Harberts: Well, exactly. Farmakes: I think there's a lot of compelling evidence why it's probably makes sense with that amount of property. There's also, what's disturbing though is that it's fielder's choice for the issue of hook-up. We're creating a precedent without having a precedent to follow. We're not quanfif3dng how many acre~ We're not quanfif3ring restricted access or the fact that they can't go anywhere else. The fact that it's a private home or that they've lived there for a while really, I don't think probably we use that as criteria for other issues of that sort. If we had that criteria, I think I would probably support that hook-up. It's a significant ~ece of property and so on but I feel a little uncomfortable just arbitrarily saying well that makes sense. Let's do it. Harberts: And I have to agree with that and I like the 600 foot distance. Is that what it was Dave? I think it's great. I just, it's like take that dart and throw it and where it lands, that's what I'm uncomfortable with. So I'm just looking for some rationale in terms of why are we doing it this evening. Farmakes: And if I had 5 acres and wanted to access, I'd say you're doing it here. Why. And then you're saying well I've got 5, he's got 100, what's the difference? Mancino: And it's been going on up and down Gnl~ all the time. Since I've lived there for 10 yenrs. People have bought 11 acres. They've bought 5 heres. And they've gotten curb cuts and gone into their pwperty. Farmakes: Yeah, but as the lots get smaller and smaller, one imagines that there will be more and more cut requests. Ledvina: If you say we're setting a precedent, I mean you just said there were 5 acre lots that got curb cuts on Galpin so I don't think, this doesn't represent a precedent. Farmnkes: Well, that was 15 or 20 years ago. The issue is whether or not it's currently relevant. Scorn Is there an ordinance that specifi~ the. Phmning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Mancino: No, there's just a new one. It's 3 acres. 2 1/2-3 acres, Hempel: There is a public street...collector street and arterial streets, there's a certain distance. Scott: What about county? Hernt~l: Private driveways, I don't believe there is. This situation the access is under the jurisdiction of another agency, Carver County. Mancino: Yeah, there was someone who just moved into Galpin just across from the Song property, Westerpatt. I can't remember but they just bought 2 1/2 to 3 acres and put in a private driveway and a new home and did all the landscaping and everything which was approximately 2 years ago. Did they have access to an interior mad though? Mancino: No. No. It's right off Galpim Farrnnkes: But that's part of what, why we're discussing restricted access. Harberts: And I'm not, like I said, I'm not really against it..I want some rationale. Mancino: So that we know. Farmakes: I think so and probably the end result again is a public safety issue. How many cuts do we actually wind up getting once the a~ea is fully developed? Mancino: Because I see this land developing with the Carlson property when it develops. Scott If there is no access to it, and I'm thinking of the last develo~t that we put together. We took a curb cut away. They had access to, their property was abutting the cul- de-sac anyway, as I recall So that made a lot of sense. This is a situation where we don't have that situation. Plus the fact, I think there was another issue that the dislancc inbctwccn. Well yeah, we would have had a curb cut from the existing driveway that was 100 or 150 fcct away from the curb cut for the collector for thc development. But I think if wc take a guideline of 300 feet. If we also take a ~idcline that if there is no other, if they don't have access to some sort of a collector street, then if someone docs happen to buy the 3 acres and 65 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 there's no development around, they need a drive. Fannakes: Is that, that's reaily a separme issue for another point in time. I guess what I, my concern is what we have here tonight or we're going to be voting on. The issue before us. Hnrberts: I'm finding it difficult to support the recommendation because of that and it's not the ddvewny, it's the whole process here. I mean. Mancino: But somefitrms that happens. Don't things come before us before we've had the time to write down guidelines for it so what do we do, just not accept it? Or do we stop the process and say let's develop guidelines? Ledvina: We can bring in guidelines and you know, next time or wire,er and just because this one has some special trea~t or, it's not special ~t but it's, the considerntion of the rules that we have at the time. That doesn't impact our future ordinance or guidelines. I don't see that as a problem. Scott: Are we ready to vote on the motion? Of course it's discuss/on. Harberts: I know. Paul, is it feasible for staff to develop some kind of criteria or guide lines on this? Are we looking at once in a. I know you have nothing to do, I know that Krauss: ...whether we agree with it or not. I don't know. I suppose it is. I have a hard time differentiating you know because this lot and _this lot or some other lot's something else. Maybe there is a size criteria but the thing that came to mind to me is we've got Ches Mar Farms that was approved. That's on a state highway where the state only allowed one ctu~ cut nnd we have a street combined driveway. I've got the developer wanting to go back before the City Council who wants to build n...for sharing a driveway. I don't know how big those lots are but I supposed they're the same. Same kind of size flame. I mean in this case Carver County's somewhat more liberal than the Stnte was. I don't know what to answer. It would help though, I mean you appear to have n perception or the rationale thnt this one's okay but you're not going to let other people do it in the future. You know it's not an ordinnnce you're playing with. If it was an ordinance you were playing with, you couldn't do it. You'd have to come up with a rationale for a variance. In this case it's kind of a development principle and you do have the ability to waive it I suppose but it would be useful if there was a rationale fled to it so the next time it comes up, we can say this is different and this is the same. Scott: Well the rationale as I see it, and in the last development that we made someone basic~y give up the curb cut. That property had, that pwpa~ was abutt~ a cul-de-sac or Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 an interior strut. I think that was key. And then the~ is a guidelin~ I think v~ use a 300 feet between curb cuts. Something like that. And it didn't hit that rextuirem~t edther. So those are, that's the kind of ratiollale that I was pulling with. Adequa~ separation. It does not abut an interior street- I think those are pr6tty stmi~t forward. And the siz8 of the ~ doesn't enter into it. Ledvina: The other thing to consider here is fi, by our action tonight by denying that that driveway forces the Songs to literally take and split it into two parcels and then go through this whole rigamaroli just to get what they need, you know. Why farce them inw through that process? Scott: And I think the underlying thing that I'm picking up on that isn't said is that there's an agreement between the Songs and these guys that they get their curb cut- You haven't said that- Farmakes: What I don't understand here again is that fi, techni~y to help in the planning issue, whether or not the Songs live there throu~out their life or not, or another individual who has a piece of property, ff something, ~ a subdivision plan is submitted that shows how that driveway would be u 'ulizcd sho,la the property be subdivided in the fuunv., and I don't know how the city can say, commit to that, but something like that. at least from a planning standpoint would eliminate some of my spprehe~sive to having very large lots with driveways that may make no sense in the future. Krauss: There is an extensive track record of requiring a ghost plat. It's been a while since we've seen one. Mancino: And what's that? Krauss: Well, where a plat has not been proposed but you have a concept of how smmts can be hid out in the area allotted and what's being proposed makes sense on that basis. You know where it would be useful there too, I suppose to have something like that is, it's still unclear to me what's going to happen across the street from this thing. Where do we want w force a new street to be on the east side. Mancino: But Prince isn't to thc east of that new Song place. Krauss: I don't know where it is exactly. Mancino: No, it isn't- That's up further. Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 buss: But it's not Davidson e/ther. It's something inbetween. Mancino: No, it's Marty. He has 21 acres and the next people have about 5 acres. And then Prince is just a little south. Fammke~: Don't you have an overhe~ pictme showing the ~? Terry Forbord: To address Mr. Farmakes' concern. Really the propervj that the Songs are keeping for their estam, geographically should be planned and developed with the ~ to thc north. There's a wetland or it will be a mitigation area between the proposed cul-de-sac. The mitigation area, this is actually going to be expanded but this is an illusuation. This mitigation area actually comes in through here. It's being expanded as pan of the development of this sim. If you look at the topography in here, this sitr really kind of flows more with this sim. Someday those sites will probably develop and at that time, just like you do when you enim'tain other plats, you will cause them to vacate their present access onto Galpin when those roads, those lateral roads or street roads are being built within that subdivision. And so that's when that, at that point in time would occur. Krauss: That's lrue but I think Dave understands that the mc~it of the ghost platting is that when we have a request to develop across the street, we know where to put that road and that we don't have a standard situation where the Song driveway is here or over there. I mean we're not asking that it be proposed but that at least it be looked at in concept. Mancino: Ten'y, can you show us where Prince's home is? Terry Forbord: Okay, here's the Song future homestead. Right across the street is another home riEht there. His driveway is right here. And here is Mr. Carlson's driveway. And then there's another driveway here and here. Our proposed street fits right about, let's see. Where's the pump house? Okay, so our northerly street is here and the southerly street is down here. Haxberts: Where's thc Songs' driveway proposed? Terry Forbord: Their futur~ driveway? Terry Forbord: Their driveway would probably be in, this is kind of a wetland complex right here. So their driveway would probably be right in this area. Between this general area. 68 Plmming Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: We can Wire. a little bit closer look at it but from that aerial, it looks like there's only one option to build it. Terry Forbord: As far as a health, safety and welfare issue. The County wouldn't allow that to occur if they thought it was a health and safety, welfare issue. They wouldn't grant that access onto that road. And that's another c~iteria they utili~e...entm~aining permit Scott: Any more discussion? Okay, a motion to close the discussion? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close discussion on the motion. Chairman Scott stated that discussion was closed. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary PUD 093-3 for 111.77 acres of property to create 115 single family lots, preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Reconfigure Lot 36, Block 4 to increase lot width at setback to 90 feet. e Developer is responsible for demonstrating a minimum 20 foot separation is provided for side yards as each building permit is requested. Interior side yard setbacks of 6 feet for garages and 9 feet for living areas are permitted. Front yard setbacks may be reduced down to 20 feet wher~ the developer can demonstrate that improved tree preservation would result, except along the collector street where 30 foot setbacks are required. Side yard setback of 10 feet is required for all free standing accessory s~. These must comply with all other rear and front yard setbacks. e Each lot must be provided with two trees when they do not contain at least this number of trees 2½" or larger in size at the time of development. These trees may be placed in the lot in question or clustered as appropriate based upon an approved landscaping plan. However, none of these trees shall be credited to b~t~'ering requirements along Galpin nor placed upon commonly held outlots." Trees to be selected from approved city list of over swry trees, minimum 2½ diameter at time of installation. Seed and sod required for all disturbed areas. Letter of credit or cash deposit required at time of building permit to guarantee installation. Provide detailed landscaping plans for internal plantings and the Galpin Boulevard landscape berm for city approval. Provide copies of subdivision coveaauts and home owner association documents for review and approval. The covenants should establish acceptable architectural criteria consistent with the PUD. Association documents should clearly establ~ mainteaance 69 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 and tax responsibility for all commonly held facilities, landscaping and parcels. 5. Outlot D to be merged with appropriate parcels in Dolejsi PUD at time of final plat. 0 . Provide details of the proposed private recreational facilities. Since city park plans are predicated upon the con--on of this fac51ity to acconunodate some local needs, financial guarantees ensuring its constructio~ must be posmt. The associa~n part ~ill be built concurrent with street "A" as listed on the preliminary plat." Provide final clarifications regarding wetland mitigation relative to the basin found on the "A" street nligmmm. Provide plans illustrating how wethnd buffer areas are to have native wetland vegetation established. This installation shall be completed with si~e work and subject to so_fficient finandal guarantms. Concmrent with final approval, the applicant shall dem'mine what wetland buffer monumentafion is to be employed. This monumentafion shall be installed with initial site development and is to be covered by s~em financial guarantees. Wetland buffer dimensions and setbacks are established in the applicant's compliance table dated August 10, 1993. Res~fion plans to mitigate wetland damage caused by the sanitary sewer crossing between A and E streets should be provided and incorporated into the development contract. Provide protective conservation easements over all wetlands identified by staff and required wetland buffers. The applicant must demonstrate that wetland mitigation meets 1:1 ratio. At this time we are short 0.10 acres of wethnd due to the applicant's failure to identify Wetland I as identified by staff. The applicant is responsible for providing wetland mitigation for impacts s~mning from the ultimate improvement of Gatpin ~ trail construction adjacent to the site. The City will assume responsibility for obtaining the necessar~ permits for this activity." 8. Tree Prcscrvation/Landscaping: a. Detailed plans with the final plat for landscaping the cul-de-sac islands be developed for approval. Detailed plans for the Galpin Blvd. landscaped bt4ff~ (and berming where feasible). This feature must be significant enough to bqffer direct views of the home sites from the roadway for lots devoid of preserved trees in appropriate locations that is mentioned elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, ~f the applicant wishes to use this requirement to locate trees in more appropriately designed clusters around the plat, additional trees must be added to meet the numerical standard plus provide vegetation elsewhere in the berm area and commonly held areas. 7O Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 c. Tree plantings to meet minimum size standards in City Code nnd be selected from the official tree list that is being prepared by the Tree Board. d. Landscaping to be covered by ~tti~ financial guarantees. All txee conservation areas to be prot~-ted by snow fence or otherwise sati_'_nfnctorily marked and all erosion control to be in place with both being inspected and approved by the city befo~ undertak~g any gl'~_ding of conslruction activity on the site. Expnnd the tree conservation areas as recommended by staff. 9. Park nmi ~: Parks The private/association park be approved with the addition of an open field with a minimum size of 250 square feet with a maximum 4% slope is added to the park layout. This open field is to be in addition to and not in lieu of existing proposed amenities. Furthermore, if the private/association park is ever abandoned, it shall be trand~ to the city for public park purposes. Such a provision must be drafted into association documents. b. Full park fees shall be paid at the rate in force upon building permit application. Trai It is intended that the C~pln trail be constructed in the street right-of-way except within 200 feet of street intersections. In these areas, a trail easement up to 20' in width is required. Furthermore, that this easement shall be included in the grading plan for the project with a suitable trail bed being prepared. This trail bed may meander within the easement alignment at the discretion of the applicant, but the eventual alignment must be conducive to future trail construction and is subject to approval as a part of the grading plan review. Planting of trees shall be restricted to areas west of the trail bench. be The applicant shall dedicate lands to accommodate trail construction along the southern boundary of the Johnson/Dolej~er prelimiaa~ plat as depicted on Attachrmnt #4. The applicant shall map and consm~ct a trail paralleling this wetland. This construction is to be completed per city specifications and at the time of adjoining street consuuction, Final alignment of thi,~ trail shall be staked by the developer and approved by the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer. 71 Planning Commission Meethg - October 20, 1993 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. In recognition for the dedication of this trail corridor, and the construction of said trail, it is recommended that the applicant receive full trail fee credit at the time of building permit application for both the Song property and Johnson/Dolej~ applications. [Note: This condition will require amendments to the conditions of approval associated with the preliminary plat for the lohn~l/Dolej~ properties.] Fees associated with the amendment of the PUD for the Johnson/Dolejsi/Tumer property are to be waived. This trail shall include a connection to the street plan as indicated between Lots 16 & 17, Block 2, or a similar suitable location in the near vicim'ty. This recommendation is contingent upon the city ncquifing a portion of the Stockdale property for public park pmpose~ within 45 days after August 24, 1993. This condition was applied with the applicant's consent. Additionally, Lundgren Brothers Con--on is to grade this park site per city specifications if it is Demonslrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' home site, 12' x 12' deck and 30' rear yard without inw_~dlng into any wetland buffer on the final pint. The final plat shall be amended to include revised street right-of-ways on Streets B, D and O to a 60-foot wide fight-of-way with the typical 31 foot street width. Streets H and I to be a $0 foot right.~-way with a 28 foot street section. Front yard setbacks for streets B, D and G shall be allowed to go to a 25 foot setba~ The use of retaining walls and 3:1 slopes shall be allowed for Street H and I with main~ee of the retaining walls to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Ammciaflon. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public fight-of-ways incl~g drainage basins. The minimum width should be 20 feet. The plans should also be revised to include an improved surface over thc east edge of Outlot F to provide the City access to the sediment basin and Lake Hnn'ison for malntennnce vehicles. Access may be covered with sod over a compacted subgrade acceptable to City staff. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permi~ i.e. Watershed District, Health Department, MPC~, Carver County Highway DepOt, DNR, Army Corps of F~neers. Storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100-year storm event, 24-hour intensity, should be submitted to the City 72 Plavning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 15. Engineer for review and approval prior to final platting. At a minirnun~ deceleration lanes shall be constructed on southbound Galpin Boulevard when Street A and/or Sueet E is conm'ucted, The applicant's ~, Carver County Highway Department, and staff shall review warrants for a bypass lane on northbound Galpin Boulevard at the in--on of A Sueet. 16. 17. 18. 19. 21. 2e Fire hydrants shall be placed approximn~y 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in ~ce with the Fire Marshal's recommendation. All disturbed areas shall be invne~eO restored with seed and disc-mulched or provided with a wood-fiber blanket within two weeks tg~ter site grading or before Nov. 15 each construction season. Areas where street and/or utiltty construction will occur throughout the year are excepted as is construction on individual home sites when building permits have been issued and erosion control is in place. The City may grant an extension to the restoration date if weather conditions permit. All divturbed areas shall be restored in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. The developer shall construct all utility and ~eet i .mprovements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Sumdard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare ffmal construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final phtting. If the develoI~ insts___Hs trunk sewer and water improvements which is considered anything over an 8-inch pipe diameter, a credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watemudn trunk improvements which will be levied against the parcel This credit amount will be determined as the cost difference bctnv~ the standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) and the proposed trunk improvement. As a condition of final plat approval the applicant will be req~ to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary Cman~ security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. No lots shall tak~ driveway acce~ from Galpin Boulevard (County Road 117). The Song homest~ shall gain access via a private driveway off of Galpin Boulevard or County Road 117. Street names submi~ with the final plat are subject to staff approval. The site grades adjacent to C-alpin Boulevard shall be xcvised to be compatible with the 73 Phnning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 future upgrade of Galpin Boulevard and future trail consmiction. In addition, no berming or drainage facilities will be allowed to encroach upon the Cralpin Boulevard fight-of-way. 23. Wetland basin G shall be relocated and rnifig~ to be contained within the development to avoid its being imp~ by street and trail construction. 25. The street grades shall be adjusted to co~orm to City ordinance which is between 0.50% and 7% except on H and E sweets. A sweet shall be constructed to a 7 ton 6e The final plat shall be contingent upon the applicant demonstrating tlutt a street WIU be extended to serve the pnrcel which lies northwesterly of this site. The street extension to the northwest shall be through the ~lohnson/Dolej~er pmtm'ty immediately to thc west. 27. The proposed landscape median area at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and A and E sweets, and the proposed cul-de-sac islands, are to be allowed subject to incorporation of modifications requested by st~ and to meet State Aid requirements. 28. Enter into a PUD contract with the City. 29. Street F to be co~ up to thc south property line. It shall be provided with a temporary mrnaxound and a signed barricade indicating "Thia street to be extended in the future." Notice of the extension is to be placed in the chain-of-title of all lots in the 30. The common private drive serving Lots 33, 34, and 35, Block 4 shall be paved to a width of 20 f~t, be constructed to a 7 ton design and be equipped with a turnaround acceptable to thc Fire Marshal 31. Block 5, Lot 7 ahall be revised to ensure that a 40' setback is provided from the creek. Additionally, it must be demonstrated that a wetland buffer of at least 10' plus a setback from the buffer of at least 40', ~ be provided." Staff will take the developer's comments under advisement between the Phnning Commission mid City Conncfl All voted in favor, except Farmnke8 mid Hnrberts who opp(med, mid the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: Jeff, if you could state your reason for opposition. 74 Plann~g Co~on M~ng - Oc~b~ 20, 1993 Nm-makes: I'd just repeat. My opposition is not to thc proposal itself on thc Song property, which was my only objection of the motion. But how we're arriving at thc conclusion. I think we're argning two different things here. One is the actual request and what I'm arguing is how we're, the rationale we're using for it and I would like it to be consistent and that the rationale be consistent as to how we apply that. Scott: Okay. And Diane your thoughts? Sco~ Your thoughts al~ similar? ZONING ORDINANCe___. AM~.NDI~W. NT TO ~ CITY CODE, SECTION 20-$7, RF.i~ARDING EXPIRATION OF PLATTING VARIANCES~ Paul Krauss presented the stuff report on this item. Scott: Do we need to discuss? This isn't a public heating item so, do we need to discuss the reconunendation? Ledvina: I don't have any comments. Krauss: Well actually it is a public headng..~~g Ordinance amendment. Scott: Okay. The public hearing is open. Let the record show that there are no members of the public here. I think I can boldly close the public heating. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public hearing, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Okay, do I have a motion? Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commbqd_ on recomnmnds the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance amendment to Section 20-S7 to read as follows: Section 20-57. Violations of conditions imposed upon variance; termination for non-use. Thc violation of any written condition shall constitute a violation of this chapter. A variance ~Pt a variance approved in conjunction with plattin~ shall become void within one (1) year following the issuance unless substantial action has been taken by the petitioner in 75 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 relianc~ thereon. All voted in hvor and the motion caFried, APPROVAL OF MINUTF~: ~ moved, Mancino seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 1993 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Paul, Adwinislrative Section. Is it someg~g that we should be res_ding? Do we need to take any action on this? I noticed that we got the ~ and greatest on the Frank Beddor situation. Mancino: What is it? Scott: Well he filed suit on behalf of himself and I think a couple of other parties, filed suit on the City Council and the Mayor because of not doing an Environment, or because of the street. Krauss: I'm not exactly sure what the suit is about. We haven't done anything yet. Scott: In reading it...it appears that it's frivolous because Mr. Beddor is not technically a resident of the state of Minnesota. Krauss: He's a ~t of Florida so. Scott: So he can't file suit. I looked throuEh ~is and I went, well that's interestinE. I didn't even know that. But anyway, what are the key items in here that we need to, except for that. Krauss: Oh, one interesting _thing. Moon Valley. Another contimfing saga...We seem to have gotten a lot of what we wanted...The different avenue is the Pollution Control Agency, which frankly hasn't been very tough on them before. I serve on a lot of boards and task forces one of which is on thc Minnesota River project and I kept on raising this at meetings. Hey, here's a good example of the problems...wc've been in court for years. We're at our wits end as to what we can do about it as a city. Well they were just going to give it a blanket, it's called...blanket bind of a thing. It's a simple one page form. You write checks on it... Well apparently the owner Tom Zwiers stiffed MnDot staff a few times and never showed up for meetings. There was a major blow out down there _this summer. Scott: Is that when the stuff went across the highway and into thc wetland? Krauss: Yeah. Well, we called up the Fish and W!JdliCe Service and the PCA the next morning and kind of got them out there to see it. They were horrified at the damage that was caused and in view of the fact that he never took them up on the blanket...they said, well we ?6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 withdrew that offer. This is now an individual permit which is a much more rigorous set of criteria. We tried to get the Judge to require that we have en~nea~ ponds and occasional... The ~ud§e so far wouldn't let us do it. Scott: That's Judge Canning? Krauss: Yeah. He thinks that we're going further than we should with a grandfaflm~ use and we're overstepping our bounds. Well, the Pollution Conlrol Agency just is requiring that they have an engineer on the site twice a year. That they do monthly water quality testing. That they meet NURP standards. And if they fail to do so, that they do it at the risk of_plus · the PCA's doing the enforcement and we don't have to. So I think this is kind of an interesting turn of events and I hope it's indicative of cooperation... Ledvina: Paul, I would suggest that you have somebody watch or iden~ what the conditions of thc permit are in terms of the items and the trigger dates and also that you follow up with MPCA staff. That they are enfordng thcir rcquimnents of their permit because in my experience, they have these wonderful restrictive permits that protect the environment but they don't get enforced. If you have somebody that's there letting them know that they're wntching, they'll do a _better___ job. So just Krauss: Your caution is well mkem And we're still in court so we do have a role to play. Scott: Okay. I think we can forego the open discussion on the redevelopment options for Chanhas~n. The bankffpost office~ That's I think, what you have here is pretty good. I think we can read through that but my guess is we're going to see something on... Ledvina: Come to the liRA meeting wmormw if you wnnt to hear about it. Scott: Yeah, thc land swap. I guess the bottom linc is that because of thc Klein's buying the bank from thc Mithune's and the value of lhe two lots that the city is eyeing for condemnation for city center park, is throwing kind of, not a monkey wrench but they're concerned that that's going to affect thc bank transactiom Scott: And they'd like to have someplace, when they expand. I guess thc Klcin's are planning on exp~nding the bank and they want to place the park, that's not going to happen if city center park goes. The post office property may be, it seems like it's. Harbcrm: What's number 8 all about? Scott: Planning Commission goals? 77 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Krauss: Yeah. We can put this on another agenda...this time each year. We pass them up to the City Council in a work session. I also usually take my stuff' out to lunch and ask them what do we want to get done the upcoming year...We're so swamped with subdivisions and site plans that... Ledvina: Are we going to have the same level of subdivisions coming our way the next 6 months? buss: I'm afraid... Mancino: We will have a lull or the same degree? I'm sow/, I didn't. Krauss: I don't see a lull coming. Farmakes: I would like to make a recommendation on that. If it's indicative that we're going to get last minute information on these developments, that we come up with a criteria for postponing them until they're ~tly discussed. This is the second time in a row Lundgren has brought these 30 list of rlifl'erentiafion between you and them and you see it the day before. I don't think that there's anything wrong with you ~g within your capabih'ties to do that in a manner where you're not running around pulling your hair out trying to do that. It didn't seem to me that that's what an attorney would refer to as reasonable time to respond. And I know I feel like it's restricted access, lJlre they're trying to pull sometMng to get a response from me without having the support and conaideration of the staff. So to me if you need more time to do that, I think that should be looked at and I know that you have a time guide line that you use when the work comes in and you'd like to get it back out again. But if that needs to be exp~ I think you should do that. Krauss: Well, when I came here we expanded it from 2 weeks to 4 weeks. But you still: that ~s we have another week we don't have to start on the _thing so we can finish up something else. Extending it probably wouldn't be useful. I find those kind of tactics as frustrating as you do. On the other hand, Terry's position is he doesn't get a copy of the staff mpon until Friday or Monday. He has no opportunity to give his position. Farrnahes: Then to me, that's fine. But if you have all the information that you need before you come to us and you use your criteria or like other businesses do. When I have the finished item in my hand, I can tell you specifically how long it's going to take to molre, it and what it's going to cost. If you change that, if you change that criteria, then we re- establish the time guide line and some of these criteria for many of these things, I'm sure there's a lot of factors involved in developments of this size. When you don't have answers and you don't, if you don't have a reasonable time to negotiate these issues, then we shouldn't be seeing that stuff. Krauss: Well and 9 times out of 10 we can deal with things and I don't have any problem ?8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 with a developer taking exception to a condition. The thing that I personally found very frustrating, and it probably showed in my...but was when somebody is changing nns_nce or inflection of what I say. Farmakes: And verb changers, yeah. Krauss: I ~ I've had 17 years of experience in writing these things. They mean something. They're supposed to have some kind of a legal standing because sooner or later you're going to have contract language or go to court. Changing shalls and maybe if you feel like it, if it's a good thing to do, doesn't work and I get very frustrated when I have a write a whole second staff report and meet with him 2 or 3 limes when I don't have enough time to do other work for something that didn't need to be done in the first place. That's what I find frustrating. I didn't take exception to you know, the driveway concern or the right-of-ways. Those are all legit. But I don't think it needs to be done in a format where it takes 2 112 hours of your time to talk through every phrase and every word, and that's what happened at the first meeting and it happened the last time. Farmakes: That's what I'm saying. I think it's a disservice to the other people who are here who have their stuff presentable and have worked those issues out with you and they wind up waiting 4 hours when they should be waiting 2 hours. In this case I think it was Centex thing that we saw tonight that had to come back agnin ,imply because of that, I think it was 31 issues that he had and wanted to moderate here in this foro_m and I just, I emphatically believe that this isn't the forum to negotiate 31 issues that he had. Mancino: Yeah, it was like I wanl~l to table it even before it got started. Farmakes: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. Mancino: There was no reason to sit there and listen to the whole presenm~n knowing that we weren't going to be able to respond. Farmakes: What I'm saying is if you have an incuvau/ng amount of pressure from the development's requifiug response in the same amount of firrm, it seems to me that something's got to give. Krauss: Well I think that's a real big concern I have though because this, we used the down time with the recession and lack of MUSA availabih'ty to do lots of creative things. Write new ordinances. Develop new environmental approaches. Develop a comp plan and we're kind of a treadmill now. We're going to Il.q30 and 12:00 at night prOC~sing new things. I don't even know when to schedule a Highway 5 because we need to get it back to here. Farmakes: And that to me is far more of a priority. 79 Planning Commission Meeting - October 20, 1993 Mancino: Yeah, that's one thing I'd like to get on the schedule again. To go a bus trip and do the Highway 5. Scott: Can we adjourn and take it off :line? Harberts moved, Farmakes seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:~0 p.m. Submittal by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nnnn Opheim 8O