Loading...
PC 1993 11 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 pan. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Farmakes, Joe Scott, Brian Ba~ll; Nancy Mancino, Ladd Conrad and Matt Ledvina MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harbcrts STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Bob Genero~, Senior Planner, and Dave Hernpel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 70UTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKI~. IHLEY BLVD, DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS. Public Present: Name Address Mike & Brigid Keder Mary Lou & Bailey Janssen Gary Skalberg Jim Dolejsi Richard D. Oliver Vencil & Cathi Prewitt Dennis & Ada Baker Barry & Hallie Bershow Craig & Kate Halverson Jamie Heilicher Fred & Judy Ann Hein Roger H. Petea-son Del & Nancy Smith Jack & Lydia Ardoyno Bev and Jack Bell Jill and Dick Blumeister Eldon & RaeJean Berkland 532 Lyman Blvd. 500 Lyman Blvd. 510 Lyman Blvd. 9260 Kiowa Trail 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. 421 Lyman Blvd. 9219 Lake Riley Blvd. 9271 Koiwa Trail 9283 Kiowa Trail 9280 Kiowa Trail 9350 Kiowa Trail 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. 9371 Kiowa Trail 9361 Kiowa Trail 9261 Kiowa Trail Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Name Address Terry Forbord Pete Molinaro John Uban Paul Zakariasen Don & Kitty Sitter Peter Pemrick Bill Lang Eunice Kottke Ronald Ytzen Norm Orant Marilyn and John Goulett Jim Hendrickson Stan Sekley Kris Rebertus Robert L. Eickholt Paul Terry Alan Dirks Jeff P. Nelson Oreg & Kelly Hastings Lundgren Bros Pioneer Engineering DSU, Inc. 600 West 94th Street 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 9251 Kiowa Trail 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 9227 Lake Riley Blvd. 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. 341 Deeffoot Trail 320 Deerfoot Trail 9390 Kiowa Trail 400 Deerfoot Trail 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. 300 Deerfoot Trail 9217 Lake Riley Blvd. Bob Generous gave the staff presentation on this item. Batzli: Dave, could you talk a little bit about why another access is needed onto Lake Riley Boulevard. Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name is Dave HempeL We bclieve another access is wanmited to Lake Riley Boulevard due to the circumst~ces that exist out there today. Lake Riley Boulevard is essentially a 2,300 foot long dead end cul-de-sac. No fumm availability to loop the street back making thc connection either to Kiowa Trail, which is to the west, or north back into thc subdivision due to grading constraints as well as existing homes in those wooded areas. By provi'ding a secondary access from the cul-de-sac there located in the southeast comer of the site, you will essentially reduce the dead end street by half approximately. I do have a memo from the city's public safety Fire Marshal with regards to the public safety concerns that they've had on Lake Riley Blvd in the paso The street is fairly narrow. It's 21 foot wide. It does not have municipal water service. There is a well as well and there is sewer availability for the homesitea With this extension to Lake Riley Boulevard we're...upgrade Lake Riley Boulevard in any fashion. It will give the Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 property owners the opportunity with the feasibility study for bringing trunk utilities inw the area.., see if they're be interested in participating in the development to have wa~er exl~nded down Lake Riley Boulevard. Water could be extended down the boulevard area and...segment of roadway. In the past the city has had on occasion...contact them to see when water may be available for the area and basically without this type of development, we then say it may be 5-10 years, depending on development pressures. Mancino: So each individual resident can decide whether they want to hook up to water or not? Hcmpel: That's correct We'll send out a survey and if there's enough int~m~t to exim~ water down and we've probably have to have over 50% of thc neighborhood requesting _this water service before thc City Council would decide whether or not... Mancino: So if 60% decide to, that they want water but the other 40% don't, do the other 40% still have to hook-up? Hempel: City ordinance states that they have 12 months to hook onto city water. That's something that could be left up to City Council to modify or give a variance to thc existing homes if they do not want to hook up to city water. Scott: Dave, do all the property owners get assessed? Hempel: All the property owners would be, that... Scott: Whether or not they hook up? Hernpel: Whether they hook up or not, that's correcc..dm~g the assessment hearing the City Council decides...connection charge so they pay for it at the time of connection. However, it's essentially deferred with int~a'est accru~g during that _time. Scott: What if people decide not to hook up, would they still have the oppommity. The City Council would determine whether or not they are forced to do that within 12 months based upon the existing ordinance? Hempel: That's correct Scorn Okay. Krauss: Just to clear that up a little bit. There is no proposal tied into ~ development to Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 extend water down either Lake Riley or Kiowa. We have the ability to do it with this development because water's being brought into the area. As Dave points out, people have contacted us from time to time about the possibility. We're not proposing to do it and won't do it until we're asked to do it basically is the way it sits. But now we have the ability to do it if we' re asked. Scott: Okay. Batzli: Dave, do you want to address the issue of the roadway width? In the past we have from time to time given the 50 foot setback. Hempel: Certainly. We have deviated on some occasions, deviated from the...60 foot wide right-of-way where we feel we're gainirlg something or we're preserving a wetland or a stand of trees or reducing grading...essentially an agricultural use right now. We're not preserving anything on a 50 foot right-of-way. The street width, the utility excavation all will utilize up to 60 feet of the area anyway. So the city looks at in the future if we ever had to go back and do repairs on utilities down the road, we need additional width to be able to re-excavate to do repai~ on utiliti~. Batzli:. Is there an inordinate amount of land being dedicated for right-of-ways in this project? Hen'q~el: The applicant will say so in this situation. He is dedicating a lot of right-of-way for future Trunk Highway 101 on the west side. He has met staff's recommendations as far as Lyrnan Boulevard right-of-way dedication due to the wetland located approximately, just on the north side of Lyman Boulevard about midway through the plat and will require the roadway alignment be shifted farther to the south. However, the city's design for the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard has been reduc~ somewhat over the last year ~nce the Eden Prairie with the goff course and that. It will not make it necessary to make a 4 lane wide road as we originally thought. We're envisioning more of a 36 foot wide type street. Therefore, the additional right-of-way may not be required in the future. However, it's nice to have the flexibility at this time both for storm water ponding purposes in the future and roadway alignments. Any additional right-of-way not used can be vacated back to the applicant. The initial right-of-way along Lake Riley Boulevard. C'ku'renfly we have 40 feet of right-of-way except for the northeast comer of the site. The right-of-way does meander back and forth. The City would like to maintain the 60 foot wide right-of-way, which is our standard which is also along Kiowa to the south is a 60 foot right-of-way. As Bob previously mentioned, the previous subdivision along Lake Riley Boulevard, Shore Acres, did dedicate 33 feet at that time which is one-half the normal 66 foot wide right-of-way at that time so the city did acquire another 7 feet when the sewer line was put in... Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Scott: Dave, if the right-of-way for Lake Riley Boulevard is expanded to 60 feet, what happens to the property on both sides? Is it going to be ~ire. n, is it 10 feet from one side and 10 feet from the other? Is that how it works? Hempel: At this time the property owners on thc east side have dedicated thc necessary fight-of-way with their plat. We would be looiring for the additional fight-of-way that would be dedicated with the plat before us this evening. They're currently proposing 10 feel We are requesting an additional ? feet w...60 foot wide fight-of-way. Scott: Okay. Batzli: Let me ask you one more question~ The pipeline easement. Did ~ State recently change it's rules regarding construction or anything for pipeline safety in view of the accident in St. Paul? Hempel: Mr. Chaimum, I'm not very familiar with any rules that may have changed. I know that the currant policy is they don't want to see any kind of grading disruption in their easement area generally. They want to keep their 3 to 4 foot of cover over the pipe... The applicant's plan here does a good job of that. They're proposing one crossing basically the storm sewer in the southwest comer of the development. Batzli: What about location of housing pads and things like that? Is that taken care of when thcy come in for thc construction permit then? You look for thc location of thc pipelinc and the pad? Hempel: That is shown on the preliminary grading plato The relationship to the proposed house plans and there does appear to be sufficient room between the pipcline easement and the house pads for additional decks that may be added on in the future. One particular lot up here that may be fairly close would be Lot 9 of Block 1 there. Otherwise the remaining lots,.. Batzli: Let me ask you one final question Paul. I assume that, and forgive me if I'm in eh'or here. But we have not seen, have we seen this as a conceptual kind of thing or is _this kind of dual tracking so that this is going to be it? Krauss: Yes, it is dual traclcing. The conceptual stage of the PUD is optional. Batzli: Right. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Krauss: We typically recommend it but it's not required. This is, it's a fairly complex subdivision but it's not a very complex PUD and there really didn't seem to be all that much to be gained by going through a... Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: We have a reading of the intent statement of a PUD. I'm not sure L is that something we can ask staff to do? Is that a page long or? B~_tv. li: The intent section of our cummt PUD. The various findings ar the rezoning to PUD starting on page 4 of our staff report. Are those the factors7 I mean wc have an additional intent statement do we not7 Inumt paragraph for PUD. Paul, do you recollect off the top of you head7 Krauss: No, I don't recollect. Mancino: There is one at the be~nning. Krauss: You mean a general intent? Batzli: Yeah. Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. There is a general intent paragraph that's not set forth in our report right? Krauss: If so, that was an omission but yes, there is a general one and a specific one. Batzli: Right. Well these are thc specific ones that are listed. You don't happen to have the general one handy on you? Krauss: No. I didn't bring my... Batzli: Unless there's any other questions, does the applicant have a presentation? John Uban: Good evening. My name is John Ubam I'm a consultant planner here representing Lundgren Bros. Wc do want to make a short presentation and wc feel that you probably really want to discuss some of the attributes of the proposal and maybe specifically some of the issues on the roads. But here with us, Ten'y Forbord of course who you know from Lundgren Bros. Pete Molinaro with Pioneer En~neering is here to answer any Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 engineering type questions you might have. The first thing I'd like to go throu~ is why a PUD and what is happening on this particular site that is sort of driving our design and what are we _tsidng inw account that we worked over many months, especially this summer with parks and city staff. This first board I'd like to show you is the subject property. Of course Lynum Blvd on the north side. Highway 101 on the far west side. On the east is acttmlly Lake Riley and then Lake Riley Boulevard which is single loaded meaning that the lots are just on the lakeshore side. And then on the south, Kiowa and Bandimere Park over in this area...On this developrnent we have about 80 acres and the first thing you need to look at is that we have added additional right-of-way which we believe is usually beyond the character of a normal subdivision. 4.7 acres has been added for Lyman Blvd along the north. Now that includes, if you look at this drawing, a fairly irregular pattern. We've been adding extra to that ali~nt so that the alignment can curve around wetlands to the north. So we are trying to change the pattern absorbing on our perimeter a greater burden to make an environmental setting more protected. Also on Highway 101, this is Slate right-of-way. We're dedicating, we're showing here. We're not proposing at this point to charge the State or anyone else for this right-of-way but it's part of our dedication to significantly widen that right-of-way so that TH 101 can move towards _this ~. So once again we have a large amount of right-of-way, 3.1 acres that we're dedicating. And then on Lake Riley Boulevard, although we have proposed no access to it, basically the lots that we have, had their own road system and look out over this roadway, it is about a 40 foot right-of-way today and we have proposed to put it to a 50 foot right-of-way which is similar to the street level that we have inside the subdivision. In addition, for other platting reasons, a variety of odd shapes along Lake Riley Boulevard that we're dedicating in addition to thaL So we have in wtal all dedication of fight-of-way, I think it's 17.8 acz~ out of 80 acres. And what we found when we kind of compared all of this, is on the Song property, which you have seen recently, 11.6% of that subdivision was for right-of-way both on the adjacent county road and with the collector inside and the local road system. On 1ohn~n/Dolejsi/Tumer, which was the project directly to the west of the Song project, it was about 17%. Here on the Roger/Dolejsi property it's 22% and so that percentage has really gotten to be a very large part of the development on this property and we saw here that what we were really trying to do then is develop our largest lots around the perimeter to protect the development from those very busy roads. We're dedicating additional right-of-way and we're making perimeter lots as large as possible. Also, many of the lots that overlook Bandimere Park on the north side of it are larger also. These large lots on the perimeter combined with that right-of-way is absorbing a great amount of this project so we're trying to tighten up the interior and this is the flexibility we're looking for in the PUD. The other thing that has happened, and I'll show it a little bit, is the Williams Pipeline. And what has happened is not only that you don't want to build a house on top of it, which is ~ obvious. But the pattern of it is such that if we didn't have to dedicate TH 101 right-of-way, we could have put a roadway on the alignment for inslance of the pipeline and have moved our subdivision over all the way to the west. And Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 this would have worked out as a good pattern. But since we're de, dicat~g this amount, and with the slopes in that area, we had to really move our homes all the way to the east side of that pipeline. So that's why those lots have ended up being very large and that's the general impact that that pipeline has on us. We also have worked with the parks department to enlarge Bandirnere and so this park has enlarged by $.3 acres and this, on the south side Bandimere Park has experienced some problems with trying to develop that park because they have the pipeline. They can't grade heavily where that pipeline exists. It's a parcel that's oddly shaped. It appeared at first that that would be very good for single family housing. We could work around it. When we tested it, working with the parks depamnent, it didn't look like we could really use that piece very well because we may have wanted to swap pieces. So instead we're dedicating 5.3 acres. This allows their park to expand without heavy grading and will be a si~ificant cost savings to the city. All of these then combined gave us the pressure, the need for flexibility within the subdivision for PUD and that is specifically why we are asking for a 50 foot right-of-way. What does that 50 foot right-of- way do? One, it was our understanding as we worked with staff in the past that this type of flexibility is the kind of flexibility you would look for in the PUD so it does severn1 things. Number one, it keeps us from one, absorbing even more land as right-of-way but it increases our interior road system right-of-way by 20% in addition to the amount that we're already giving and we're up to 22% of the whole subdivision is road. So it saves that amount a burden. Batzli: Does your 22% include your internal roadways? John Uban: Yes. Batzli: Okay. John Uban: In addition to that, it allows us to compact our grading a little bit so that we can keep our grading in a little more compacted to the street and the pads. It shortens driveways by 5 feet to each home. It shortens the stub for all the utilities by that amount so it allows some cost savings and some economy within the subdivision itself. $o it's grading, utilities and pavement, all of which less pavement means less runoff. All of this helps a great deal in our subdivision and it's really this extreme burden of right-of-way that we look for and needed the flexibility on the interior to condense it as much as we possibly could. Now in looking at a PUD, and this is perhaps a frightful board to be showing but the PUD is really to create a pattern that is very delightful. This is a typical grid. When you have a subdivision ordinance that says so many feet of right-of-way. So many feet for setbacks, you typically are describing a grid system. This is not what we want to do and so the PUD is to encourage this much more natural flowing type of subdivision. In this we'd gain more lots but that's not our goal either. What we're proposing is a development that has a road system that's Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 very curvulinear. Creates very attractive ueighborhoods~ It uses the topography, the po_n_ding system to really cxeate a variety of lots. Walkout lots. Lots that move up ~ down the street and once again using our strategy of curving the street to create varied andinteresting settings for the homes so the neighborhood is not boring. The interior road system is designed to include...lot in the middle. We include the Bandimere Park and we have proposed a connection to the south. This is in our discussions with staff that it was good, in their opinion, to connect to the south and we have done that. The large lot right next to Kiowa is the Dolejsi homestead and they will be there on that large lot, that they could subdivide that in the future. The other issue that we want to talk about is whether or not this cul-de-sac should extend to Lake Riley Blvd. We don't think there's a real need for it. We're dedicating additional right-of-way for Lake Riley. We obviously don't need to access that road. The parks depot has asked for a trail connection and although we would rather now, that's a possibility through that portion of the site. We've been coopexating with them whenever we can on this. That connection through is something that we don't think that we need as a subdivision. We think our subdivision works a lot beuex without it because it creates it's own pedn~ter. All those lots are loot'ing out over Lake Riley and we'd rather keep them in that configuration rather than turning them back in a different direction to actually access off the street that goes down to Lake Riley. So it has some very definite impacts for us to put that through. In addition, there's more right-of-way again that comes out of the subdivision.. We would like to then really ask that you review the two issues. One of 60 foot fight-of-way. That request We strongly want to keep it 50 feet. We think it's very important in this specific subdivision that we're adjusting all the perimeter edges to save wetlands or give more right-of-way where it's needed and we need the flexibility on the inside. The option is, if it is to be .60, we would like then to have a 25 foot front yard setback instead of the 30. That way the house pad, utilities, driveways can all stay as we had designed and it's really sort of technic, ally saying, should we make the right-of-way 60 with a 25 foot setback or m~e the right-of-way 50 with a 30 foot setback on each front yard. And so we believe we have a very good physical situation and one of those two combinations would be okay with us. But we would prefer the 50 foot fight-of-way. Also we.would prier to keep our dedication for Lake Riley Blvd to be for a full compliment of right-of-way to equal 50 feet. And we would prefer not to connect our cul-de-sac to Lake Riley ~ we don't believe we really need that. So those are the three basic issues and we would turn it back to you for discussion. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone have a question for the appticant before we open it up for public comment? Did you have more? I'm sorry, was that it? Okay. F~: I have something. Batzli: Go ahead. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: I have a request. Can we see the original rom grid that you showed? I just want to review it if I could. I don't have any general questions. I just haven't seen that. John Uban: If you fred it displeasurable, that's understandable. Farmakes: I'm sure I'll find it delightful Batzli: Okay, thank you. Scott: Paul, I've got a question for you. I heard the comments on the dedication for Lyman Blvd and TH 101 fight-of-ways. Is that optional or is that a requirement by the dry that they dedicate that much because of ordinance? Because of future plans to upgrade. Because it sounded like it was, well we're doing this because we're great guys. Are they doing that because they're great guys or is it something that's required by ordinance? Krauss: Well, it may be fair to say that...but Lyman Blvd is a city street that clearly nexxis to be improved. We've had people from the neighborhood telling us for several years that's a problem that they'd like to see addressed even before any developments. The TH 101 fight- of-way issue is less clear. Under court rulings and thc state, they're not in a rush to lock up or require that fight-of-way be locked up for l~lnDot. It's nice that they're willing to do it. We could require them to place it in an outlot that would be required by MnDot or whoever improved TH 101 at some point in the future but it's also land that they have a very tough time accessing because of the location of the pipeline. So I think it's fair that it's kind of a little of both. Mancino: If another development came in let's say across the street, on thc other side. On thc west side of TH 101. Wouldnt we also ask for right-of-way? Krauss: For TH 1017 We can't. Mancino: We absolutely can't? Krauss: Well I think you just saw that when we had the townhome development that was built on a highway. They platted it as an outlot but the owner fully intends to be in a position to sell it to MnDot at some point in the future. Batzli: Well let's put it this way them What keeps them from building in the right-of-way for a State trunk highway? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Krauss: Well, there's a couple of programs that we can use with...I am not as clear, I mean the law clearly says we can't take it for free. I mean if it's offered we can accept it. Because it's not a city mad, it's pan of a regional roadway system, we can't obligate an individual property owner to pay for it...by the fight-of-way. What we have done though is, again we've done it in Lake Susan Hill.~. We've done it other places. We've set aside these areas that are going to be impacted as outlots. That the developer holds onto it until such time as the Highway Department is in a position to acquire it..~fair market value for it. Batzli: Terry, did you want to say something? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Terry Forbord. Let me try to clarify why the right-of-way along TH 101 is shown as it is. We've met with staff over probably more than a year on tiffs and the first thing you try to do is you sit down and try to smoke out all the issues. There may be physical con--ts on the site. We did talk about the right-of-way for TH 101 and we raised the question because if you look on half section maps of the city, it is shown the diagram of TH 101 is much broader than what actually exists now. And we contacted the state to get a clarification from them because we wanted to know what is planned for here because we assumed that we brought in a proposal to the city that showed us platting this large lot' the city would probably raise the question. Well wait a minute. What's going to hap~ to it someday. In the future we thought we should be prepared to address that. So MnDot came back to us and said, well here is what our future plans for right-of-way acquisition in thi.~ area i~ And we need to respond...212 where it's planned to be someday if it ever gets built. Thi~ is pretty far away from thi~ general intersection in this area. MnDot has fairly large schemes for TH 101 just south of that area where it intersections with Lymph Blvd. So it became more of a common sense situation. Rather than us bringing in plans to show where we could put a bunch of houses in here, I think I interpreted there was a consensus with staff and with Lundgren Bros that in reality someday this highway is going to be wider here and rather than submit a proposal to the city that would cause somebody at that point in time to say, well wait Ii minute. Wrhat's going to happen with this area. We thought it should be addressed at this point. MnDot indicatecl to us this is the right-of-way that we're going to want and so we thought, this was the best way that the city would want to pursue this. Maybe we were wrong. Maybe we should have come forward and shown this as part of the development but I guess we looked at it from a practical standpoint. That was my understar~ding of how we proceeded with it, as it relates to TH 101. Batzli: Thank you. I'd like to open it up for public comments now. If you'll please give us your name and address for the record before you begin speaking, I would appreciate it. Would anyone like to address the commission. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Jamie Heilicher: My name is Jamie Heilicher and I live at 9280 Kiowa Trail which is directly south of this proposed development. My biggest concern which has not been addressed with the developer is two fold. One, obviously the grn_ding to make sure that we don't have additional storm water runoff that we currently have because of the current grading. The second is the access to I/iowa Ttail by this development. There's a number of major issues there. One being that the streets here are designed to be 31 feet where Kiowa Trail currently is 18 feet wide. You've got a lot of additional traffic that obviously will flow south out of this development through a very narrow street that currently exists south of thi~ development. The second and the most concerning is obviously the access to the new proposed regional park for walking tm/fie will be at the into'section where this development meets up with Kiowa Trail. There's currently land that the city owns a short strip in connection to this park. And I assume that the city is intending to use that as it's walking access because based on this development there is no wslidng access to that park for this, for the people who live here as well as in the Lake Riley Blvd are~ Obviously access to this park is going to be directed at walking traffic. So the concern there is if they get the traffic flow is south from this development, at some point to access TH 101 at a point south or to go south, there will be additional traffic tapping that point which obviously is an additional burden on walking traffic and a danger to pedestrians walking to Wwn. Batzli: Excuse me one moment. Bob, do you have an overhead, a map, location map of the surrounding7 Scott: Yeah becauses in my mind I'm thinking that you have Bandimere and the slope is pretty exlx~me from thi~ section down to TH 101. Generous: Not really. It shows... Krauss: If I understand what Todd Hoffman, the Recreation Director was telling me, there's some accuracy to what you're saying. This is, what he termed a secondary access into Bandimere would come off from the Kiowa area so people could walk in there. It may have a small parking area for people that may drive up from Lake Riley or whatever. The major entrance for Bandimere would be off of TH lO1 with a major parking lot over on that side. It's clear that they don't want to turn their backs on people from the neighborhood that just want to walk into there and that's probably... $arnic Hcilichcr: I guess thc concern we have obviously is those of us who live in this Kiowa street area is the additional traffic which would obviously move south...and would go down our sm:et...is the city prepared to widen our sm:et to give it ap1~opfiate access or the other option obviously is what is termed a greenway which allows the appropriate access for emergency vehicles but limits the ~xaffic through that area. Obviously the key there is that 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 anyone that fives up in the northern pan of this develotnnent would have no reason to travel south if the~ was no access. So there will be a lot of children moving south along the development to access the park because obviously their parents aren't going to want them to access it through the TH 101 access so they're going to be moving south to this development to access the park where I/iowa Trail and this development meec Obviously the intent there would be to limit traffic flow south of the development to reduce potential traffic accidents. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Do you want to address the erosion issue in any event7 Hcmpel: Certainly Mr. Chainrmn. Swrm water mmm, the developer here has recommended a fairly wcll laid out storm, comprehensive swrm water management plan for that entire development If I can use his exhibit. Basically looking at 5 storm water retention ponds... the development in ali 6 phases. First phase is up in this area here. You currently have a drain system that drains through thc wetland on the north side of thc mad. South underneath Lyman Blvd to a proposed enhancement or enlargement of the existing low lying area that's acting as a sWrm retention area now. With that storm sewer network would be extended along the boulevard either...when this phase is developed or when the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. They have another storm water retention pond which will take street runoff from the street, and those front yard areas into the pond. This chain of ponds eventually will line up down in the northeast comer where a low quality wetlsntt at this time exists. We'll look at enlarging that sometime down the road with the upgrade of Lyman Blvd. Modify that... retention ponds for water quality prior to discharging the wetland. The major wetland area that we're trying to protect is actually on the north side of Lyman Blvd. It's a fairly large wetland area which then discharges underneath Lake Riley Blvd inw Lake Riley. There currently exists fight now, there's a culvert underneath Lyman Blvd to t_ske, the runoff from the agricultural fields and the landscape stock area and it's creating quite an erosion problem downstream. This project will actually remedy some of that problem and poasibly pretreat the water prior to discharging inw the wetlands. Another problem area of the city has experienced over the last few years is the sWrm water runoff from the agricultural field as well as the landscape stock area in _this location which drains through the Sunny Slope Addition. It's a private street system off of Lake Riley Blvd and it continues on through Sunny Slope, underneath Lake Riley Blvd and discharges into Lake Riley. There's a very, very small storm water sediment trap essentially down here located on the north side of Lake Riley Blvd .... too small for the overall drainage area that's going into it over all these years so with this development will remedy that problem as well. The situation there however is a little more complicated. We would like to see the storm water piped eventually between the houses through Sunny Slope Addition all the way down to Lake Riley Bird and tap inw that little storm water basin will pick up that runoff which comes from Lake Riley Blvd and the Sunny Slope Addition...this new pipe which would then directly discharge into Lake Riley. AIl that water would be pre-trea~ed prior to dischar~ng inw the lake so...water quality there. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Another area of concern is down here. There's a resident by the name of Kevin l~anger that this small wetland lies just south of thc development here which flows ~ly along the ditch. They've been using culverts on TH 101. This flows into a large wetland basin to the west. During the agricultural practices over the last number of years, sediments have washed out and filled in a lot of the wetland area as well as the ditch that outlcts thi.~ and...culvert underneath TH 101 and MnDot...maintenance on that. With this development again they're going to be creating a couple of water quality retention ponds on the sit~ to pre-~ runoff prior to discharging into the ditch section underneath TH 101 to the wetland. It will also eliminate the current sediment, the water problem that's been going down to the Finger property. So the overall development we see confection of a couple water problems, storm water problems we've had in the area at really very low cost to the city overall A couple other issues that were raised was the access to Kiowa. Kiowa, according to our storm water street management program. We went out and inventoried all the streets in the city. Kiowa Trail is a 24 foot wide section of nmfl type roads. It does not have gravel shoulders. It's like bitumious curb within a 60 foot wide right-of-way. It's approximamly 1,800 feet long with no secondary access. Basically there's a turn around at the south property line of this development. Access from the Lundgren's development through Kiowa~.~jor patterns for the are~ It is our belief that most of them will exit Lyman Blvd to TH 101 and head north to TH 5 and ultimately when 212 is developed, that will be the major Iraffic flow. There will of course be some tm~c from TH 101 to Pioneer Trail That's a favorite rou~e of some people. They believe it will have less traffic but we don't believe that you're going to have 133 households traveling south along Kiowa Blvd. As part of this project we're not envisioning any necessity to widen or upgrade Kiowa Trail because of this development. At some future date when the residents wish to petition ~o have the street sys~m brought up to standards with storm water and curb and gutter ~nd watermain installation, that would be the time that this should be upgraded. As far as pedestrian ~ to the park, it is a very valid concern. I would envision a pedestrian crossing at the T intemection in thi~ location here to provide a safe access for pedestrian traffic down to Bandime~ Park. The city does have it small piece of right-of-way here, I think that's West 92nd Street is what it's called on the plat. That will gain access for the park. The engineering deparmmnt believes that thi~ is another reason we need to have a 60 foot wide right-of-way is the implementation of sidewsllcs basically...pedestrian traffic will have safe access, off street access to gain the rout~ down to the Bandimem Park. I believe that's all the concerns that were raised at thi~ time. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Mancino: Can I ask you one thin§7 Do the residents on Kiowa Trail fight now have sewer or water service7 Hempel: They currently have sanitary sewer service. No water. They're on wells. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. You in the red plaid will be next. Eldon Berkland: My name is Eldon Berkland, 9261 Kiowa Trail and just to elaborate on Jaimie's comments and to argue a little bit with Dave Hempeh We feel there'd be quite a bit of traffic. If you look on your maps, you can see where it's illustral~ here. TH 101 takes a big turn...of Bandimere Park and then goes south to Pioneer Trail Most of these homes here when they would be going southbound, would use Kiowa Trail Your facts when you say that the road is 24 feet wide. When we measured, it meas~ 18 to 20. It's a very narrow road. It's very curvy. It's hilly. I invit~ you to go out and t~lre a look at the area. Get familiar with the area. We think it would be a very hazardous situation to have that amount of traffic on the road. We have a neighborhood park on our property. On our street. Our chil~ enjoy walking to the park currently and that would be hazardous thing to do to allow them to go out...very busy. I do have a letter if I could dislribute to you also. We asked why this connection. Why is everybody so upset that we have an 1,800 foot road without an exit. We were toll by Terry Forbord that they prefer not to do this connection also. That it was a public safety concern with the city. So I called up Scott Harr and ask~ him what the public safety concern was and he said basically that Mark Littfin, the Fire Marshal had expressed some concern about egress from the property and things. So I had a meeting with Mark Littfin and asked him and he said he really didn't have a lot of concern about Kiowa Trail having the secondary egress or way out of the area. He said that the driveways are long. That they didn't envision they would have a lot of problems with fire trucks. Even if, so it didn't appear that there would be a lot of public safety concern about this. Even if you feel that there needs to be this connection, and again what it seems in other communities...in Chaska. I'm a paramedic. I drive an ambulance service for Sc Francis in Shakopee and in Chaska between Tuskeny Hill.~ off of lonathan Boulevard and the Eitel Court, Eitel Circle area off Hundetmutrk Road, Tuskeny Hilh is a new development. They had simil~ issues being expressed and they settled on a compromise. Having an area, basically two cul-de-sacs come to an end. They graded it out to allow emergency vehicle traffic or city lraffic but prevent the public from using this area unless it's needed by an emergency situation or for city vehicles and that's what we'd like to propose for this area. That also would solve the problems about that access to the Bandimere park area and that's what we'd like you to consider. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. lust to respond to your comment a little bit. We constantly tried to maintain secondary accesses to long cul-de-sac slreets. In other words, we try to avoid them. We do have a rule on our books that your slz~t wouldn't be able to be built today and it surprises me that our Public Safety and Fire people didn't express the public safety concern a little bit more suongly because they certainly show up at the City Council meetings and profess that these are valid concerns and they tell us repea~y that they are. So I don't know what the cirounstances were with your conversation with them but obviously they've 15 Pla~nir~g Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 been telling our city engineering and planning stuffs that this is a concern. And for good planning purposes, we'd rather not have it be a concern and we do try to link up sUeets because it's safer. So I understand what you're saying though and obviously you've gone and talked to the fight people and for some reason or another they put us between a rock and a hard place because they're telling you directly that it's not such a big deal but we hear from them every other day of the week, it's a big deal So I don't know what to say. Krauss: If I could touch on that a little bit. What you say Chairman Batzli is accurate. I mean there is always an intent to connect these streets...at some point in the past and it always raises similar issues. I don't want to launch inw my speech. You've heard it wo often so...but there are legitimate public safety concerns being raised. In this particular instance the Fire Marshal and Public Safety did not actively ask us to pursue the Kiowa connection. They did however empathically ask us to pursue the Lake Riley connection and there was a letter sent out to the people on Lake Riley Blvd that copied the Hre Marshal on that where he points out that they've had 3 major fires on Lake Riley Blvd and they don't have the room to maneuver equipment on Lake Riley Blvd to adequately fight the fires. Relative to the idea of dancing cul-de-sacs where they come up to each other but don't join. We've had experiences with that in this community. We've had experiences with it in other communities. The unfortunate fact is they really don't work very well We saw that up in the northern part of the community where we had an anifidal ban'ier that was placed across the street for several years~ People would try to knock it down~ You'd have to build it bigger. They'd §o around on somebody's lawn~ They'd still do it. School buses wouldn't come up the supers because there was a dead end. We had people petitioning the City Council to make the connection because school buses wouldn't come up. And the fire trucks got caught on the wrong side of a fire~ They're dit~cult to maintain. They work fine in the summer when you can drive across it. In the winter when snow gets piled up through it, you're pretty unlikely to be able to drive an emergency vehicle through that. We've looked at those in several instances. We ultimately tore that one out. That is now a thru street. Whether or not this connection is msde, I would not encourage anybody to thinlr that that kind of situation accomplishes a whole lot because in our point of fact it doesn't, from our experience. Mancino: ...the traffic that's §oing .south. Hern~l: That could be done through our traffic study program that we do. We actually do it bi-annually. Once every 2 years. The State Safety Council counts cars. Krauss: Yeah, but you know you shouldn't mislead anybody either. Unless the' extensions made, it's unlikely to be severed at that point in time. What you can do is try to structure a subdivision so that there's disincentives to using the street. By the way, in the case of Lake 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Riley Blvd, there's absolutely no mason why anybody from _this development would ever go down Lake Riley Blvd. It doesn't §o anywhere. The issue that's being raised with the Kiowa Pioneer Trail connection has potentially a little more validity beca~ a lot of people do use that connection to get on out of there. I'm not ~ how much that's going to occur. Well since TH 5's been upgraded...212 is going to happen some~ but I wouldn't pin your hopes on that. That's right now planned for 1998 and it slides every time a gas tax is vetoed. But there are ways to build in disincentives to use local streets. Batzli: Okay, yes sir. Jack Ardoyno: My name is Jack Ardoyno and I live on 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. It's about 5 homes from the very end of Lake Riley Blvd and the cul-de-sac. Ray Lewis, one of my neighbors, is going to bring a petition up wnight and address the reasons why many of the homeowners along that strip don't want the access from the sulxlivision to Lake Riley Blvd and I would like to sort of get a jump on it a little bit and add it from a little bit different perspective. I'm opposed to that thru street from the development to Lake Riley Blvd from this point of view. I was present at the last fire that the F/re Chief mentioned in his letter. For most of the time I distributed coffee w the fire fighters about all the time that that fire was going and I don't believe another access from this subdivision would have any impacts whatsoever on the access from the first fire lank to get to a fire on that street And so the subsequent difficulty that they may have would be in getting additional trucks in_ One of their Irucks broke down and blocked the road for part of the _time. So I think utility for Lake Riley Blvd in case of a fire and the access for fire truck~ is lirnil~l first of all to a small number of lots there that would actually benefit. For getting a tank truck through this subdivision would actually ~ longer than coming down Lake Riley Blvd in the first case. So I don't think it would do very much benefit for that and having built subdivisions in the southern suburbs myself, I thinir it's a little bit cavalier to say the developer can lose the lot and it won't be a big concern to them. I think they've engineered some good subdivisions here and I think in addition to perhaps losing a lot here, they would also have to build and pay for that street. You'd have additional rain water runoff that none of us want and so I'm opposed to it for those reasons. I also wasn't very much concerned that the Kiowa Trail because it doesn't directly affect me but having listened to some of the comments Wnight, to me it seems an absurb idea to have a cut through to Kiowa Trail from there. First of all you've got a very narrow road and I've had experience with a number of subdividons in the past and it's guaranteed that the people here will use this for southern egress. Guaran~ Probably 60% or 80% of them will do that when they've corning from the south and I know that all those people on Kiowa Trail don't want that to happen so, those are my objections. Batzli: Thank you. Okay, so there are several supparm's for those comments. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Barry Bershow: Barry Bershow at 9271 Kiowa Trail. Two points made. One is to reinforce with a little different perspective on why we fear the trs~c so much, especially in light of the possibility of a cut being made to the Lake Riley Blvd. If in fact the Fire Marshal feels that that is the more important cut to be made in order to prot~t the homes on Lake Riley Blvd, what you're going to create is not only egress for the homes in the development south into Shakopee and onto Pioneer Trail, but you'll also create a very convenient shortcut for the apamrm~t complex. A very large apartment complex up here to come right down Lake Riley Blvd, cut over through this development here and then south rather than come all the way over here and wrap around. So we'll be seeing traffic not from 130 hom~ and I don't know how many apartments are there. I didn't research that before tonight but probably a couple of hundred or 300 cars driving through our 18 to 20 foot road. So that was one thing I wanted to say. Reinforce the no cut and connect/on onto Kiowa Trail. Although it's lrue that you like to make those cormeclions. Those of us who moved to Chanhassen 17 years ago and moved particularly onto a ~ad end cul-de-sac road because that's what we wanted, you should at least take those things into consideration before changing around. And the last thing I wanted to say which hasn't been brought up tonight, but I remember when Mr. Wing and Mr. 1Vlason were running for office. They pledged at one ~g that as this psrir was developed, that they would provide bike and walking access from the downtown area into the park. And we're concerned because 1/iowa, excuse me, because TH 101 which is a trail many of us nm or bicycle on trying to get up to the city itself, is windy. It's curvy. It's hilly and has about 4 inches of shoulder and frequently I've almost died walking or running or biking with my child on that road and so we feel that a walkway, bikeway path along the west edge of this development from Bandimere Park north towards the city would be a very important first step in development the entire walk, bike pathway system that the city really needs to do if they're going to develop a regional park down in _this area. And I know that there's nothing north of this right now to connect it to but _this is really the time to start developing that pathway like Eden Prairie has done all along and if you do it before those homes get in, you won't have to wo~y about making a hard sell later to the houses that are already there and cutting through their lot. Batzli: Kind of like tonight? Jack Ardoyno: Yeah. Right. With the W'flliams Pipeline across the back of those properties, and those properties already being some of the largest in the development, it wouldn't hun really to put along the exlrerne western edge...pathway. And I have a letter in support of that that I'd like to enter in. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission7 Yes sir. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Bill Bcmhjelm: My name is Bill Bernhjelrn. I live at 9380 Kiowa Trail. I'm here to oppose the connection of Kiowa to this development. I'm also a member of the Public Safety Commission. I understand thc arguments of Mr. Littiin regarding the instances that occured on Lake Riley Blvd. I am concerned about the traffic. When I attended last week's presentation by Mr. Forbord, he laid out thc development and talhxt about the sensitive neighborhood and so on and so forth that would be created in this development but by making the connection I think it will destroy the sense of neighborhood that already exists on Kiowa Trail. I'm a career police officer. I've been in law enforcement over 25 years and the cul-de-sac that you see here are essentially a community's way of erea~g a sense of neighborhood and those kind of things that we hear about now, they say when they talk about community oriented policing and so forth, that's the essence of this. Is to create a neighborhood feeling for folks so they look out for each other and they don't have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars in taxes to have the police kind of try to watch out for thew- We have a dead end street now. We have essentially a long cul-de-sac. We look out for each other. We do havc a fair amount of traffic on that street already due to Chanhassen's most famous resident and his former abode there and _this would I think only exaccerbate that situation. So I would really oppose the idea of making the connection. I would like to say also that I do support the idea of a trail access. I am a runner and I do run on TH 101 and I think I'd probably be better off just sitting at home and having a heart attack on the couch... I would prefer to have some place to go other than out on that highway and would support that Batzli: Who else would like to address the Commission7 One of the two of you, come on Up8 Bob Peterson: Good evening. My name is Bob Peterson. I live at 9101 Lake Riley Blvd. I'm here to speak in opposition of thc access of the Lundgren development to the Lake Riley Blvd also and would like to say that for one _thing, I thought Lundgren did a nice job last week inviting us to the informational meeting. We learned a lot. I think it maybe deflected a lot of the concerns that many of us had about the development, and I got to give them credit that they did that. I thought that was very informational but it was also disappointing I guess that they didn't have apparently all the information to talk about the fact that the Lake Riley Blvd. I felt that was very unfortunate. Batzli: To be fair to Lundgren, I don't know that they knew about it at the time they had your meeting. Bob Peterson: No, I understand that they did not know about it. That's a big problem. Unfortunately the city staff hadn't talked to them about this possibility. The other thing that I wanted to talk about, I got the letter yesterday also from the Assistant Fire Marshal or Fire 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Marshal and admittedly it was very disquieting to learn that we live in a fair to poor fire service area. That's very discomforting but I'm not convinced that opening up this access will do anything for it. In my estimation I think we'd be trading one public safety issue for another and that would be increased traftSc on Lake Riley Blvd. I believe that there would be additional traffic on Lake Riley Blvd. I know a lot of people, the mud isn't too bad and the dust isn't too heavy that they'll drive around Lake Riley and then cawh TH 101 that way. I think a lot of people would do that from this development area. It's my belief that there would be additional traffic and I think it would be very poor on that road. It's a very narrow road. Batzli: I'm sorry but, I know there was mu~g when Paul said that there would be no additional traffic and I was afraid for his life. And you just indicated that you, where's the traffic going to come from and where arc they going to be going so that wc understand thaC Bob Peterson: From thc Lundgren development onto Lake Riley Blvd. Batzli: Through the proposed access. And then which way are they going to turn when they hit Lake Riley Blvd? Bob Peterson: To the left. Batzli: They're going to turn left. Otherwise they're going down a dead end. Okay. North around thc lake. Krauss: You can't go around thc lake through Eden Prain'e. It's...gravel road. Eden Prairie wants to upgrade in a liRle bit. It goes behind the golf area and comes back down to Pioneer Trail. It's certainly not a direct route. Farmakes: That would be thc scenic mute. Batzli: Yeah, okay. I understand now. I didn't know where. Bob Peterson: It's faster for me to go that way up to Highway 5. The other thing I just wanted to comment on is reflecting on thc Bearpath that Eden Prairie, thc golf course. That's an area of 425 acres I believe, which is about 5+ times bigger than thc Lundgren development. It's going to havc 425 homes. It has one access. So they're addressing the issue there...but those are my concerns. I'm concerned about it and I would oppose the additional of that access. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. There's another gentleman. Yes sir. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Don Sitter: Good evening. My name is Don Sitter. I live at 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. We're the last house at the end of the dead end down there and I had just a bunch of rambling co~ts here so bear with me. Ba~li: Can you make them short rambling comments? Don Sitter: I try tn make them short. I agree with the subdivision. The way it's laid out. I think they've done a pretty good job. I just as soon it'd stay famufields but that's not going to happen~ But I also want to strongly emphasize that I agree with the staff recommendations to take exceptions to the side setback variances. I agree with them. I hope you stand suong with the 60 foot fight-of-way and I especially want to agree with them on the relocation of the drain of this finger and go through the Sunny Slope area. We're the adjoining property owner there and that would be a major headache for us. We've lived with drainage problems for a long time. I want to say that I agree with the staff's recommendation on moving that drain to the Sunny Slope area. I assume that all the NURP ponds are in line with our city plans so I think that's in great shape. I'm also in favor of running the survey to the neighborhood for these water stubs. ~f we could add fire hydrants to that survey and avoid the big major road upgrades but at least put fire hydrants as part of that, I think that's not part of this sub development but I think it's a good idea~ I'd also like to question the l~e count.- In this little finger down here there is quite a number of ~ and on the back of that and I'm wondering if those will be preserved. In the staff report it says that there were really only 2 trees of value and there's some other trees and they would be preserved and I want to make sure that the trees in that low area are also preserved. I'm not sure if they got countrxi in the tree count or not. And then my last but not least is the access point and I'm going to come at it from a little different comment and maybe a suggestion~ At one time I heard that you wanted the access to come through here on what, I don't know what the lots area. 15 and 16 or something and then another tra/l to come on another one. Would it be possible to have that bike trail be the access point and make it just wide enough for a bike trail with a couple of these break away barriers so we don't end up with traf~c going on it. In other words, don't end up with a bike trail on one lot line and a road access on another. Combine the two together and make it just a bike tral~ but access for safety vehicles only. And the reason that ! say that is I'm concerned about the tmfffic around the lake also. We, on the end of the dead end get a lot of sightseers that liire to drive around lakes. And all of the other cities in the metropolitan area have done a lot of work to avoid roads that loop around lakes because there's a ton of traffic. People like to drive on Sunday aflemoous and loop around lakes and if we provide access points both here and at Kiowa, there's going to be a steady flow of traffic. People just trying to drive around the ~ on Sunday ~oons. And we get a lot of trail% now and ! don't want to see that increased. That's the end. OtherwLse ! guess I'm basically in favor of the development. ! think it's fairly well laid out and ! think we should stand strong on staff's recommendations. Thank you. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: Don, let me ask you a silly question- Why do you want to see us hold finn on setbacks and right-of-way, because those things are really done for, in large part, for safety reasons. How can we rationalize not trying to make Lake Riley Blvd safer while holder the developer to strict standards? Don Sitter: I believe that the standards were set with a lot of thought and planning ahead of time and I basically think we give up on varian~ too easy somgfimes and I'm just in favor of keeping them to the letter of the law so that we don't create situations where because you grant the variance the next guy gets a variance a little farther and the next guy gets a variance a little farther and we just end up continuing to break the rules that I think were cmeflflly laid out in the beginning. Batzli: But you understand that our current standard for a cul-de-sac is much shorter than Lake Riley Blvd and/or Kiowa? Which also had a lot of thought put into it. Don Sitt~. I'm sorry, I'm missing the point. Batzli: Okay. I was just seeing, I'm trying to rationalize and justify doing things and not doing things. $o my only point was that we ought to have rules in place granted. We could consider these two streets grandfathered in but we're looking for a rationalization as to why we shouldn't connect these. Don Sitter: I'm not saying you shouldn't connect them and I think there's some logic to the safety concerns, But I think if you combine the bike trail with an access that's only for service vehicles and if we can get water stubbed down the road to get fire hydrants, I think we've covered more than what the Fire Marshal's concerns would be. That's my suggestion. Batzli: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Lydia Ardoyno: I'm Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. I haven't built a lot of subdivisions but I've certainly lived in a lot of them and I do know that it's human nature to take tho short and most scenic route to anywhere and I think that your concerns are valid for the safe~ of Lake Riley Blvd and for the other streets but I think you might start looking at some different perspectives and you're trading a bit of safety for a few homes in your opinion which the homeowners don't necessar~y share, and uadin§ it off for a lot of less safe conditions for a lot of people living not only on Lake Riley and the other areas but also for the subdivision itself. You're going to have emergency vehicles going through there. You're going to have a lot of traffic going through there and it's all family type neighborhoods on Lake Riley and the whole park area, the whole lake area. And this whole subdivision is a 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 family area. And your concerns for safety I think are just a little misplaced. So if you would think about it in a little different light. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Yes sir. Ray Lewis: My name is Ray Lewis. I live at 9071 Lake Riley Blvd. I have some copies of a letter here. First of all I'd like to say that, well first of all we live on the west side of, on the east side of the development. Just about 2 blocks south of Lyman Blvd on Lake Riley Blvd. We are, after going to the meeting last week and reviewing the subdivision plans, I'd have to say that we think that the subdivision is well thought out in general and we are basically in favor of it, although from my standpoint I would just as soon not see that land developed but if it has to be developed, I think the proposed subdivision is a very good one. The first issue I'd like to address though is the issue of screen_ ing. I think that there should be a corridor of screening or visual barriers that extends from Lyman Blvd on the west side, Lake Riley Blvd south such that the cturent residents that live on Lake Riley Blvd do not have to view the back sides of the new subdivision resident's homes. This could be, currently we have across the street from our house a dense stand of small trees which, although they're deciduous trees, provide a good visual barrier and I would like to suggest that, or I think it's reasonable that this type of barrier be maintained or that it be replaced with plantings and berms such that they stand level and visual screening is maintained. Second of all I'd like to address the issue of the access to Lake Riley Blvd. I think that I certainly appreciate the public safety department ~ldng consideration of fire access to our homes but I really think that with the increased traffic pattings that we see on Lake Riley Blvd, that we would be trading one improved safety fire protectcion for potential uaffic hazards. As it is right now, pedesuians and bran_ers and children walk in the street and there's really no place off street to walk and there is quite a bit of exposure. Additional traffic is found to create just increa.sed hazard. I think that there is substitute ways to improve the fire protection of that area rather than trying to create ths connection. One way that would be possible is just water connections were made to the subdivision putting fire hydrants along Lake Riley Blvd. Since most of the suggestions involved in fire fighting, at least in that area has to do with trucldng the large lines of water in and out so if you could eliminate that part of the fire fighting process, you would eliminate much of the congestion. Second of all, I think that by creating a no parking zone along the west side of Lake Riley Blvd, we would be able to eliminate any potential blockages, barriers, to access. Since in the period of time that we've lived there, the only real major blockage that has ocom~ has been when vehicles or trailers have been parked on both sides of the s~ec And on the west side of the street there is really a wide shoulder over most of the length of the street that has...and so an emergency vehicle could gain an additional 4 feet or so, at least 4 feet of right-of-way if it was absolutely necessary to steer around some other object. Lastly I'd like to bring to your attention the petition that was signed by approximately 80% of the residents on Deerfoot 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Trail and Lake Riley Blvd. It was presente~ to Paul today by Nancy Smith, my neighbor. Indicating that opposition to the connection between Lake Riley Blvd and the subdivision. And I think that certainly in this case the citizens should have some say so in the, what access is made to their existing road. So thank you. Batzli: Thank you. I appreciated your commenm I seem to remember you from some Lake Riley beachlot issue meetings. Your comments are appreciated. Does anyone else have something, in particular if you have new issues that haven't already been descri~ And maybe before I do that. How many people are here in opposition of the connection to the Lake Riley Blvd? Can I just have a showing of hands~ I was going to do Kiowa Trail separately. Just the Lake Riley. Resident: Do them all together. Batzli: Okay, why not. Is there anybody here that wants to see the connections made? Okay. Let the record show that there's no one here in support of connections. Does anyone else have any new issues that haven't been discussed? What the Planning Commission normally does is we try to flush out the issues. We're very aware that all of you are here to try and make your feelings known. That you really don't want to see these connections. What we normally would do is we would close the public heating if there aren't any comments. We would then go around the cowmissioners one by one to discuss their feelings on the project and the connection and then we would take a vote. What we decide wnight isn't binding. ~y it is a recommendation to the City Council and so regardless of how we end up voting, we encourage you to take your concerns and issues up to the City Council. Both whether we decide in your favor or against because a showing of force in/font of the City Council in support of something we do or against something we do may have a much different impact on the City Council We like to try and do good, a job of good planning and that's not always necess~y politically expediant but they may have a much stronger concern that way. That you people directly vote for them and they may feel the press~ a little bit more than, we tend to be a little bit more insulated and we try to go by our codes. I'm not saying that's the way we're going to go tonight but understand the issue that the decision isn't cast in stone by what we decide here tonight. It does go to the City Council and you will have an impact on what they decide as well Are there any new issues that haven't been brought up yeC I don't want to cut anybody off so if there is something new, please come forward. Otherwise, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to dose the public hearing, AH voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Conrad: Two or three issues. Obviously access is a major one for the neighbors and I think we've already told you that basically the city standards are significantly different than what you currently live on today. Significantly. We're not talking about percentage. 20%. We're talking about major, major difference than what you're wanting to mainmim Saying that, I typically am one of the few that don't mind long cul-de-sacs because of the neighborhood and I think I would probably on this issue, because of the significant neighborhood intra~t. On one hand I look at myself and I say, well should I protect you from yourselves in terms of fire access. That is a major issue. You have some streets that are, have some problen~ And I'm thinking, well in a couple years if there's a fire and the fire engine can't get there, did I do my job. So that's a concern I have. But I think in this particular case, I would be opting for some back to back cul-de-sacs. I'd want safety. Some way of rationalizing access to those long cul-de-sacs without encouraging traffic. Could be back to back cul-de-sacs. Could be the combo trail going over to Lake Riley. That's where I stand on that Generally I'm not real wild about this PUD. As I went and tried to justify it, there's at least 63 lots that are below our city standard of 15,000 square feet. Mancino: 46 1/4%. Conrad: It's a lot and I can't justify that. Now I think'the deveioper has, I think our TH 101 right-of-way issue is something that's nice and maybe thc dedication of land for TH 101, I'm not sure what to think about Highway 101. Nobody wants it. State, County, City. It's a problem. It does mean we should address it sometime but in teaxns of influencing me that we're getting something in exchange for a major shift in down sizing lots, I'm not persuaded yet. I would not accept this PUD. As I went through their justifications on all the points, I found one of the, contrary to staff report, I found one of the points that may have validatrd a PUD. Batzli: Which one was that7 Conrad: I'd have to go back through them but most of them I couldn't. Most of them didn't do it for me. I haven't excluded the PUD yet. This is not it. That's all Batzli: I thought you had three. Conrad: I skipped. The trail access. Maybe somebody else might. Somebody brought up trails. I'm not sure, Paul. Where's our trail connecting downtown to this area? Do we have one7 I should have done some homework to know where it is. Krauss: I don't know if we notified these people but we are working on a plan for the ultimate design of TH 101 from Highway 5 where we idnd of a...crossing where we took it Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 up to last year down to the future 212. That's going to be a 4 lane section with heavy landscaping incorporating a trail South of that point, and the MnDot im~ovement~ when they occur, would come up Lyman Blvd just a little bit beyond. So presumably the trail kind of terminate~ there. You eluded to the problem with TH 101. This is not a new thing for us. The fact is that nobody is ~iring responsibility for TH 101. The State stopped taking responsibility for it in 1934 but it is a State highway and they won't put a penny inw it. The only improvements that have occunv, d on TH 101 are those that have been paid for by the City of Chanhassen and we simply do not have the money to improve it much more than we already have. So we tried to get wgether a coalition of county and city governments and MnDot to figure out to push a decision on what should happen to TH 101. I don't know what happened. Right now nothing is probably going to happen until 212 is built and the last, as I said, the last I heard on that was instead of 1995-96, it's now 1998 and climbing rapidly. Conrad: Yeah, it's almost like I've given up Paul. You see so many problems. It's like, why should I start fixing them because I see so many others that I just don't know that are ever going to be economically solved. Maybe that's a bad attitude but again, that's not, I don't think that a key mason for me to accept this as a PUD if we wanted the land donated. I think it's a nice reason. I think Lundgren could probably, and staff. I think staff could probably persuade me that we're getting something back but when I go below the 15,000 square foot lot size, that is pretty sacred in Chanhassen and I really have to know what we're getting back for it and because of my concern for TH 101, or because of my fears that TH 101 is never going to be solved, I don't know that we're getting a great deal in return for a PUD. Batzli: Okay. Matt. Ledvina: I guess I generally I share some of Ladd's concerns as it relates to the lot sizes. I saw a lot of lots in the 9,000 to 12,000 square foot range and that certainly makes me nervous when I see that. But on the other hand, as it relates to that, those lots that a developer's responsible for developing those lots, as they platted them here or as you will plat them, and it appears to me that they can make it work. And you've seen Lundgren developments and they've done a nice job with that. I'm confident that they'll be able to do that. I think as a PUD, the plat going in that direction, . or the subdivision going in that direction but I'm not real convinced that the smaller lots and a large number of smaller lots justify the situation. So I think those are some big concerns. Let's see. Batzli: Before I forget to ask you. What are your thoughts on the connection? Ledvina: I was getting to that. That's a real tough issue and I guess I'm concerned about the 26 Pl~niug Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 possibility of this creating a short cut and a lot of cars coming through there. Could you comment on that Paul or Bob? Or perhaps Dave. I mcan that's something that I wasn't aware of a possibility there and if we do open up the connection to Laim Riley Blvd, and also Kiowa, does that represent a concern then for short circuiting? Hexrgel: Whether or not you have the connections to Lake Riley Blvd, even from Lyrnan Blvd wanting to go south. To use the Kiowa one. If you cut that one off...Bandimere Park from TH 101 or through the back side. The issue I think is the long dead end cul-de-sac I guess. The curvslincar streets and the subdivision that's being proposed is a deterrent to traffic. They're not going to be able to go 30 rnph through most of thc streets. There'd likely be stop signs, a 3 way stop intersection when thc traffic warrants meet for installation of stop signs. Just thc general layout of that is not conducive for thru street movement. I think Lake Riley Boulevard would be a little higher speed, 3540 mph. Ba~li: Well it may not be conducive but for the development moving south on Kiowa, I mean that's quicker than going out to TH 101 and trilling SOUth. I think that's their concern is that, see however many houses. I don't recall the exact number in this development. 100 and whatever. I mean I think that's the concern and not that somebody's going to come down Lyman and go through the development. I don't think that's something we can avoid by doing that connection. Hempel: That's true but I guess we still feel that the general traffic patterns for emplo~t and everything else is going to be to the north. Not to the south to Pioneer Trail or Shakopee. Mancino: Paul had said something about disincentives and what are those that we can use so if we did. put in these? Krauss: Well, Dave touched on one. I think everytimc you introduce a fight hand or a left hand turn or stop signs, it takes time to slow down. You've got to go through...it's a disincentive. It takes more time to go through something. The trend here is to make it, facilitate a movement where you want it to be and provide enough disincentives so it doesn't go where you don't want it to be. We've done that in other ones. I mean we clearly, I know we're often painted like that but we truly don't sit here trying to run thru traffic down streets kids are going to play on. If you think that that's going to happem..we say so and bring that up. One of the areas where a change might be able to be made, if I can get my bemings, is to run this road up to here so that the thru movement wants to go this way and make the traffic that will go to Kiowa come through a stop sign and turn left. That's a disincentive. There are ways those thirtgs can be done. Whether or not it's going to fully eliminate the situation. What we have here too is a transitional situation. There arc people using Pioneer. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Significant numbers of people. You saw that on the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study a few years ago. However that transportation study was done before Highway/i was upgraded so I'm not certain exactly how valid the results remain in terms of the numbers. When we get to that same issue though and lake it Lake Riley Blvd, that one I fail to see the merit on. I mean if you're right...we'll give you a map to show you how convolul~l that route is around the lake. It is an interesting way to go. I go down there every so often when I'm checking out a site that way but it certainly is not a high...through there~ At one time Lake Riley Blvd was supposed to run straight east to Dell Road. That was the long term plan. Now when Bearpath subdivision came through, Bearpath is a private c, ommnnity, it's I1 gated community which is why there's one entrance. And it's...those folks over to Dell Road so now, as a result Lake Riley Blvd is going to maintain a very circuiwus path around the lake, through Eden Prairie Park and back out to Pioneer. It's quite a ways around. And by the way, I could add that I know that the city of Eden Prairie staff had a lot of pwblem~ with the one entrance into Bearpath and there are knock down gates I believe that are supposed to be maintained by the homeowners association so there are other means in and out of there... Batzli: Matt, go ahead. Ledvina: Okay. Well, I think that if we can go ahead and put those impediments in there for the thru traffic movement. I guess I can see the need for the Kiowa connection. I think that represents an important part of this development. I don't know that both of them should be made. Both of the connections should be made but I don't know specifically which one would be better to make. But I think one of them should be made. On some of the other issues, with this, as far as the 60 foot fight-of-way. I would propose that we keep the 60 foot right-of-way. I guess I would be amenable to looking at a 25 foot roadway house setback throughout the subdivision. I thinlr we did that with the Song sulxiivision and I think that that can help to do some of the things that help with the aesthetics and the reducing sm'face water runoff, etc. Let's see. Just one note on the recommendations. On recommendation number 27. I see this as a somewhat repeated on condition number 11. You've identified that you want a PUD agreement and in addition to the development contract by the city so I think you probably want to keep 11 in and strike 27. One of the residents in the vicinity mentioned the possibility of providing a pedestrian crossing into Bandima~ Park from the Kiowa extension fight along the southern boundary of the subdivision and I would support that the applicant provide that. I think that works out well That's the extent of my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: We're going random? Batzli: We're going random. This is random. Trying to get you guys on your toes. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: I'm going to start out here and talk a little bit more about Ladd's conunents. I also am uncomfortable. That's why I asked at thc be~nning of this meeting to hear thc mission statement and the intent paragraph in regards to PUD's. In looking at thi~, I don't understand the criteria that we're using to initiate this as a PUD. I understand it fa'om a design standpoint but I don't understand what the motivation is. O_early in the packet it says that this is, the property is being farmed. There is little, if any, natural features to be protected. It seems to me that what it's being used for here is to achieve other objectives, one of which is listed in here as being the lot layout protects existing and proposed residents. I guess I'm sitting back and waiting to see more convincing of what the city's gaining here. I don't see that. I'd like to see that spelled out more clearly. I'm looking at the general philosophy of the design which is to expand larger lots and basically encompass a higher percentage, I think it was 46%7 Of sub lot size versus the 15,000 that we used. And typically in other issues of PUD's that I've supported we have had a pretty clear indication that it was either the lot itself or some geographic feature. Stand of trees or something that we were trying to achieve in thc design. I don't see that here. So given that, and looking at this and talking about the connectivity and so on, I'm a little uncomfortable with looking at some of these lots and looking at the layouts and looking at the amount of 11,000 square foot sites for homes. I'm a bit surprised I guess. That must have been a good meeting that you had with the developer because nothing in regards to this issue, at least that I've ~ of, and what has Ladd has said, has been brought up here tonight. A PUD is, I'm sure the City can show you, is an issue that we use when it's in the community's best interest perhaps to look at what I would describe as a variance in some issues, for want of a better word. Paul maybe could elaborate a little bit more on that but I think that you shonld look at that clearly. What's being offered here. I'm going through my packet in the findings ~ I'm not utterly convinced that that story is being made. I'm stuprised if we spent a year on this internally that perhaps that got placed on the wayside. Batzli: Can I interrupt just one second? Farmakes: Sure. Batzli: Paul, in something like this, wouldn't we normally see the proposed home styles or if there was additional landscaping? I mean it doesn't seem to me that we've asked far plans and berming and things like that and I don't believe we have any of that. Do we have that here? This plant key. The planting key. So this is the land--g? What did we ask for in addition in the conditions? Generous: They've provided us with a detailed planting. The landscaping berm and screening requirements, especially what some of the people brought up to the east. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Additional trees and landscaping. Not that we'd want to have a complete separation between these two properties because they are residential but some type of natural transition. Batzli: So the landscaping plan that they've submitted, I mean does this go above and beyond what we normally require in a PUD7 This is kind of bare bones sort of PUD? Krauss: It does go above what you would require, or be able to require in a subdivision- The subdivision ordinance only allows us the 1 tree in the front yard and... Batzli: I'm sorry, go ahead. Farmakes: Anyway, I'll leave that as a big question mark for me. And I thinlr that that, when I said big question mark, that I think is the building block or the philosophy of how this is designed. And I'm uncomfortable that it's not spelled out more what we're getting versus if this is the traditional single family. It may well be that the city is gaining something but I ~y don't see thac It doesn't knock me over. Lundgren in the past has been a good developer for our community and I'm sure that they have worked a year on this. I don't want to discourage that fact. I just, in the presentation would have liked to have seen more detail in what we're gaining. I'm also, once again we are ~g with a difficult issue with citizens who have been living in neighborhoods here for quite some time. When the city comes knocking on the door, or what they see a city density is a difficult issue. As Brian has said, we get into the position of do we follow what the professio~ tell us is the correct thing to do or do we listen to sorne~ emotional dissent against that. And I've been in that position and I quantify, I've done this once before and have supported neighborhoods on this issue. I think that older neighborhoods should be given consideration under the sam~ general philosophy that we use as grandfathering. It depends on how many people are involved. How many homes we're looking at. At how much that would effect the change in their existing life style. Now I have been a proponent of connectivity and I disagree with many of the comments that were made here tonight. I think that again, when we try to isolate our neighborhoods, that may be fine for our own terms in thinking of 3 or 4 houses. What we see is our next door neighbors and our friends but it is the connectivity and the interconnection of neighborhoods that make a community and we're to some extent seeing over and over again neighbors that come in here, it doesn't make any difference whether it's your development or any one of the last 30 or 40 that have come in here. They see a lot of scary things on TV every night and they think in term~ of what's called the bunker mentality. They think that if you keep a long narrow driveway and it's just them that drives.on it, that they'll know their friends and they'll be able m tell thdr enemy. Whether we choose to admit that or not, there's a lot of that involved here. I look at the issues as not just safety issues of connecting neighborhoods. It's also the general issue, a very boring thing. It's just a general infrastn~ture that makes up a community. You have the connectivity of the mail 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 being delivered. You have buses coming and picking up your children and taking them to school. When we create all these 300, 400 neighborhoods that we have in the city and we only have one way into them, we have a city that's basically made up of a bunch of bunkers. And I think that there's si~nificant evidence to planners in other communities, this doesn't iDske for a healthy community. And it makes for ~ally a narrow view. However, as I said before there are a few occasions where I think the neighborhoods that have been estab~od and been here for a long time should be given consideration. And in this issue, the connection on Kiowa, I would not support and that is the reason that I would not support that. I think again, I fall back. This is a quandry for me because I think you have to give consideration for established neighborhoods that have been here for many years and in some cases almost 2 decades. And this docs effect quality of their life. I really am uncomfortable with that because there are also issues of safety here and I heard the comment that we should put that aside here tonight and I don't think we should. It's not a clear cut choice here and I know that some of you want to hear what you want to hear and others, they want me to stop talking about this but it is a difficult thing for your neighbors to sit up here and take those considerations into mind because some other people have sat up here or got up to the podium and have asked us, if we don't care, you shouldn't care and I don't think that that's the correct response. The issue of the walkway along Highway 101. I support that connecting. I realize that we're not quite sure where TH 101 is so that's probably a furore cost. If that's brought on line. It seems like some type of provision, if there's not a connection to Kiowa. Some type of provision will have to be made perhaps through the existing lots that are shown on the layout for some neighborhood connection to the Parkway. There seem_ s like there's room in there somewhere to look at that. The other issue, one other issue in the recommendations on staff as far as the setbacks go. I support those. Staff recommendation. And there is a comment in the recommendations that says that a 60 x 40 homesite and the other pan refers to a building paid. Is that 60 x 40 the building padT...that's the end of my conuuents7 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe. Scott: Well I too question the use of PUD for this particular development. I don't see what we're gaining. As far as thc references were made to thc Song pwpcrty and for those of you who aren't familiar with that particular property, it's heavily wooded. Extreme variations in tenain and we allowed it to bca PUD so we could preserve trees and preserve natural features. Well in this particular instance wc don't really have that same situation so drawing an analogy between this particular piece of ~ and the Song propa'ty really is meaningless~ So therefore I don't see us gaining anything so I do not support this as a PUD. With questions on connectivity. For public safety reasons I would support the connecting with Lake Riley Blvd off the cul-de-sac or some area there. I'm torn on the Kiowa because I can see, I _think that apartment complex is several hundred units. But then again I don't see a 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 tremendous amount of traffic going south into Shakopee. I think that a majority of the people from the development will be going up to Highway $. I'm still tom on Kiowa, as to whether that needs to be connected or not. I don't think there's a way of restricting ~ by using knock down barriers or so forth. I mean it's got to be something that has to be plowed, which obviously you can't do with barriers so I don't know. I think if I had tO make my choice, I would go with both of the connections. And I think everything else has been covered so I don't have any further comments. Batzli: Did you, I didn't hear you but I'm sure you did comment on the 60 foot right-of-way on internal streets, you were in favor of keeping it at that? Scott: Yes. Batzli: Okay. Thanks. Nancy. Mancino: I agree, concur with Seff, Ladd and $oe on the PUD. I was quite concerned about coming up with the 46% of under sizxxi lots. I also support the 60 foot right-of-way which would also add to this percent of under sized lots. I would not like to see this replicated in the future ~g that if we took this property and put it on the other side of TH 101, on the west side, I wouldn't want to see another development like this come in where there are no natural characteristics of the land that we are trying to preserve. In fact I think on page 11 of the report is says that the entire plat would be graded. The entire site will eventually be graded with a condition of the...so that to me says right away that...and what are we getting from it. On access to the established neighborhoods. Well, I'm very much' for public safety but more importantly to me is ffresewin§ neigh~ho~ that have been existing so I would be in support for not having a connection for either roadway. I said I supparted the 60 foot. I think that's it. Batzli: Okay. Do you want to talk before I get my shot at it? No, go aheacL Please. I'm just, go ahead. Terry Forbord: I wanted to embellish upon all the issues about the PUD. Balzli: Please, go ahead. Terry Forbord: Clearly I miscalculated the wishes or the desires of the Planning Commi~tion. I thought that the issues were incredibly clear and I've been before many of you for so long and actually I'm thrilled to talk about PUD's. I think every subdivision there is anywhere in any city should be a PUD because it gives thc city more than it could ever get under a standard subdivision so I'd like to talk about that briefly. The intent of the PUD ordinance 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 doesn't specifically protect natural feature. Every city adopts different critieria for their PUD. Chanhassen went through a lengthy process over probably years to develop the one they had. Before that I think they went through 8. lengthy process before for the tn~-vious one. But a PUD, it's purpose is to allow flexibility under a number of different conditions. It would not be fair to say that that flexibility and it's purpose is to solely protect the natural resources of a community but there's a number of other things. I think what's in it for the city. I think I heard everybody here basically say that in their mind that was the criteria that they were searching for the most And apparently us, as the applicant did not do a good enough job within our narrative and cextainly we made the election tonight to not bring in a slide show. To now bring in a lot of overheads of all of our product. To show you the things that we're doing in various communities that ale very 8~li]ar to it because I didn't want to taJre 2 hours of additional time tonight embellishing upon all these things. Clearly I miscalculated and being that I don't have all of those audio visual items here with me this evening, I ask you to keep an open mind. I'll do the best I can to ticket your creative imagination. What's in it for the city? I guess then is the city be concerned what's in it for the residents. The citizens of the community. V~aat, when they're done and they drive down TH 101 and Lyman Blvd and they look to their left or fight, whichever way they're going, they look off on a piece of land that could be developed as a neighborhood, what are they going to see? What are the options? Would they prefer to see community x or would they prefer to see community y? Now, as a developer I could take the subdivision ordinance and I could look at it purely from a statistical standpoint I could say well here's a piece of featureless land. There may be a dozen, maybe 30 trees. It's flatter than a pancake. It's a cornfield. I could make a lot of money here. There's no wetland. I don't have to worry about trees. I can just go in there and plan a grid system. I can get as many lots as the ordinance will allow me. I can make a vanilla subdivision that has no streetscape. Sure, I can meet the landscape ordinance and I can do all those things but when you're done, what's it going to feel like when you go into it or when you drive by? Now most of you who know me long enough, and know Lundgren Bros, we don't typically look for those types of qualities. But we could. We ~y could, and I'm going to show this to everybody else here. This is for illustrative purposes. We could develop something similar to this. We could take the subdivision ordinance and the codes and we could prepare a grid sysmn. There'd be no turns. Straight streets. Very similar to what you see in an urbanized area that's quite old. Minneapolis, Richfield. When you drive down those slxeets, you don't take many curves. You don't see the sides of the houses. You don't see the rears. You don't see the roof lines. You see the front of the bn_ildings. Okay, we could do that Now, we've taken a look at the site. This site in particular is unique. It may be characterless for the untrained eye but how many of you remember the workhouse property? That piece of property we developed. It was as flat as this. It had one sole tree on over 300-400 acres. We put in ponds and ~ conwur where there was none. So what we're doing here is we're going in and we're mass gra~ding this site to create conwurs because how many people 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 want to live on a flat site and there's no U~w~s to protect anyway so we'd better go in and do something to create some character to this streetscape so people, when they look out across their lawns, that they see some movement to it. Yes there is going to be a lot of grading but there's nothing there to really protect. So, should we go ahead and do this featm~ess neighborhood? Or should we attempt to msire, for lack of a bett~ ~ ii silk purse out of ii cow's ear. Should we lry to create some movement in the streets? Most of our homes have architectural details on the side elevations. The rear elevations and certainly on the front elevations but when you're winding down that street that goes up and down as well as side to side, you're going to see these different architectural details. There are physical constraints on this site. There's roads on 3 sides. There's a park that will be a commnnity park. An intensely used community park on the southern border. Okay, so on four sides I've got uses that in my mind are really not conducive to "typical" quality of life that many of these people enjoy in their quiet little neighborhoods so I'm going to take ~i~ site with all these problems and how can I create a sense of community in there. An environment that will be pleasant and have some streetscape. The only way I can do it is to try and be a little creative about it. And from the looks of the ordinance, the standard subdivision ordinance certainly does not encourage creativity. It asks me to deliver to you, and to the citizens, a vanilla subdivision that looks like the one that I was showing you. That's what the subdivision code tells me. But if you look to the PUD, it says hey. Use some creativity here. Most of the people who live in our community would rather have a neighborhood community that has some character to it. And if you're willing to do that, we'll allow you a little bit of flexibility to do these things. Now in every community I've ever worked in, that's really the intent of the PUD. It's to make it, it's to encourage people to do something above and beyond what the subdivision ordinance tells them they should do. Now I think that's what everylk~ly here wants. I don't think any of you say oh Lundgren, go on back there and make this something less. How do you do that? How do you do what I'm trying to tell you on s site like this? First of all you have to have some variety. You have to have some diversity. We don't want all the houses to look alike. We cer~__inly don't want them all to be the same size. We don't want them all to cost the exact same dollar amount. We don't want all the walks to look alike. If we wanted that, then we should go to this. So we are cognizant and sen~tive to the things around the perameter. We are cognizant and sensitive to the intense use of Lyman Blvd or TH 101. Of the park and for trying to have some feel for the people who live off the site that are close to it that may be impacted by it. Okay the way that I have to do that is through lot size, street configurations, and we've attempt~ to do that. Now I think that's a lot for the city. That ~na~y is better than going this way. I think. If the city is telling me that they prefer to do the other way, than that's what we will do. But what happens, and I'm not faulting anybody here for this. What happens, and I remember when the PUD ordinance was being prepared before it was adopted. I came here before you and talked about these very issues for those of you who were on the Planning Commission at that time. And we talked about, should you always have to have some incredibly tangible thing that you can Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 hang your hat on to say well this is why it was a PUD and there's some of us that don't think you just have to do that. I ~inic you have to say, is this what we want in our city or is it something other than this. Is it something more creative and so that's what we're attempting to do. We could get more lots going the other way. I mean a lot of people say well why don't you do that. Well because most people I mean that I've ever met and that we build houses for, would rather not live in a neighborhood like that. So what we're asking for is to allow us to be a little bit creative. And you also have to realize, even though 46 or 43, whatever percent of the lots are below the "standard" subdivision requirements, this is not a standard subdivision. The PUD ordinance says that they can go down to 11,000 square feet as long as the average lot size is 15. Well the average lot size here I believe is. Batzli: 17.8. Terry Forbord: Is 17,814. That's what the ordinance tells me I'm supposed to do. It doesn't say in thc ordinance, thc PUD ordinance that 10% have to be this size. 40% have to be this size and 50% have to this size. In a PUD you can turn me down though if you're happy with it because the PUD gives you really thc ultimate authority of approval. That's why I think PUD's are great for cities. You have the ultimnt~ authority. If you don't like it, throw it out. But what's the density here? There were issues about geez, the lots are awhflly small but what is the density. The density, gross is. 1.7 dwelling units per acre. Net is 2.5. That's not a lot of density on 80 acres of land, especially when 22% of it is roads so really what the PUD, this is a perfect. I mean I've said this before and you may be saying Terry, you always say this but this is true. This is a ~ site for a PUD. This is the kind of zoning tool that should utilize on this type of site because of 22% of it happens to be roads. It's fea~. We're not going there and we're going to try to do something with this that when we're done, I know when we're done you might not all want to live there yourselves but you'll probably go through there and say, boy that's a nice neighborhood. I feel entirely confident of that. Farmakes: Can I ask you a question Terry? Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Farmakes: Thc thing that I asked to see up here, the back side of that particular piece there. That we're referring to showing the grid. Thc Roman grid on thc back. The lots that we're looking at there, is the smallest lot wc're looking at there 115,000 square feet? Terry Forbord: Average lot size here is 15,880. The winimum lot size is 12,000. Famugtes: Okay. $o in fact then that's not a traditional single family. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Tm-fy Forbord: I didn't say that this was a standard subdivision. Farmskes: I just wanted to clarify that. Terry Forbord: ...for illustrative purposes. If I changed this and make this 15,000 square foot, I could hold this up here and nobody would be able to tell because of the scale of this drawing. I mean it's such a small scale, nobody'd be able to tell whether it was 3,000 off. But it's just for illustrative purposes. It's not meaut to say that we've measured and incremized everything here so it's exactly perfect to follow the subdivision ordinance. Farmakes: In your opinion, if they went with the standard development, do you feel that the roman grid roads are the only way to develop that piece of property7 Terry Forbord: Pardon me7 Farmakes: If we went with the standard development. Not go with PUD. We're looking at roman grid roads here. Straight up and down and across. With that particular piece of property, we see other developments that are not PUD here that do not have either horizontal or vertical roads. My question is, do you feel that particular piece of property, if developed as a standard development and not a PUD, will resemble that only slightly bigger lots? Terry Forbord: Would it resemble this7 Farmakes: That's correct. Terry Forbord: It depends on who the developer is. There's a lot of reasons that I believe why a lot of developers don't pursue PUD's. Number one, it's too complicaw, d. They go through these kinds of exercises and Planning Commissions and Councils..Jt's a lot more work. A lot more hassles. And most developers will always take the simple path. This is what's going to be easiest. Obviously you all know, unfommately sometimes I wonder myseff, why doesn't Lundgren Bros ~ the ~implest path on some of these'meetings of tensions that happen between staff and the applicant because we're working so hard to try to get something that will be a good neighborhood. Somethnes I wonder myself. Maybe I should just not keep pursuing most things. We should just go the vanilla route. Maybe that's what I should do. But I think that this site is a classic PUD site. It's featureless and it took, I get into it over and over again but the other thing that this allows, and this may not be the... criteria of PUD's and well wait a minute. Maybe there is a criteria that eludes to it. There's affordability. This property is not going to be "high ~ty land" where people are going to be building $250,000.00 homes. Or $350. I mean it isn't like that. It doesn't have lakeshore. It doesn't have trees. It doesn't have those type of things. A PUD allows a little 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 bit of diversity in lot size. For a couple things~ One, that lot may be a little more affordable. Two, that lot may be bought by the young professionals where both of them work maybe 50- 60 hours a week and they don't want a great big yard. We're seeing a lot of our custo~ could care less about mowing their lawn. They want as small a lawn as they can have. So we're getting them some variety. If they would like they could have a 17,000 square foot lot and if they don't want that one, then move down the street. Here are some 11,000 square foot lots over here or here's 13,000. There's some choice there for the consumer. You want to have a variety of product type. The PUD limally really allows for that. Farmakes: I think that the intent, as I recall the intent statement of our PUD also says that the higher percentage of the lots that are undersized, the city will look at that application closer. I'm not sure if I got the verbage exactly fight but that is the intent of this statement. And I think the issue and concern that's brought up here is a viable one. It does have a high percentage of undersizeA lots and I think that ecminly the city should look closely at that In that development I'm not saying that at least in my comments. I'm not speaidng for the rest of the commission. I have nothing, as I said, philosophicaflly with how you were developing the property by skirting the larger lots and smaller ones in the interior. But I thought that in the presentation that there was not suffxcient back-up to me to show versus a ~aditional development, which not all are like what's being proposed here on the yellow version. Certainly not, as I said, other developments that we've seen developed traditionally with 15,000 square foot lots as a minimum do not have horizontal/vertical roads only. However this particular piece of property has some problems to it but I think certainly that there has to be some convincing reason for that other than just philosophical. That when we say what is the city getting out of this. I hear some of what you're saying but I think also that there's some concern on my part anyway, the issue of the amount of smaller lots in the center of this versus the percentage. There are some large lots, I think up to 45,000 square feet. The question is, of the developer, some of those square footages be. But due to the pipeline and so on. I think that those are really viable conecras. It struck me as soon as I saw this plan and the presentation and I realized that I think perhaps the last presentation we had, we had some complaints of how long it went. Maybe you're reacting to that but in this particular ease I think everytime we have asked, when we see a PUD, that's a viable question. And we should ask that question. What are we getting for it because it is a trade off. It is a, to me, it is a variance. And to be responsible about that we should be getting something in return and there are some design qualifies to this that I like. And I'm not totally negative on it. But again I think that the density issue of subsized lots is a major, is my major concern of this development. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Thank you Terry. My co~ts on whether this should be a PUD were more directed toward trying to figure out the whole package here. What idnd of architectural styles would we be looking at. What kind of additional landscaping are we 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 getting and do those things, along with the increased right-of-way and some of the other, and making features out of a featureless field, are those the kind of things that would support a PUD? And I don't know that we've been educated enough. Either by the applicant or by city staff to make that determination tonight. It may be that you know Lundgren is going to put homes that arc exceptional in some manner or have additional features or they're going to be providing low income. They're going to be doing something and we don't know. I don't know. You know. Clearly they're not clustering. They're not earth sheltering. They're not putting in, they're not putting in creative things like that I would imagine or they'd be telling us about it but they're going to put in a quality Lundgren Bros homes on thi.~ piece of ~, which is what I would expect anyway. But I think that type of information along with some of thc features or some of the other things, regardless of whether city staff tells us about that and tells us that that's a good thing and that's something we should be loolcing for, or whether Lundgren tells us, I think we need to be told somehow. I'm not sure that that can be done tonight Having said that, I remain kind of unconvinced on the, on reducing the right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet. I think we've relaxed the 30 feet to 25 feet in the past. I think we usually have done that to pull the houses forward to get them out of trees and things like that I don't know. I think the Song property was eluded to and I'm not sure if I was here for that particular discussion. So I don't know whether that would be proper in this particular instance or not but it sure sounds like it wouldn't be. I think Jeff is fight on the point when he says that the more pieces of property that fall below our standard lot size, the harder we're supposed to look at it so I think we're doing our job. I don't thinic we're trying unfairly to single this out for some reason. I think we've ingtrocted ourselves in drat:lJng the ordinance to do exactly what we're doing tonight I don't know that I'd characterize it as what, this is my own personal opinion and I've said thi.~ several times and I've never seen a nod from anybody yet but I'll say it one more time. You know to me it's not what the city is getting. It's what the people that move in. It's the future residents of these homes. It's really what are they going to be living in and what amenities are they getting and it's almost like what is the developer offering those future residents of thc city, and they will be residents and taxpaying citizens of the city and they're the ones that are going to most directly benefit or be harmed by what we do here tonight. They're going to be living in it and you can say buyer beware and if they don't like it, move in. But the minute you start putting in some of these smaller, lower income and I don't know if Lundgren is really low income housing. I can't even get a rise out of Terry. He's busy writing something I think but I think that I don't agree with that philosophy and I'd like to be big brother a little bit on some of those issues. As far as the connection. I lived at the end of a cul-de-sac. Bought it for that exact purpose. I came to the meeting to have the city not put it through. They put it through anyway. I've been there. And it's interesting because of course I lived through the 100 year storm where one end of our, the only enlxance and exit from our development was blocked off. And it began to dawn on me that you can't foresee all contingencies and that these things make sense. So I would like to see us look at this and I know we've looked at 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 the break away fences and everything else and the city staff hates them. But the one thing that differs betw~ my situation and these are that these are long established neighborhoods. They have a character about them and I moved in. I was there for 6 months to a year. Granted I moved in because it was a cul-de-sac, or so I thought. But h~'re this will changc the character of at least Kiowa I'm convinced and perhaps ~ Riley, because there will be additional traffic on Kiowa. You can't get around that factand that will change the character of that neighborhood. And I hate to see that done. I really don't want to see that done. I remain less convinced for Lake Riley Blvd, but on the other hand it is a long, well established neighborhood and we may be changing the character of it and I don't want to do that without a darn good reason. And if our people are telling. Our, ~g city. If city safety and fire are telling these people that well geez, we really don't want it. Well I'm going to sit up here and...We need to get our story straight one way or another on that particular issue before I'm willing to vote and force these people to change the character of their neighborhood. Even though I've been pretty consistent for the last 4 or 5 years in saying that we can't have long cul-de-sacs. Having said those things, I think we have some issues that probably still need to be fine tuned. We've heard about some tree count on the little finger sticking south there. We've heard about the berming. I think that's taken care of in the conditions. We have a park access trail/and a trail along TH 101 that needs to be looked at. I would troffer review of all these various issues and perhaps Lundgren and city staff wants to take a second shot at us for why this is a good subdivision and ff they get the general gist that we're concerned about the number of small lots, they may even take a look at rearranging something for us. I guess I would prefer to see this tabled perso~y. I don't know how the applicant feels about that. There was one other thing I was going to say. Oh yeah. The barricade with the temporary turn around. The sign. It should say, this street shall be extended in the future, and we really mean it. We're not kidding. So having said that, is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we table this. The Preliminary PUD of 80.8 acres of ~ to create 134 single family lots...and rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD, Planned Unit Development Residential Batzli: Is there a second? Farmakes: I'll second. Batzli: Discussion. Conrad: Terry, is that what you want to do? Do you want to come back and give us a shot at justifying? Seriously, I'm not sure you're close. I'm really not sure. You've come in here with subdivisions or PUD's in the past and they're just obvious to us. This one is not. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 You're saying some things to us that we've never heard another developer say. I haven't seen a typical subdivision in Chanhassen for a long time so I'm not sure this is an alternative. I guess I would like to see you back telling us why we should. You know Chanhas~o. You know 15,000 square feet is really something that we hold near and dear and you're going below that and there was really not a very consistent way of t~lling us what the city, or what the community in general was getting. Yet on the other hand there are a few of us here that feel you're way off. I don't think you're close Terry right now. So if he comes back and justifies. You know right now I think he's going to go back and come back in arid justify to us why. Without a clear consensus that we're ready. That if he justifies it, we'll go for it. The current configuration but with these, we'll take a look at the connectivity to the properties that surround. You know for sure we're going to do that but I want to send Terry a good signal here so that when he comes back, he's meeting our needs and I'm just personally saying, 60 some lots that are below 15,000 square feet, I didn't see it in the plans with environmental features. I didn't see it there so what I'm saying is I don't know that he can persuade me if he comes baci~ Mancino: I agree. Farmakes: I can say what I'd like to see. One of the things I'd like to see on average size, when we look at when we average out these issues is buildable lot size and in some cases, the largest lots on this particular development, because of the pipeline, are not buildable. And I think that certainly the 46%, or whatever it is, is a major stumbling block with me. Batzli: Well I suggeslrxl tabling and we got the motion in part because I thinir; I don't know that the applicant or the city really concen~ated on what we were looking for. And they've heard our comments tonight and I thinir they know what our concerns are and if they want to rework something to try to take care of those concerns, I mean they're free to do that before, they don't have to just come back and sell us on this plan. Conrad: I guess I'm just maybe trying to get a nose count here for, I think Matt felt that it's close. Scot'c We need a separate bar. Conrad: And I'm just trying to give Terry some kind of, and he's keeping track. He's taking notes of what we're saying. But I really want him to have a sense of what we're saying and there's some specific issues that wc brought up but do we feel lot size. The number of small lots, are we close or are we far away from that7 From justifying the 60+ lots that are between 11,000 and 1S,000 square feet. Maybe I'm asking. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: No, I think it's a real good question. I'm trying to thinlr in my mind what that should be as a guide. Is it 20%. Conrad: I don't know that I have an answer to the number, and there is none. You know if Terry could come back and say the 63 lots are justified because we're putting, we're doing the following things. Batzli: Yeah but it's not quantifiable but I think clearly you heard from the, whatever was said that I ~inlq at least in my own mind and I'll charactm'ize your comments and you can disagree with me but Ladd and Joe, Jeff and Nancy probably had a harder time than Matt and I. And those, you four are the ones that he's going to have to sell harder because L I'm looking at it maybe a little bit di~tly than the four of you but I think he's got a long way to go with the four of you, from your comments. Ledvina: Well I don't want it to be a situation where it's adjusting lot lines and I don't think that's where it's at, and I think that's what you were saying. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, if I could qualify a couple things because I want to make sure... I thought I did understand that until Matt's last comment. I thought that the issue was lot size and adjusting lot lines may allow me to adjust lot size. So I want to make sure. Fannakes: That was my understanding and the issue I think is the percentage of subsized lots. Scott: It could mean fewer lots. Terry Forbord: What if in the pursuit of larger lots...whatever that number is, that I brought that in and we say well geez, now I don't like the way it looks. Would you rather that I go back. I'm just trying to, it will change the way this looks to achieve what it is you're telling me you want and from a design standpoint, I mean I'm going to work on that because I want to bring it back in looidng the same but if it doesn't, I'm just uying to get some direction. Scott: Terry, how many homes do you want to sell? Batzli: How many lots are on there? Terry Forbord: 134 home sites. Conrad: You know what you've got to do, you've told us this and it's the thing that I'm s~ruggling with thc most is thc fact that this land is not very pretty. And somehow you have, 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 you didn't embellish the plantings. In fact the number of units per ~re is higher than a typical subdivision. Chanhassen is avera~ng 2 units ~ acre net. You're at 2.4. You just didn't tell me that we're going to take a real boring piece of property and turn it into something. Now maybe your buildings are always top quality Terry but that's p~rt of the thing but you really didn't do anything to _this land and I always look for what are you doing for the land. What are you doing for the people. Boy I've got, you've got to take me a ways to sell me on that. You haven't done that. T~ry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yes sir. Terry Forbord: ...to do, and I guess I'd like, I think I'm hearing everybody say the same thing. I have another site that was very similar to this in Plymouth. That we're just finishing the final details on. I would be happy to ~ke the Planning Commission there and I can show them the before shots. Aerial shots and then they can see what's there now. I can either do that or I could just do slides. But it's almost an identical situation. Roads on 3 sides. Flatter than a pancake. Actually that one maybe had a few, some wetlands. Thi~ one doesn't but if you saw what it is today, you would say now there's a PUD. I ~ because anybody, we're seeing people come out and saying, my god. I can't.believe this is the same piece of property. That's what a PUD allows you to do. Batzli: Where is it? Terry Forbord: It's on County Road, at the intersection of County Road 24 and Highway 101. It would be the northwest corner. And that's a good example of an existing condition and that site was featureless. Other than some wetlands but it had more character even than this one but we're going to try to do the same thing. I can't do that as a standard subdivision. So I would be happy to do either do that through slides... Batzli: What I tbinir; I think it would be hei~ to do it by slides. I mean I'm going to try and make an effort and I'm sure other Planning Commissioners will try to make an effort to go up there and drive through it but I think slides would be bettor, especially for the record. Terry Forbord: It's called Heather Run and there is signage that will direct you. Mancino: Where is that again Terry? Terry Forbord: On the northwest corner of the intersection of State Highway 101. Same highway. And County Road 24. A good way to get there would be take 494 north. Go west 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 on Highway 55. Go south on 101 and it will be on your left side. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I'd also just like w make a comment, while we haven't voted on anything, I think my nose count was more no's than yes's for the connection. Is that right? For the connections in general. Conrad: More no's? Ba~li: More no's. Conrad: That's correct BatzLi: Yeah. So thank you all for coming in. We have not actually voted on the issue but as it stands it looks like there's at least three no's. I think Matt might be pers~tded for one connection and Joe I think was saying no for Kiowa and potentially for Lake Riley7 Is that what you're saying7 Scott: I had a problem with un--ding, because I know what's going to happen to those guys but I'm familiar with both areas so. Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. Resident: ~ust a question. With all the neighborhood input tonight, if you hear this again on another night and all of us don't show up, can we assume that all of our comments are on the record. Batzli: All of the comments are on the record and the City Council will see those and we'll remember them, believe me. But you'll receive notice again or will it just be published? Krauss: I'll touch on that for a moment. Our next Planning Comruission meeting is on the 17th. The following one is on December lsC What these things often put us in is the need to sit down with the developer and start working out issues. Whether that can be turned around in a holiday shortened week, with a big agenda already scheduled for the 17th, is questionable. So what we will do is we will notify the neighbors again...when it comes back to you on the Planning Commission. Batzli: Right. So you will notify the neighbors, so you should be notified of the next meeting. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Resident: If not this much of a turnout can happen, can you still remember how many people talked to you tonight? Batzli: Yes. Farwulre~s: It's on video. Batzli: Okay, thank you all for coming in_ Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to table the proposed planned unit development to rezone 802 acres of property zoned A2 to PUD and preliminary plat to subdivide 80.8 acres into 134 single family lots and 7 outiots, for the Dolejsi and Rogers property, Lundgren Bros proposal. AH voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIl, UPI)AX: Batzli: Paul, do you have anything for us? Or Kate, you might as well 1~11 us because Paul's busy. Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, quite a few items were tabled because...but they did approve the motel site plan expansion. Centex was tabled because of the length of the meeting. They also tabled the Jean Addition. The one lot subdivision. Krauss: Let's put it this way, I didn't give you a Director's update because there wasn't anything to tell you. Scott: I was at that meeting and the garbage thing just expanded to lik~, I think I left at 11:00 and they were still talking garbage. Batzli: What did they decide on that? Krauss: They decided to continue it. Batzli: The garbage thing was continued? Okay. ONGOING rrEMS. l_ _ Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: I was going to touch on that but we'll talk about that next time. Any administrative approvals Paul? Krauss: No. OPEN DISCUSSION: DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY $ CORRIDOR PLAN. Batzli: In view of the amount of time that we spent on the last one, for once again amazingly enough we've had a couple of these and granted I haven't been at the last 2 or 3 meetings in a row but we end up talking about issues that rely aren't related to the development for inordinate amounts of time. And I'm curious to know whether, because they liked thc development. Almost to a person. The people that were in here said, thc development appears to be pretty good. We don't like the access issues. I mean this is kind of replay of Pleasant View and the issue, in my mind is can we do something about this so that we don't drag all these other things around the wheel when it's the developer sitting there saying, you know. Anything we could do? Anything we can do? Can we somehow separate the issue? I mean it seems to me that from a planning point of view, I would rather say here's a piece of property. Thi.~ is the way it's going to develop. Where should_ the access and these types of things be and not get it wrapped around the wheel of what the internal workings of the development look like. Now tonight, by way of example, and I know Serf has requested this ad nauseum but what does it look like around the development. Here we are talking about all these access issues. About Lake Riley and Kiowa, we don't have a single map. So I was, you know. If we're going to talk about access issues, let's talk about them but let's not sit here and worry about the internal workings of the development and be sitting here clueless as to why people would turn left or fight on these streets. Farmakes: It's sort of standard otgxrating procedure in arguments from the neighborhood, in particular. I mean we're seeing neighborhoods that haven't been around in 4 or 5 years and then they're in here when a developer comes next to them and they're saying the quality of life that they've come to enjoy is being threatened. Timberwo~ and Stoney Cxv~ I think were the last issues. I don't know how long one predated the other but not by more than 4 or $ years I don't think. It just doesn't seem to make any difference. I don't know whether we should legislate and just do like we do with taxes and say hey, the State made us do it. Or how we could address that but it does seem to be something that's just going to come up habitually. Mancino: And that was my question. What's been done before on these long standing cul- de-sacs? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Krauss: This is all blending into one...and I honestly don't remember if thl, happened here or in Minnetonka...we went to thc City Council and we said, alright. We're getting awful tired of this. We don't know what to do you know. Should we just forget about it? I mean you know the story. You know, you've heard the line...yet 80% of thc time, 90% of the time you vote to over rule it. Should we just forget about it? Farmakes: No, I don't think you should. I tried to quantify what I said here. The only other one that I had voted to support was the one on TH 101, the access over there on that cul-de- sac. I used the same reasoning before and it's a really...and I see it as a grandfather issue. If a community's been there for 20 years, that the city, if they're going to change the rule, has an obligation to look at how that's going to affect their lives. And what they've come to over the years. Same philosophy I think that the city uses for grandfathering issues. Mancino: But how long is that7 Krauss: I don't know but...would end up in the packet and we should have. But sometimes they throw you for a loop. I would never in a million years think anybody in their right mind would go around the back side of Lake Riley to get out of that neighborhood. Farmakes: A shorWut to TH 101. I umn, yeah. Not in my worst nightmare. Scott: And I look, you know the thing that I get really fired of is that, well the realtor told me that da, da, da. But I ~ quite frankly I mean, yeah. I can see some imp~ on the people on Kiowa but this Pleasant View. I mean that was a bunch of you know whaL These people are here, sometimes you have to protect people from themmlves. Look at these people down there are going to f~ if their house catches on fire in the winter and I'm going, fine. But do I protect you from yourself. Batzli: We're getting off the topic but I'm saying that if what we have to do is say to thc Council, look. We're getting all these old long connection issues in front of us. What do you want us to do? Then that's what we should do so that we don't, we're going to have to let the public have their say and I _think we need to let them have their say, but at the same time we should have some sort of guidelines to follow and we do need better reference materials in our packets so when these people start talking to us about the street connections around the development, we know what they're talking about. Sco~ And Brian, I thought your point was very good about the fact that you didn't vote us in on the Planning Commission so you can say whatever you want and we may not react one way or the other but if you want to get excited, go to the Council meeting because they're the elected officials. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: They're going to be excited when you've got :50 people cheering. Scott: So on issues like that, it's almost like. Krauss: You also touched on..Jssue though of how the Planning Cormnission raises issues tonight that nobody...It's not to say that it's not a valid issue. It's always difficult to raise a philosophical or ordinance issue in the context of a particular development. We used to have lots of time to spend on those kinds of things. We had time to develop ordinances and plan but for crying out loud, we've been trying to schedule the Highway 5 plan for the last 2 months and there hasn't been the time to do it. Farmakes: We have to have a separate meeting for that. Just that. Maybe more than one and if that means bumping them back, that has to be done...and what it means for our community, I thinir it certainly should be in the driver's seat. Krauss: Councilman Wing is trying to, and I don't know if he'll follow through with it but he's indicated that he'd just as soon that we closed out some of your agendas and icind of a demi moratorium and just got on that and stayed on it until it was done. Farmakes: Absolutely. Why there's weather enough that we can still look at some of the areas that we're talking about. Mancino: I still think we need to take a site visitation and ride down Highway 5. Farmakes: It is a lot of information to absorb. There's a lot of things to look at. Bn_t~.li: Well, would everybody want to do it on a Saturday7 Saturday morning? Scott: If we can schedule it far enough in advance. I think we all were thinking about the first Saturday, the 9th and then I got a call and it was lille for the 16th or something like that. Can we pick, because I'd like to do it. I want to get out there and walk around. Mancino: But we did. Farmakcs: I was available. Conrad: I want to. It's just real tough to find time. Aanenson: What I was getting, we could go on a regular day, like Paul had mentioned. Maybe start earlier in thc day. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: It gets dark awhdly quick. Scott: Yeah, there will be an hour of daylight. Conrad: How about this Saturday? Scott: It's deer season. Conrad: We could get shot. Mancino: This Saturday? Krauss: No. I've got my son is being operated on. Mancino: What's the next available? Aanenson: The 13th. Conrad: I am gone. Ba~li: The next one? Sco~ The 20th is the wcckcnd before Thanksgiving, which might be a good one. Saturday the 20th. Mancino: I can't. Scott: Oh, where are you? Batzli: Are you the only one that can't make it? Because you know where all the stuff is. You're on the task force. Mancino: Yeah, I've got to tall I mean I have to be there. Batzli: Have you got to sell it? Mancino: I've got to sell it. Batzli: Okay...4th of December. Boy, the holidays are just. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Mancino: That might not be bad. Scott: Yeah, I'm fine with that. Batzli: Okay, 4th. It's far enough in advance. Conrad: Sure. Scott: Don't change it now. Batzli: No, nobody changes it. Scott: And this is like what? Report for duty at 7:00 a.m.? Aanenson: Not that early. Scott: What tim~? Batzli: Are you also going to invite other members of the Task Force, because I think that'd be a good idea. Krauss: We had people call in and say they're going to do it and Kate and I just said 3 people isn't worth giving up a Saturday for. Mancino: No, no but that's what I was saying. Are you going to invite members from the Highway 5 Task Force7 Krauss: Yes. Farmakes: But I would like to encourage each and every ~ to lmep an open mind on the information they're... Mancino: How could they come closed minded? Farmakes: Well you're the one who mentioned sell. Aanenson: ...last time we ended up at the Arboretum and have lunch because that really shoots a big hole in a Saturday. Krauss: We don't get back home until 2:00 in the ~oon. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Aanenson: Yeah so I tlaink it'd be betugr if we went more like 9:00 and we try to be done by noon so we can get on with the things we need to do. Batzli: I mean 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 is betl~ for me. If everybody else in my house is sleeping I can spend as much time as I want. So the earlier the better is what I'm trying to say. Aanenson: 8:007 Scott: 8:007 That's cool Farmakes: I have one quick issue I'd like to bring up, as long as this is still open discussion. Time me. We talked about the issue of city staff for the people who came up to the podium and talked that, I think it was the Fire Marshal. The letter from the Fire Marshal is clear here. I mean to me. It doesn't leave any room for interpretation that he was against this issue. And this individual came forward and ff you listened closely to what he said, he really didn't say that he disagreed with him but he thought he did. He didn't see any reason so I don't take it as a criticism on the Fire Marshal but I would follow that up to see ff there was any. I'm assuming there wasn't. Maybe this was sort of a hopeful inm'pretation of the situation but we have to make sure I think that ff it wasn't, and ff he did say counteract his letter here that we don't get this. Batzli: Let's talk about the Highway 5 corridor here for a minute. Farmakes: I thought we were done with that. Batzli: No. I thought you were going to go through something. Aanenson: Well I was. Now if you want to spend some time. Batzli: Well, we can spend time in one of two ways because I thinlr we all want to leave by 11:00. We can spend time talking about goals or we can spend time talking about, something about Highway 5. What do you guys want to spend time doing? Aanenson: I think it'd be more beneficial if everybody's taken the time to read through it and kind of kick it off on the 4th but I think again what I want to focus in on is the land use options that we're looking at. And the mission s~t...looking at the land use and making that consistent. 50 Plarming Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: By fluff she means really good fluff and necessary. Aancnson: ...then also the road design for the frontage road with the recommendation from the task force. And then the proposed recommended land use, which is included in thc 199:5 study area. And thc architectural design elements. Those are the key things we need to be looking at...So what we'd be doing in the draft document, we'll be putting together your issues. We've gotten at the task force issues and sending those forward to the City Council in kind of a summary report. So what you're going to be focusing on the road design, architectural standards and the proposed land use recommendations. Krauss: But you've got to be up to speed enough to hold the public hearings. Aanenson: Because we'd like to have that as soon as possible. Farmakes: I think the only really controversial issue in laud use I think was the Mill's property. There are a few others but I mean that was the major lawsuit situation. Krauss: Yeah, there's that one and the roadway issue, which is why Brad ~/ohn~n is here tonight. There's an issue which Opus-Steincr and the land by the Ar~ Those are the... Aanenson: And I think Nancy pointed out too, if you look at the colored map in the document, there's some inconsistencies as far as what the Task Force recommended and if you look at the chapter that goes through the, Chapm- 2... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Batzli: If thc landowners want Brad to atten~ that's fine. And I guess we need to check with our City Atwmey to see if we can even limit that. If mom than 4 of us show up so we have a quorum there, even though it's not a regular meeting. Brad Johnson: More than likely there won't be that many people there. Batzli: Yeah, and I don't want you know, if these guys want to go along and listen, I th/nk they should be able to. I don't want them to get involved in the process of our education but on the other hand, they should be entitled to hear what's being said. Brad Johnson: We're in the process of preparing a presentation and we want to know what the presentation should say at a public hearing. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: Okay, thank you. PLANNING COMMIgSION GOAI.S. Krauss: Shorter meetings. Batzli: We've got 15 minutes. Let's talk goals. Krauss: To an extent it's almost a moot point. We're so innundated with stuff, we don't have chances to do much else. We've always had an ambitious work agenda and I think we got a lot accomplished and the city's benefitted from that but I'm real reluctant to us commiting to tackling major new projects in the near future. I've outlined a number of things. Some of them are directly related to the Planning Commission. Some are related to others.., responsibility to do that. One of the things that I want to touch on here, when we start to change the ongoing item list to do, is we had for a long time we had issues related to the BF district. And I wanted...we ought to expand that focus to...a land use program similsr to what we just went through on Highway 5 for the south study area. We ought to wrap the whole thing into one project and I've asked Kate and Bob to kind of spear~ that and lay out a work program to do that. It's something I think we probably can do in-house given the opportunity and time to do it. But we're experiencing tremendous pressures, and I've got to believe. Well, fu-st of all let me, I fully believe that within 12 to 18 months we're going to start working on a MUSA amendment to bring in the north 19925 study are~ Batzli: In what time frame? Krauss: 12 to 18 months. We've. already been petitioned by'one of the property owners there and I believe more will follow and I think as we had shown you on a map, all the land that we brought in in '90-'91, and all the projects you approved that are in the pipeline, there's almost nothing left already. So given my projection on that, I don't think thc south study area is over the rainbow as far as people anticipated. When we sat here 3-4 years ago doing a comp plan, it wasn't that hard to see thi,~gs happening along Highway 5 but it was really kind of a stretch to see. .. south of Lyman. It's not that easy. I fully expect that area to be developed now before 212 comes through. $o that's one of my goals. We have the sign ordinance that Kate's been trying to get back to finish up for ages now and we just haven't had the chance to get it on. Farmakes: That will tie in though with the Highway 5 issue. Krauss: It can, yeah. We really count on this time of year to be a dead zone. Where we 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 have the ability to do things. It's not happening. We're talking about there's a lot mc~e in the pipeline fight now. Farmakes: How do you think population wise what we're looking at is going to affect this? Targeted goals for population growth7 If we look at all these units and especially this high density and some of these things. It doesn't seem like to me that they're lining up exactly with some of our projections~ They seem to be quite a bit ahead. Is that? Krauss: Well keep in mind, those projections that are on the Comp Plan, were conservative. They were lower than plans predicted otherwise. Farmalms: We were conservative but I know that the Met was far beyond us, Krauss: Well they were ludicrous. Farmakes: They were below. They were below our conservative estimate. Krauss: Well when we started writing the plan, they were below what actually lived and walked and breathed at that particular time. We thought, I don't know. I don't thinir we're too far off. We went through a whole lot of years where we're bnilding about 200 units of single family homes. So that's 600 a year. This year I'm guessing we're going to be up over 300-350. Next year it's probably going to be 400. That's gaining 1,000 a year. Those are big numbers but they still get you up around in the 20's. Low 20's by the end of the decade and probably top off in the low 30's. Batzli: At what point does a community get it's own school? Cumemlly. I mean high school. I mean does a 30,000 population base get it's own high school? Krauss: I think you know I'm a ~nt of Eagan and they're just now at 50,000 people and the high school was built 2 years ago. Scott: No, that's not the issue. The issue is, when you have majority of people from Chanhas~a on the School Board is when we get our own school Farmakes: There you go. Krauss: You have to remember too that the north third of Chanhassen is in the l~innetonka district. The new high school, as I understand the bnilding plans, the new high school that they're building should have some growth potential. Whether or not it's sufficient growth potential, I don't know. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: Chanhassen historic~y has been unrepresent~! by population in the school board and Chaska, curiously enough has been over represent. I'm not talking about the quality of representation. Mancino: Is there anybody from Chanhassen on the School Board? Batzli: Ckurenfly? I don't know. Farmakes: I don't believe so currently. But I may be wrong. Batzli: It was just a question. Well Paul, it sounds like you don't want us to give you anything new on your plate but how about if we prioritize what is there? Krauss: Prioritize away. Batzli: And what I guess I would propose is, you know we, we've done this the last couple years and the results have been skewhy but I'd like to take one more shot at it and that is, I'd like to see us come back with, you know everybody take your ongoing issues list and icinri of prioritize it. How you want to see it done because what I would really like to do is send our prioritized list to the City Council and basically say, this is what we see thc priority as and this is how we're going to work on it, unless we hear from you. Now, as most of you probably know, I'm probably not going to be here next year so this is more irr~. ortant for you guys than it is for me. I know in the last couple of years that we've done this, we haven't gotten a real big showing by our commissioners on it's actually getting a list prioritized and putting some thought into it, in part because we've been so darn busy doing other things that everybody's just kind of like, we're going to be forced to look at this anyway so we really don't care. But for example my one dream on the commi.~aion was to do something on the business fringe and you've just dashed my hopes of having a last month reprieve on getting something done down there. Darn you. Krauss: Unless you want to change your wind_, Batzli: To me doing something like that, tying it in maybe even with the Bluff Creek corridor greenway kind of thing. Eventually as we do these things, we're going to mi~ opporumities that we have to, not to necessarily right wrongs but to preserve features. I mean we talked today about PUD's and features. The bluffs in Chanhassen are something that will never be rebuilt unless we save them now. And putting in the bluff setback was one thing. Steep slope another but if in fact we're going to try and work, whether alone or in connection with the Park and Rec Commission, to preserve some of these bluffs and creek corridors, we've got to do it and we've got to take the lead and we've got to let them know what we Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 think In the past I think we've given them some pretty good ideas and they've followed up on it. And if this is a priority for us to investigate it, whether it's trying to get federal funding to buy it and preserve it or to follow up on Eden Prairie's, I think they're trying to do something north or coming down the bluffs weren't they? They were trying to do something for a while. Krauss: Yeah, they were trying to take down all the trees... Batzli: Well they weren't trying to do that originally. They were trying to put in some son of preservation zone. Krauss: You know on the Bluff Creek is sue. . . tree ordinance but we've got sorneflfing interesting coming up. Another reason for you to stay on the Planning Commission Brian. Batzli: We're going to build a goff course? Krauss: No. The DNR has started kind of an experimental program to work with total watershed issues. It sounds kind of glib but they've got one program now going on over at the Phalen, Ramsey watershed on the east side of town. Basically what they want to do is to convene working groups of concerned residents and representatives of all the agencies that are involved in preserving the environment of local watersheds and boy there's a zillion of them And we thought that, and they contacted us because of what we're doing on water issues. And we suggested Bluff Creek might be the ideal one, because we've already done some planning on it. We have some ideas of what we want to achieve for it. We've got hopefully an environmental condition that can serve as a liason and what this does is, we anticipate meeting a couple three times and kind of laying out a work program and then going before the LCMR, which is Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources I think. And they get money through the lottery and some other sources and can give it out to environmentally significant projects. Since this is a project that would be recommended by the DNR, and we're pretty well...we have a fair chance of getting funded. What we're trying to do is you get the money and you hire a coordinator who offices out of the DNR working through our staff to push this project for total watershed management planning. It includes tree cover with recreational issues. It includes MnDot building roads over them. The whole 9 lards. We very much want to keep the road connection...and I asked them okay. So we do all this under the grant. What about money for implementation and there's no guarantees that you get money for implemen~on_ However, since you've got all these agencies on board buying into the planning process, it's ~ likely you're going to be able to tap into some outside money for implementation, which in this case means land acquisition and reforestation- Construction of water quality improvement basins. You name it. I think the sky's the limit. So the kick off ~g for that is going to be on Tuesday, November 16th in the morning Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 here. We've got notices coming out to all of you. We would like you to stay involved with that. I expect to be, we need to get together a submittal to the LCMR by the end of January to make their funding cycle. But maybe that will get it off of dead center. I'm running out of ideas to do much else with it. Batzli: Okay. It sounds like a good idea. After getting money for our pedestrian bridge, maybe we're on a roll. Krauss: It never hurts to ask. Batzli: What I've asked everybody to do is to take a look at their ongoing issues sheet and come back with a recommendation with how they would prioritize it. Some things obviously have to be done right away but we'll try _s_nd get a consensus and we'll send it up to City Council saying, this is what we see the priorities as and thi.~ is what we're going to work on when we get a spare minute. And if there are things on there that you feel should be on there, please bring those as well. You said we had a busy agenda next time. What are we doing? Krauss: Well maybe it's not so busy as I thought but we have the school site coming on and it's got to go through thc process quickly. Batzli: But that will be a fun one. Krauss: Oh, by the way. Byerly's did submit They're going to be on December 1st. Batzli: For where7 Krauss: Right across the street from City Hall. On the Charlie James property. Batzli: Byerly's? Sco~ Well that's ridiculous. Farmakes: Here's thc competition. Bycfly's. I'm never leaving Chanhassen. Krauss: ...a retail center attached to it. Batzli: Out of curiousity, how big is our current grocery store? Krauss: 30,000. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Batzli: And how big is the Byerly's? Krauss: Twice the size. Now, I _think it will have a liquor store. It will have a remurant. Batzli: Are they asking for, I mean is liRA doing this with TIF and stuff? Krauss: I didn't ask. I assume they're going for the standard program which is to take a 3 year deal. I haven't seen elevataions of the building yet. We've talked to Byerly's staff. The Vice President. What I conveyed to them is Byerly's is always a lovely place to go into but your outside are nothing. A brick box and they came back with, well you know the Edina store is 20 years old and it doesn't look it. But it will be a brick building. They are trying to do something architecturally diff~nt than what they've done in the past. Apparently Byerly's is, I wasn't aware of this but it was bought out by an investment group. Don Byerly's still involved but it's basically a... Farmakes: Their presentation as a retailer I think is excellent and it gives ~ something, particularly our downtown area, something that it doesn't have cummfly. Krauss: Well it sounds trite but I mcan I've told people that a Minnesota community isn't a town until you have a Target and it's not a class act until you've got a Bycrly's. Batzli: What's going in across from Cub in Minnetonka? Krauss: Rainbow. Batzli: Good gravy. Farmakes: Competition. Mancino: Is there also going to be a senior center in the area or a senior? Krauss: We're working on senior housing, in fact Charlie is trying to sell us thc comer. Out beyond Byerly's to the Powers, which may be a possibility. I _think we're going to see something on that in '94. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of Byerly's, is _this the target market when they were going to go in over here by Burger King? Krauss: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - November 3, 1993 Farmakes: And they're moving this far out? Wow. That's a major. Krauss: Yeah...why. Farmakes: That's a major marketing move to come this far out. Krauss: But the next nearest Byerly's is in Minnetonka up on Highway 12. Krauss: A Byerly's here will catch south Minnetonka, Shorewood, Excelsior, aU the little towns. It will catch eastern, I'm sorry, wesm~ Eden Prairie. We're au up and coming Farmakes: But this is definit~y a draw to the northwest in Minnetonka to here, which we haven't had before. Batzli: And it seems to me that our, when we looked at the ~xaffic patterns that the Target would generate, we were looking at a little bit different draw because of the location of the other Targets and I think this, ~ so this pulls more from the north I think. Krauss: Once you've got that icind of traffic, I mean people are... Batzli: Well that's exciting. That will be fun to look at. Other than the resolution that Ladd is wearing the most stylish cap we've seen in ages, is there a motion to close? Scott moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:.~0 p,m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 58