Loading...
PC 1993 11 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI,~SlON REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, loc Scott, Matt Ledvina. and Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning ~ Sharmin Al-laff, Harmer I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND AI.TERATION PERMIT TO PROVmE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TQ A SINGLE FAIVHI.Y PARCEL ZONF_.D RR~ RI~.~ RESIDENTIAL AND LQ(~ATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD~ NORTI~ EAST- AND WEST OF LAKE LI~ICY~ THF. PARCEL ~ A PENINSULA IN LAKE L~JCY~ MARK AND KATHY SANDA, Public Present: Name Address Mark & Kathy San/ia Ken Adolf loe Morin Eric Rivkin lohn & Mariellen Waldron Sack Lowry Sandy & Robert Kendall Phil & Klm Thiesse lill Willis lulie Farmnlr~.,s Dorm Andrus Pat O'Dell Brian Tichy Bill Lambrecht 1685 St~lier Court Schodl and Madsen 1441 Lake Lucy Road 1695 St~lier Court 1900 Lake Lucy Road 1665 SteHer Court 1645 Lak~ Lu~ Road 1675 Steller Court 1571 Lake Lucy Road 7100 Utica Lane 449 Pleasant View 1471 Lalm Lucy Road 6990 Utica Lane Sharmin Al-laff presented the staff l~'pon on this item. CImirman B?,.li called the public hearing to order. Mark Sanda: Pirst of all I appreciate the oppommity to get up in front of you folir~ and just tell you a couple of things and I want to be ~ of your time tonight and I hope other people that come up and have comments are as well. As we mentioned, our goal is lo receive approval for our plans to improve and upgrade an existing driveway to provide access to our peninsula property. My name's Mark Sanda and that's my wife Kathy and we're here representing ourselves. We're not a devel~t company or anything. We purchased our lot about ? years ago. Built our home on Steller Courc..menfioned in the plan there 6 1/2 years ago. I thought a little history would be irn?ortant as to why we ended up owning the peninsula. It ~flly was an issue of preserving our view. When we became aware that the same owner of that ~, who was an absentee owner, was the person who sold the property north of Lake Lucy Road to allow the Centex developrn_eut. We became kind of concerned about what might eventually happen to that pr~ so we went into negotiations with that party and purchased the peninsula in the slimmer of '89. We thought that perhaps one day we might build a home out there but we didn't give it a lot of thought. But in the intervening 4 years the l~n_ insula's really kind of become ii financial ~en to us and somewhat of a policing burden. There's, we have evidence of a fair amount of unauth~ trespassing out there. We've granted access to some of our neighbors but we know there's people out there who litter and that type of thing so we ~ to put the penin~lla on the market and as you might guess, anyone's interested in acq~g the pwpm~ wants to know what the access situation is. So we determined after some time that we had to carry through with this process and that's what's motivating us behind all this. Well, w~er we decide to do, we...decide to build our home out there or whatever but no matter what lmppens we're either going to have to view what happens out there or we're going to be a part of it because we're not planning on leaving the area. So we're very concem~ oumelves about what happens to this particular piece of property. So then back to the goal We just want permission to upgrade a driveway that's existed. We're going to show in our plan here that a driveway has existed there for many decades and it's supported by aerial photographs that were taken. We cturenfly use quite a portion of that driveway to provide access to the peoin.~ula which we just sort of enjoy for recreational reasons~ We drive a tractor out there to haul out fallen logs to supply us with firewood and so we've done a little mainten~ce on it to keep it up to shape for driving a small tractor out there. The portion that's adjacent to Lake Lucy Road is in somewhat of a state of ~srepair ond when Lake Lucy Road was paved 7 years ago. Some of you might recall the road was raised up about 10 feet and at that time it made the access a little more difficult to get down onto that driveway and the absentee owner had never raised an issue with the city and so it has kind of become clogged up with some scrub trees so that's a portion that would need to be sprutw~ up a little bit. We've hired the engineering firm of Schoell and Madsen ~ of their experience of projects of this type. To draw up a driveway design plan for us which Mr. Ken Adoff is here to share with you and as it was staled before, we've been wofldng with the DNR and the city since day one on this process beca~ we wanted to do it right. It was mentioned there's 2/10 of an acre of wetland to be filled. Our plan, as you will see, calls for over 3/10 of an acre to be mitigated or recreated which we're going to do on our lot as part of thh. We're going to move the appropriate flees and plant growth as the DNR rules require and we want to meet the regulations every step of the way. We had one little mi~tep in this whole situation. We Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 had a misunderstanding that kind of arose that lcd us to believe we might be able to pursue a subdivision out there. And an ad got drawn up with our real estate agent that indicated that and our thinking was, well let's just sec what that might do to thc valuc of thc property in some people's eye. But we got that straighten out with the city rather quickly and it caused some undue alarm with people and it's an nn¢ommate incident but the bottom line is, the driveway plan that we are submitting is for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and city code says that you can only have one homesite serving a driveway of that width. So we know the concern of a lot of people is what's going to happen out there and when you see the details you see it just does not seem pl-acfi~ to do anything any wider than that. I don't know who could afford to do anything any wider than that so that hopefully takes care of that issue. We've tried to be wide open on this whole procel~ since the beginning. We've conmcl~ the property owners immediately adjacent to the driveway. Jill Willis, Sandy and Robert Kendall Phil and Kim Thiesse and then ourselves are the property owners involved and I know all those people are here tonight so I hope they choose to say something. Some of them have given you written opinions of this. We've also talked to those people that have a view of the peninsula. And in addition to that, we met with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, which is the group that represents all of the owners of lakeshore property on Lake Lucy. We supplied for the committee a fair number of letters from some of our neighbors that have indicated their support of the project. In the way it's des/I/ned here. -There may be some people that will choose to speak Wnight and I know there's going to be a ~ read by the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. And in what I think is a very magnanimous gesture, we've received tentative permission from Jill Willis to have a cross access easement for the very beginning portion of the driveway which is adjacent to Lake Lucy. And when we get into the plan you'll see why that is a gesture that will help eliminate some of the iffy. act at the be~nning of the driveway. It has to do with where the city dn .m~ dirt when they built the road up. It's basically taking advantage of what they had put there. So to summarize, while we recognize everyone is not exactly thrilled with the reality of fiirther development in the city, we ask them to consider the fact that this driveway is being hnproved under strict adherence to all State and City environmental codes and that one homesite limitation should help maintain the special type of feeling that exists in that pan of the city that all of us that live there like. And with that, thanks for your time and I'll turn it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of thc Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, consulting engineering firm in Minnetonka. I've got some boards that provide a detail on the, first of all on thc existing conditions. Hopefully this will clarify some of thc pxcvious presentations. Thc alteration for a wetland alteration permits really arc for restating a driveway that has existed over 30 years. I have an aerial photo from 1962 on here which clearly shows thc driveway as it approaches thc peninsula. Thc driveway is fairly well defined on this area. This is Lake Lucy Road up in this area. This is thc southerly wetland crossing and the most critical one. The existing ptcvions driveway, the center line is Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1~ indicated by the dark...kind of meanders in and out of this 33 foot wide strip of property that extends north to Lake Lucy Road that was really intended to be the access. This mawhes up at this point over here in this being the peninsula at this point. This is Lake Lucy Road. The two wetlands that were discussed, the northerly wetland and...edges are defined with the green lines. The southerly wetland is also defined by the green line. The southerly wetland is actually part of the Lake Lucy complex and is affected by the ordim~ high water elevation of Lake Lucy, which is 956.1. The DNR prohibits any filling below that elevation. There's a strip of property which is where the old driveway was that comes across like this which is above elevation 956.1. And that's a strip within which the new driveway has to be contained. Right at the curve there's actually a break in the 956.1. Right now there's...in there. And at this point it's necessary to mak~ that crossing with a l~dge. The second plan shows the proposed driveway...and it has been realign~ to stay within the 33 foot strip except right immediately south of Lake Lucy Road where it's necessary to do some filling and WaS moved from one side so that all of the filling outside of the 33 foot strip was now on the east side. It was decided to stay within that access strip untiL_Lot 4 which was owned by the Sanda's and then it naturally goes outside of the strip and of course easements will be ~ for the access. Again, the bridge we're showing in this location. Application has been made to the DNR for the wethnd alteration permits. And act~_ ~_~lly in that application we had requested that some very minor filling be allowed below the 956.1 elevation to allow for a shorter but wider bridge and bigger approaches to the hridge~ Building a bridge right on a curve is difficult and the intent is that this would allow truck access both for ¢ons~on vehicles during the home consu'ucfion and also... The driveway varies in width from 1'0 feet where there redly are heavy restrictions and then as we get into the grea where we're restricted by the filling...8 feet and there's a couple of different secfion~ that are proposed depending on... strip that's available...There's a culvert that's proposed in ~i~ general location to convey the drainage that's going to cross Lake Lucy Road as it does right now. Then we're showing another...culvert in that wetland. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Batzli: What sort of materials is the bridge constmaion out of? Ken Adolf: Thc final design of the bridge has not been done. There's been some preliminary investigation. One of the bridges that we did look at is a pre-fa~ bridge of steel construction. Made of cortin steel which is the weathering steel that turns kind of a coppertone color and that p~ bridge would have a timber deck. Batzli: It does have a timber deck? Ken Adoff: Yes. Plavniug Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: What kind of footings or pilings do you end up needing for a bridge like that7 Ken Adolf: Again, the final design hasn't been done so we haven't done the soft borings but soft borings would have to be done on either end to determine the type of support that would be necessary for the bridge. We're anticipating that would require pilings of some type. Those would be either steel or timber. Conrad: Where's the wetland that you're filling in? Ken Adolf: It shows up better on this drawing. There's actually two wetlands. The northerly wetland sort of all in that streWh and then the southerly weflaud, there's a stretch up here and through here that we would be altering. Conrad: That's in the 33 foot area? Ken Adolf: In the north area it is. In the south area it's actually in the Lot 4 which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. It's a lot there. A rexidential lot. Conrad: What are you doing in the mitigated area? Ken Adolf: Thc mitigation is proposed in this area. What you get is on Lot 4. The lot owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sandm The...mitigation area would be excavated down to the...6 to 12 inches...adjacent wetland and then thc wetland soils that are salvaged...from the wetland to be altered would be placed mad spread in here. The derails of that still need to be worked out with the DNR... Ledvina: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Ye. alL Ledvina: For the nonhero weflaud are~ If the driveway were to follow the existing path, would it be necessary to do a mitigation7 Would that represent a filling process in that area? To follow the alignment of the existing path there. Ken Adolf: Thc existing driveway goes through thc same wetlands so there would be alteration required there as well Ledvina: So either way that's. Ken Adoft: That's right. This area it was ~t to move it within the 33 feet. Planning Commir~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: Right. What I'm trying to ascemin is that you're not just moving it to the, to within the 30 foot strip of property and when in fact there may be an opportunity to relocate it further to the south and not have that wetland alteration necessary. But that's not the case? Ken Adolf: That's fight. Ba~.li: Okay, thank yo~ I'd like to open the meeting up for public cornm_~t If you'd like to address the commission, please feel free to do so. Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. I could ~ you kind of wanted to stay back there didn't you7 Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. And I'm represenfin§ the Lake Lucy Homeowners Assodation and what we have is a position stamnent that we would like to hand out to the members of the commi~don and for the staff here. Thi~ is a short statement and I'll just read it for the benefit of everyone else also. There's a bac~und statement that basically says that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association met on November 10, 1993 to discuss the Sanda's proposal 8 of the 16 to 18 families the association were represented. During the meeting Joc Morin, that's myself, was elected to represent the position of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association at this meeting. I'd also like to reserve thc right to represent myself a little bit.later but right now I'm just speaking for the Homeowners Association. The position statement reads, the Lake Lucy Homeo~ Association does not oppose the Sanda's plan to provide driveway access for a ~ngle family dwelling. It is our understanding that this would be a permit for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and that city and DNR ordinances prohibit the development of more than one dwelling under these conditions. We trust that the city and the DNR would strictly enforce this regulation should any further request be made to develop another dwelling on Mis property. We are also deeply concerned about the possibility of pollution of Lakr Lucy and expect that the development of a single family dwelling would be done in sU/ct cor~liance with regulations governing installation of septic systems and other sources of pollution. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe Morin: That's the s~t. Subsequent to this meeting I also contacted Brian Tfchy and Ted Coey who are members of the Assodafion and they also concurred with our position statement. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 8teller Court. My property is adjacent to the Lot 4 where the mitigation site is and I'm also in direct view of the island and the entire Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 wetland. I have presented before you a letter of concerns that I collected si~ap~cs with_ People that are also directly adjacent to the property..~skeshore owners or in direct view of the...and we share ~ concerns. We're not, the first thing that we want to make you aware. My qualifications here are that, as you know I'm a strong advocate for enviromnenml protection and I w~ke every effort to keep up with issues and details ~g to wetland protection. I just want to make sure that the concern that I had comply with the regulations and the ordinance. I'm sure that compliance wilL..and I'm glad to see that the Sanda's really care and I'm sure that conditions wilL.but I just wanted to make sure that they're lald out, present to you information that I found out that may fall through the cracks so that the conditions were laid out in detail to meet the requirements in the c~linance. Point number 1, and I'll just go through them briefly. There's only one page of them and I'll just explain briefly what... We agree with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association position. I'm also a member. I'm separating myself. Giving my own personal opim'ons. That the driveway be designed for access for a single building sit~ only. We'd lilm to know, as Joe had also mentioned, if there's any way to impose a cummt restriodon to a one resident access. Point number 2. The DNR had given me some information that you see on page 3. These are the, for the last 20 years the high water elevations that were taken by the DNR for the Wamrshed District. These do not mean that these are the highest water levels but these are the only ones that have been recorded by the...agencies that happened to be there at that time. Some of these readings were taken on the ice. Some are ~ in the middle of summer and fall - But nonetheless, it is a valid statement to say that water level frequently reaches or exceeds flood elevation of 957, which is almost a foot over the ordinary high wamr ma~ And given antidotes by certain lakeshore residents, it's quire possible that water levels have exceed those that are on record. The second and fourth page I show a map of the Lake Lucy...watershed that I got from the Wamrshed District. They have over a 10:1 surface water watershed surface to surface water ratio in a relatively undeveloped area fight now so surface wamr runoff, no matter how many reliction ponds or holding ponds we have, in a year lilm we had this year, every retention pond is full Every sub-retention pond is full that feeds into Lake mark...may change higher in upper directions. And obviously nobody's done any analysis of any future projections of what Lake Lucy could be ~ in a full development scenario but ff this driveway happens to be at this elevation of 957, right now it appears that frequent flooding will occur over the top of that driveway. Portions of it. I don't know what kind of stipulations these conditions have to say about this and I trust the Sanda's and their engineer to en~neer it properly and to meet thac What the data shows. But I just wantnd to bring it to the attention of you so it can be questioned and dealt with. And the third point...Lak~ Association worry about pollution. So our lake advisor, Dale Hogan, I talked to him; descri~ the plan to him and to use ii Clags V ~11 in the course of the driveway could have adverse ecological effects resulting from...erosion. Class V gravel will be subject to spring thaw and full saturation making it soft and usually subject to heavy erosion. Runoff from the Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 clay rich Class V can cause water quality problems in the wetland. This is where water fowl I had flocks of egrets and great blue herons fee~ing in these very wetlands that we're traversing with this driveway and there's small fish and aquatic organisms which depend on the water quality that exists there now to survive and...to resm~ace Class V with bituminous asphalt which has petroleum and oil runoff which can also pollute the water. After consulting with Dale Hogan, we believe that the driveway design in sections E and F may be the least detrimental to the wetland and he said it was an excellent design. I concur with that. He suggested that the design be incorporated wherever possible. By using the narrower desi~on. It's 8 feet instead of 10 feet and you also reduce the mitigation area acquired and maybe even eliminate it. Point number 4. We heard from Ken Adoff... Batzli: Excuse me. On the one I'm looking aL Maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Are you suggesting that, my section E and F shows an 8 inch thick concrete plank. Is that what you have for section E and F? Are you suggesting that they pour concrete over the entire length of the driveway for 8 feet of concrete? Eric Rivkin: Other than thc bridge. Batzli: 8 feet wide? Eric Rivkin: Just in the wetland port/on. Batzli: Just in the wetland portion. Eric Rivkin: In the Class A wetland portion- Not the upland. Just the pan that's sitting in the water...edge of wetland to edge of wetland minus the bridge. And the bridge pilings. Or whatever support you need for that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Go aheacL Eric Rivkin: The wood decking or pilings ~ with...or creosol or other petroleum products should be prohibited. Dale Hogan said, and I've seen a lot of evidence of thi~... articles from people that arsenic compounds will leech into the water. The comments made by $o Ann Olsen a number of years ago when I had atrplied for a wetland alteration permit for a dock through this same wetland. She also uncove[~ evidence so it may be in the city file, but it's very well documented that tar oils from creosol timbers are definite pollution hazards. So we just suggest that only bridge materials with proven environmental safety records be pertni~. Number 5. Any upland mitigation~..which there be none but if there is one, there is an outlet for a continuously rnnning spring. I didn't see it on the plan. Nobody talked about it so I'm just brin~n§ it to your attention. I'm sure the Sanda's...It does flow Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 year round and should be left ~ Numl~ 6. The mad south. .. should be prohibiaxt since there are no buffer strips in ponding areas...To insure education and...enfowement by subsequent homeowners, this restriction should be written into the properly deed as a condition. It is well documented that serious water quality and ecological damage in wethnds and other bodies of water can occur from this type of runoff. There was an ankle in the Tribune 2 weeks ago about the de-icing salts from the airport polluting the Mississippi River. Also south from going to stagnant type water wetlands...project to be a salt water marsh and have devastating effects. A textured concrete driveway similar to the one in section E may not be an unreasonsble alternative. It's just a suggestion but maybe there's something better. I don't know but the concern for pollution is there. Since purple loosestrife, it's very well documented that the DNR, in their brochtu~ and the studies that they've done that came out in my wetland alteration permit. I was...spoils from my digging a channel that had to be disposed of in a manner in a condition for my permit to be bm'led on the upland areas in a sufficient depth that the seeds wo-~ld not germinate. One plant generates millions and millions of seeds and it's proven through studie~..v~ well documented that when you disturb the soil, even if it's just a few plants, that it's guaranteed the wild proliferation of purple loo~. ,~nd I'd like that addres~ The existing. .. and I'm glad to hear..anentioned about the pilings and _tsidng borings and all that to ensure that that will be taken care of but I am just mentioning it here. And just for your information Mr. Adolf, that we had done a survey where we drilled holes in the lake every 200 feet and just a few feet from that brid§e...we found 17 feet of muck underneath there. Dale Hogan has done an analysis of that...call him and ask him what the verdict is...and you have si/natures on the next page of several homeowners. The ones that are starred there are adjacent to this property. Thank you very much. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to addlv~ the Commission? lohn Waldron: I am lohn Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road...Our house is situation we have an unobstruclrxi view of the island and my wife and L Mariellen would like to go on record that we do not have any problem with the Sanda's developing the property they own for this purpose. We feel that between the record that Chanhassen has on wetlands and the DNR, that the process will take care of problems going through and hopefully we have enough government already in our lives and that it would be too cumbersome for a private individual's use...property. Thanks. Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Jack Lowry: My name is Jack Lowry. I live at 1665 Stellcr Court. I'm a neighbor of the Sanda's and I'd like to §o on record as saying that my wife, Jackie and I Wtally support thc project. In our association the Sanda's are professional in everything they do and will do Plann/ng Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 nothing but good for the community... Batzli: Thank you. Sandy Kendall: I'm Sandy Kendall My husband Bob. We just moved into 1645 Lake Lucy Road. This is our first Council meeting lind I apologize I didn't make enough copies of these for everybody but I'll give you. We son of found about this after the fact. We bought the house in June. We just moved in 2 weeks ago but bas/cally I thinic_..We're the new people in the neighborhood having purchased the home at 1645 Lake Lucy Road in June and just having moved inw the house 2 weeks ago. We were unaware and uninformed about the access and driveway that borders our pmpa~ to the east until a short time ago...did tell us about it and for the record, we're not really opposed to it either. We just are, well we bought our home for one very important reason- The lot and it's setting. We're both appraise~ and even...we overpaid for the house which was built in the 1960's but we wanted the lot for it's serene setting and it's well developed trees. So the thing I gave showed some piclzue~s of these trees that are like 30 to 100 feet tall and they border the ~ on the east, which borders this proposed driveway. That's our concern for this issue. Is our lrees on that side of the property. We would request that these trees, their diameter of the drip lines be drawn on the engineering map for this project and we would want some type of guarantee that these trees not be harmed in any way. They're both our privacy .and our beauty. The willows were one big reason why Bob wanted to buy the property. They're trunks are like this. They're just huge. Trees this large are almost in, placeable taking scores of years to grow _this large~ They were a very big reason why we bought the property so for us their value is extremely great. We would also want to be assured of adequate drainage if this project were implemented so as not to endanger these huge trees. The wildlife in the area is another reason we purchased the home. We love the deer and the birds and the other crea~ that live in the area. In fact, seeing 2 deer in the back yard actually made us decide to write the purchase agreement the next day. And the many months between the first time we saw the house until we decided to purchase it, any potential development aron~nd us was extremely important. Only when we found out that what we thought was the neighboring prepay, which was purchased by Jill Willi.~ now. We didn't know about the driveway. Did we actually, when we found out that that property had been sold to a single buyer rather than to something that would be developed, did we actually pursue buying the property. We would therefore be vehemently opposed to any type of development on the pen_ in~ula other than for a single family home and respectfully but strongly urge a permanent prohibition against any other type of development. A city street along the east side of our property would not only reduce it's appeal and value but would have been enough to keep us from ever having bought the property ourselves. We feel sort of that we're being caught in the middle of something about which we weren't informed that could affect our property value both visually and monetarily. For this reason we don't feel that our requests are ~'c because we do not 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 want the very reasons we bought this property to be violated. We are also concerned about erosion control and use of only natural and natmal looking material to be used if any driveway were put in. We don't want our lot to become a mosquito infested drainage hole. Nor do we want to look at anything other than something that will keep with the nay. ual appeal of the lot when we bought it. Again, we want the guarantee that the huge willow and evergreen trees that border our lot on the east side would be in no way harmed or killed. We consider them to be of incalculable value to us. They could not be replanted and grown again to their present size perhaps for what remains of our life, s. The great value we put on this lot is in very large pan due to their size and health and border. In the 4 months during which we were redecorating our house before moving in, we have found the city of Chanhassen to be very conscientious about the community and the proper ways in which they want it to grow and be established. We do appreciate the fact that they seem to want things to be done correctly and hope that the city would in this same way be concerned about this proposed project and wetland agreement. For this reason we have signed a letm- with some of our neighbors that outline some of the i .mponant factors in this project's pot~nti~ development and the prohibition of any development other than for a single family home. And we would respectfully reque~ that the city have as much concern in consideration for our invaluable large and beautiful uees along this border which agsin is in large pan the reason why we bought the house on this lot. As they do in every other aspect of the city's code requirements. Sorry I had to read this but I didn't .bring enough copies. Batzli: Okay. Bob Kc~_d~ll: I just have a few concerns on the side of my property there. Where the roots are, the foresim' came out and we met with the f~ and he said that the willows were strong but I'd to have that at least known to me on paper that they're not going to get hurt. The other problem is there's a storm sewer that comes off my property that drains right to this line of where this road tapers down on the east side. I'd like to have it at least in the plan where I can see that there's going to be proper drainage. As you can see in these photos with the evergreens. There's a whole line of 30 feet evergreens but ff they get i~ drainage and get soaked, those lrees will die and I'd just like to get some son of contour lines and drainage and ditching and proper culvert. And I also wondered, if we get all the snow, is all this going to be able to handle the proper drainage on it. That's all I have to say. Batzli: Let me ask a quesfiom You're concerned about the roots of your trees that currently extend over the ~ line and are under the current driveway? Bob Kendall: The canopies of the trees go into the slope...of the tal~g line probably 1S to 20 feet. But as that storm sewer also, as Mr. Waldorf brought up. That there should be a culvert in there. Beyond that, I'm just trying to get a picture that I have current drainage 11 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 after that point also. Because there's no dopes and I don't have any grades on that plan that I've seen. Not to say that these won't be addressed later on though. Batzli: Okay. Dave do you, can you comment at all on the drainage right there? Hempel: It appears by that drawing that was brought in by the applicant, where the green tine on that does show a culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage that are through the properties...neighborhood drainage through there. The piau~s were in~g that were submitted there shows that there is quite a bit of water that goes through there in both the street and the adjacent property on the other side of the sueet. So it's very irr~. ortant that they maintain that drainage. Batzli: Well assuming that we approve this tonight, what would the city need to make sure that the drainage is being maintained in that area? Are you going to require some son of additional grading/construction plans or how are you going to be able to tell? Hempel: We would require some minor modifications to the grading plan to denote the type, size and elevation of the storm sewer pipe proposed in the roadway to make sure that it is set · at the proper elevation to maintain the drainage. Batzli: Do we need some son of condition that says that? Hempel: It might be help~ to expand an existing condition or add a condition to that effect, yes. B a~Ji: Okay. Bob Kendall: Mind if I say one other thing? The culvert that's in his drawing there is beyond my property line about I would say 100 feet which would mean all this would have to drain beyond my property line and continue down another 100 feet before the other proposed culvert which you are asking be put in. Batzli: Okay. Sandy Kendall: I don't know what iffy. act Jill Willis' ag~ement to allow an access farther east I mean...help to us you know because the way it is, well it wouldn't come so close. I don't know what imp~t that would have by putl/ng the road further east rather than where it's acumlly showm 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I'm not tracidng. Can you point to the map and tell me what you're saying. Sandy Kendall: The way this is shown, the road as it sits is kind of like this. She giving them an access would enable us. This is actually a steeper part and this is actually a flatter pan. By putting it over here rather than in here, that would of course lessen our concern greatly for our trees because all of a sudden the drip line is not as threat~ing to these trees that run ali along here. I mean they're just big monster Irees. But now that's what's happened. That wasn't a factor. Batzli: If you flip the maps there. The one behind the one you're pointing W. I think that shows where the proposed driveway's going to go. So you want it to go even further east there? Sandy Kendall: Well the Sanda's, when you talk to, maybe you can help me out here. You wanted it, you told me that if I asked the Sanda's if our ~ would be in danger. At first they said no. Then they said well, if/'ill gives us the access, you know then they probably wouldn't be. In other words, if they didn't, if she didn't give them that you know there would be some...to our trees and that's someihing that just happened I gue~ over the last day? You know ~Iill actually gave them that access...in here but that's very irr~, ortant to us of course because we're concerned about our big trees. Bob Kendall: I have one other thing. Here's the culvert that's proposed. Sandy Kendall: Thank you. Bob Kendall: ...but my storm sewer's here. As those pictures show, there's a gully already peffomvxi that cuts through here but I'm also concerned from this point on where all these spruce trees are. Ls there going to be proper drainage fi'om this point on with that. Because if I'm getting a lot of, you know this is the west side. It's not going to get the snow. It melts. It's going to puddle. I don't want a lot of excess water. That's my main concern is to keep the water off the roots. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Phil Thiesse: I was asked to clarify one point. Batzli: You're? Phil 'l'niesse: Oh I'm sorry...My name is Phil Thiesse. I live at 1075 Miller Court. Our 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 property borders the driveway that would be proposed and my wife and I feel that if the Corps of Bnginccrs and thc DNR arc happy with thc way it's being developed, then we're satisfied with that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission before we let the applicant have his one shot at rebuttal here? Mark Sanda: No. Ken, were you going to address a couple things that were brought up about the drainage? Ken Adolf: I can address those. Mark Sanda: Okay. I just wanted to mention that in talking to some people about this and someone picked up on thc fact that we said we're not going anywhere. We had talked to a property owner, a farmer in southwestern Carver County and on an infomml, non-binding basis, verbal basis, we've talkra:l about him selling us some of his pmpexW. It's when this gentlemen decides he's going to hang up his plow and sell some of his ~ so we really can't say if that's going to be the next year, 2 years, 3 years but we suspect it's something like that. It's ccrUdnly nothing that's going to happen on an eminent basis and I just wanuxi to clarify that because some people picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. And never say never but there's nothing eminently in the works at all Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Ken Adoff: Yes, Ken Adoff with Schoell and Madsen again. I'd just like to clarify a couple of the issues. First of all regarding the connection point to Lak~ Lucy Road. When Lake Lucy Road was reconstructed, somewhat of a post was actually placed and this driveway actually is in the exact same location. The approach was ended Idnd of abruptly and it really drops off and it's too narrow and too steep so it's necessary to widen it out and then expand the slope to the south that's a reasonable grade. Regarding the drainage in this area. The culvert is shown going under the proposed road cmbankn~nt You can sense that there was some concern about what happens inbetween the existing culvert that goes under Lake Lucy Road and the proposed culvert. Obviously that's on private pmpa'ty and there's no...any easement. That runoff will continue to run just as it has been all these years. There's several different driveway sections that were proposed depevding on the restrictions with the sU'ip of property that...956.1 elevation and the most restrictive area in order to elevate the road up to the 957 elevation, which is the 100 year flood elevation was necessary to raise it with 8 inch concrete planks because if this wasn't enough width to do it with an embankment. So that's why those concrete planks were proposed. Obviously that's a very, very expensive option and in the other areas where there isn't enough space...propose which is still I think all of this 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 fin is enveloped by a geotextilc fabric...and prevent it from migrating. I'd be hsppy to address any other questions that you might have. Batzli: We may have a question when we discuss it among ourselves here. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question right now. Batzli: Oh okay. Never mind_, There is a question now. Ledvina: As it related to the water elevations of Lake Lucy. What would happen. I understand that the elevation of the roadway is going to be csscn~y 957. Is that correct? Ken Adolf: That's corre~ Lcdvina: Okay. And where the roadway is under water for extended periods of time during flooding. What happens in that instance? How docs that person gain access to the ~? Ken Adolf: Well, it would ideal if the road elevation could be raised more but because the strip of property that we have to work with is so nan-ow, after you start raidng the road and provide the width of the driveway, the fill. starts to.extend out beyond that 956.1 line so some of the areas it is up to that elevation. The aggregate that we're proposing to use is arushed lime, tone which does not have the clay material in it that was referred to in the Hoben report $o that is a more stable aggregate than a sand and gravel type Class V. Ledvina: That's in sections where? Ken Adoff: Well it's in sections, really all of the sections. Led~: Well the Class V docs have a clay or a heavy soil as a binder for thc aggrcga~ is that right? Ken Adoff: Thc ~ed limestone is fine crushed limeswne. Ledvina: But Class V as a MnDot specification has a clay type soil as a binder for the aggregate, silt and clay. Ken Adolf: Yeah. What we've shown on a detail is crushed limestone. Represent a'ushed limestone. Led~: Okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina: No, that's it. Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission7 If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing7 Conrad moved, Scott seconded to dose the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Batzli: Let the record reflect that left is not voting on this matter. Matt, let's start with you. Ledvina: Okay. I guess I want to thank the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association for their comments. We appreciate their review of the plan and I think it's good to see that involvement and their concerns being rais~ I think that the comments made by I believe Mr. Rivkin. He presented a 8 point letter regarding some of the issues as it relates to the consm~cfion of thi.~ driveway. I think that some of these firings are certainly warranted in terms of their being addressed. I would say that we would want to try to utilize bridge materials that don't...ability of leeching contaminates. I think that 8. text2red concrete driveway is a good idea to improve the slip resistance of those.concrete plank sections, I think if that's the case, perhaps there will be less salt or whatever that would be necessary under icy condifions...I guess I looked at the pre-fabric, ami bridge and I see that it has a width of 16 feet. I thought that being somewhat odd since we're looking at an 8 foot section and then all of a sudden we're going way out to 16 feet. I don't know neceamafily why that is and I've walked the proposed route and it is 8 and 10 feet wide. I think that if we did go to 16 feet there, there'd be quite a bit of fill that would be necessary to make that, provide that construction. So Dave, have you looked at that at all7 Dave? Hempel: Yes. There's a couple points. First of all because of the curvsmre of the roadway there, thc additional width is needed as a grid surface, h addition to that I believe with thc curve and larger vehicles, such as moving trucks, emergency vehicle would need the additional room in that area. Ledvina: Well I can understand you wanting to provide that but if you've got an 8 foot section and you're saying you need a 16 foot section for trucks and such, what happens for access throughout the 8 foot section in the road? Mark Sanda: There's no curve. It's just straight. It's when a mwk angles, you know they have to make a wide turn. And that's the whole idea. You need the 16 foot width for the wide mm in making the curve. 16 I. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: Well what kind of trucks are going to be making that turn? Batzli: Moving van. Ledvina: Okay. First of all, is it possible to get a cement track down an 8 foot cross section? Ken Adolf: The alignment is designed to accommodate cement trucks or small moving vans...and if this bridge happened to be on the street section, it could be 8 or 10 feet wide as well. Bex~use it's on the curve and beca~ the approaches are so restrictive that the width of thc bridge actually has to be looked at as part of the turning movement of a vehicle. When you've got something like this, the bumpers when they turn can actually overhang the curb...and when you've got a bridge with...just need more width. Ledvina: Will a cement Iruck be able to traverse that 8 foot section? Ken Adolf: Yes. Ledvina: It will be? Okay. Alright. I think that if it's possible, if you look~ at, took another look at the width requirements. If it's possible to reduce that width I would ~ to see that because I think again there would be a lot of additional work that would be necessary in preparing the entrance and thc exit if you will for thc bridge. And that was the extent of my comments at this point. B~_t~.li: Did you have any thoughts on requiring spoils from purple loosestrife or anything about the peat base? You seemed to, I know you have a lot of bac~und in grading and moving stuff around. Is that going to be a problem with all this muck underneath? Ledvina: Well I don't think that will be a problem because you have a geotextlle that will be used as a foundation for the acv_ ,~1 mad bed. It's almost like floating a driveway essentially over the peat $o ltmt shouldn't be a problem for the kind of construction that they're looking at here and for the duty that would be involved. So that's one thing. As far as the purple loosestrife, I don't know about that issue but it seems reasonable to me and I've seen it done many other times where spoils or excavation materials from one part of a wetland alteration be used in providing a seed bed for mifigat~ areas. $o I don't know whether the purple loosestrife issue is real significant in that regard. Batzli: Well we have in the past on some occasions where they've disturbed areas with purple loosestrife that, ~ince we're trying to eradicate it by hand mostly, ~ince if you disturb it, it may be a good time to get rid of some of it. So one of the proposals Mr. Rivkin had 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 was that he be required, to the extent they disturb purple loosestrife areas, to dispose of it upland. Burying it. I'm just t~hng to get kind of a feel for. Ledvina: Well if that is the case, where we know that there is purple loosestrife in that arco, that would seem to make sense but I don't know that that's been documented. I mean that there's actually that weed in the area that's being. Batzli: Disturbed. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: I think the comments from the pros and the cons are all excellent tonighL And I think the responses that I've heard are good from Dave. I thinir what we want to do, beyond what was really Us~l here but to make sure that the City Engineer does review the drainage so we do preserve or we don't have any negative i ~m1~ct on the ~es on the pwperty line. And I think Mr. Rivkin brought up some extremely valid points. Points 3 thru 7. I think we do have a great, this is a real sensitive area. We are in a wetland. Or close to it and it's going to go under water it appears so I think we really do have to take some steps in thi~ permitting process to make sure that the fight things are done. I'm not sure exactly what those are. I guess in a lot of cases I wish staff would get a chance to review some of these things before hand so we could ask them questions rather than just spur of the moment responses. But right now I'm comfortable with granting the permit. I'm comf~le with the staff report. I've put two footnotes on this. Two additional points and one is talking about the drainage so that we can maintain the Irees. And also that stuff takes a real good look at Mr. Rivkin's points 3 thru 7 because I think they're extren~y valid. There's no doubt about purple loosestrife. No doubt. If it's there, it has to be treated. And I don't know what governs that and if it's our permit that does it, then the permit should have it in it. Period. If it's controlled by somebody else, then we don't need it but these are extremely good points. I don't care where they are right now. I'm not going to, if I make the motion, I'm not going to detail these. I just want to make sure that staff reviews these points and make sure that they're taken care of in some way. That's the end of my commen~ Batzli: Okay, thank you. See. Scott I'm in favor of thc development or proposed development. Just a question. I've got some additional conditions that I wanted to add and they involve specifically your area Dave. I have concern about thc treatment of the timberton bridge section and my assumption is that you have access to information on approp~_ate materials and what I'd like to see is that any 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 sort of a bridge section be approved by our engineering staff for the purpose of malting sure that environmentally friendly materials are there. Same thing is true of the road bed if you will Utilizing a crushed limestone aggregate which is non, you're talking about sort of a heavy elsy...matefial that we don't want in the wetland area. Scott: Does that ~ if we're using some sort of a geotextile base? Ledvina: Well that will help it from actually migrating through the soil but for runoff purposes that will help. Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see a grading plan submitted to the engineering depamnent for their approval to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. Seeing that they're satisfactory. I have no further comments Mr. C~airman. Batzli: Okay, thank you. To just nm over a couple comments and then I'd like to kind of give a more global answer to at least one of new regdents here. I think purple loosestrife to the extent it's going to be disturbed, needs to be disposed of properly so I'd agree with that condition. I think condition 4 should be changed to read the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from applying the salts and de-idng chemicals to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland area. Unless the applicant or future homeowner comes in here and convinces us or the Council that _this won't harm the wethnd. I don't know of anything that says applying the kind of salt and de-icing chemicah or something like this could possibly help the wetlands so I think that needs to be prohibited. I agree with Joe's comment. We should have the mR__teri_'als of the bridge submitted to make sure that they're environmentally friendly and I agreed with Ladd regarding having the drainage reviewed by city en~neefing to make sure it's not going to adversely affect the neighboring land owners. And finally, just for the new-resident's benefit. I think you'll find, I hope you find that Chanhassen is at the forefront of trying to mahtain and protect it's wetlands. We were one of the first communities to have a real strong wetland protection ordinance in place and the State in fact comes to us for a lot of input. I think Paul and/or former city planner Jo Ann Olsen has worked with the State on some of their wetland protection kind of programs. We also have a surface water committee that looks at improving water quality throughout the city. In fact on your water bill you may notice a little tax on there. That's where that's going so hopefully you'll find that we care a lot about this and we're taking it seriously and looking at it very carefully. But thank you for corning in. Those are my comments. Unless there's other comments, would someone like to make a motion? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Scott: I would recomn~nd that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion, which is thc approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93-4 as shown on thc plans dated Novemlxr 8, 1993 with the following conditions. Conditions number 1, 2 and 3 would remain as stated in the staff report. Number 4 will be changed to read, the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using de-icing chemicals for application to thc driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetlands. Condition number 5 should be changed to read, the applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering department for approval And a note on that is to make sure that the aggregate that's used is of a type that will not have silt or heavy chys running off it. Or leeching. Conditions number 6, 7, 8, 9 and l0 remain as proposed. Condition number 11 shall read, the bridgc section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of matefiah which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval Number 12 added. A grading plan shall be submitted w and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. And that's it unless there's some other, some things that I've perhaps missed. Batzli: Is there a second for discussion purposes? Conrad: I second. Batzli: Discussion. Did you mention anything about loosestd~ in your motion? Scott: That would work well as condition number 13. How would you like that to read? Batzli: In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed, what are we calling it, road. Such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly in the upland area. Do we want to exactly tell them how it should be done? Al-laff: I spoke with Cs1 Strauss this morning. She's...a condition of their permitting procedure. They will take care of ic Batzli: Okay. So what our condition will read is, instead of that wonld read, purple loosestrife shall be disposed of in accordance with, is she DNR? Al-la/f: Yes. Batzli: DNR standards. Ladd, did you have an additional condition regarding drainage? Conrad: They're all taken care of. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I'd like to propose that in your amen~t to the de-icing chemicals, we say salt and/or de-king chemicah. Scott: Sure, that's fine~ Batzli: I don't know is, I assume salt's considered a de-icing chemical but we might ns well say it. Scott: Oh yeah, and salt and de-icing chemicals. Batzti: Okay. Any other discussion? Scott moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Comndssion reconunend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit is)3-4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with the following conditions: le Thc mitigation area is intc~ted to be ~ to the existing basins and tl~mfore, should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that appro~te those of the existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth of 6-12 inches below thc desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6-12 inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining Of organic soils should provide a seed sourge sni~gient to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with irregular edges and Lrregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than 5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on-site soils demonsUm~ si~eniflcant permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation arens with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide Section 404 permit A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can proceed. e Thc applicant or future landowner shah be prohibited from using salt or de-icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of water running into the wetland arcns. 5. The applicant shrill submit a driveway design section through the wetland nren to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the engineering department for approval. e The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring IgOpe~qiea where the driveway encroaches. 7. All retaining wolls over 4 feet in height requix~ a building permit. 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be permitted on the peninsula. The wetland alteration permit will expire af~ one year from thc date of City Council approval unless substantial conslxuction on the driveway has taken place. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and recording this application. 11. The bridge section shall bc built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when enmrsed. The bridge section design shah be subnitted to the City Engineer for approval. 12. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. In the event purple lmmestrife areas are disturbed during cong~on of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according AH voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who did not vote, and the motion carried i unan mouslyo Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in. When does this go to City Council7 Al-Jaff: The 13th of December. (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELQPMENT TO REZONE 80,8 A~ 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 1~ LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD~ EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKR RII.EY BOULEVARD~ DOLF_,JSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY~ LUNDg~REN BR0~, Batzli: Paul, as atr. chnical matter. Is ~is a public hearing? ICrauss: I believe technically you continued that from last time. Batzli: We closed the public hearing but we continued the issue. Krauss: You continued the item. Batzli: Okay. Well, okay. I'm going to run it like a public hearing. Public l~sent: Name Address Terry Forbord John Uban Lydia Ardoyno Del Smith Russ Frederick .lamie Heilicher Eldon Berkland Hallie Bershow Pat Swenson Don Sitter Craig & Kate Halverson Fred Amrhein Robert L. Eickholt Larry Klein Gary Skalberg Eonice Kott~ Peter Pemrick Richard D. Olin Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. Dahlgren, 8hardlow and Uban 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. 9051 ~¢ R~ Blvd. 540 Lyman Blvd. 9280 Klowa Trail 9261 Klowa Trail 9271 Kiowa 9015 Lak~ Riley Blvd. 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. 9283 Kiowa Trail 93.50 Klowa Trail 9170 Great Plains Blvd. 510 Lyman Blvd. 360 Deerfoot Trail 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. 9251 Kiowa Trail 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. Phnning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Ba~zli: Have you had an opportunity to review the lett~ dated today, 17 November from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban? Generous: No. Batzli: No, you haven't had an opportunity to review that? Do you have a copy of it? Krauss: We were given that at the start of the meeting tonight. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the commission? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission- Ten'y Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. The items that we have submitted to you in wfimm form from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban pertain to issues of the outstanding issues in our mind. I believe all of those issues, other than what the new items that were in the staff report this time, are pretty much the same issues that existed Last time we appeared before you. We believe that staff has done an excellent job in discussing the PUD questions that were raised at the Last meeting by the Planning Commission..That staff has pointed their amendment to the staff report and those portions are underlined as it relates to the findings criteria of the planned nnit development and we are prepared this evening to embellish upon those fin'ther if the Planning Commission finds that the findings of the staff are not sufficient for them to support this PUD. Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will address for you the ~ that are in writing and as I said, were pretty much the same matters that we discussed last time with a few new twists and they're addressed in also the new items that were in the staff report submitted to you recently. Both John and I are available for questions from the Planning Commission and the public if there as well but I'll let Mr. Uban address those issues. John Uban: May I use thc overhead projector? Batzli: Yes. John Uban: We did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a letter just for your record but I would like to go through the issues. They're just I think 5. To review. Under thc recomnw, ndations that staff has created, number 5 pertains to parks or park lrails. And we agreed to do that. This is a park issue so it's probably one that you won't really consider. Sust for your information. We're asking that those trails that they're asking us to build should be credited against the trail fee that we're required to pay. It seems only fair to do Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 that. Number 17 though, here we are talking about I think it's a neighborhood issue. What has really slm'ted as a neighborhood issue and that is, the different ways that this subdivision can access the adjacent neighborhoods and there are two issues were discussed. One was a connection to Kiowa and the other was the Lake Riley Blvd. We had always planned, because we understood staff wanly! us to connect to Kiowa and we have developed our plans to do that And as we have found out at the last meeting, that there was a strong concern about that and we're quite willing to have the cul-de-sac if it doesn't eliminate a lot or something in the process. The other issue that came up that we didn't really plan for was a requested connection to Lake Riley Blvd. In here it is to shorten a ~ingle loaded cul-de-sac. In other words, it goes along the lakeshore.. In other words lots on one side. Normally you'd say, well can we do this but the problem really is that we lose a lot. This edge of the subdivision looks out over Lake Riley. Has some of our best lots and we really need to have some really good lots to help us absorb some of the costs of the other parts of the subdivision or large lots that we're creating to buffer our development from Highway 101 for instance. So it needs to be balanced. When we lose one of our very big lots, it becomes a great concern...and we don't ~inlr thero's a strong need for it considering that even if it was built, the remaining cul-de-sac is still at least a quar~ mile long. That the ~ency of the Fire Depattnmnt in my opinion is not strongly enhanced. It only is enhanced for a section of the... road between Lyman and this enmmce. And the rest of it will still have the same perceived problems of snow storage, parking, turn arounds and so forth that we have. And so we really believe that this particular connection is not strongly needed. We're caught in a sense of different neighborhood concerns and different city requirements in deveioping this particular subdivision con~d_ering these two connections. So what we would ~ to do is try to cooperate with both neighborhoods and not have either connection. That would be just fine with us. You do have two good connections up on Lyman Blvd and the whole subdivision loops through and connects. The other option to us obviously would be that we would just continue with the plan that we did prepare with that anticipalzxi access to the south. Number 18 then. Leaving that access...at this point. Is the consideration of the 50 foot right-of-way. We still believe that this is an attribute that is important to us. It does help us consolidate the grading and utilities that run from the street The street size is the same as a standard street size and the right-of-way is $0 feet inste~ of 60. The design is curv~~ and it's specific,fly done to help create a little more intimate atmosphere on the streets. There's a desire for 60 foot right-of-way. The standard setback which is 30 feet. One way to accommodate the 60 foot obviously is to mak~ a 5 foot shorter setback. Since neither one seems to be accessible from diffettmt...from staff, that we want you to help us resolve that and we think maybe one compromise might be a $0 foot right-of-way but with an additional utility easement to allow flexibility for u 'ttlities along the edge and then still keep our 30 foot setback. That would keep the physical plan the same but would allow for utilities or for public safety. To have more flexibility in maintaining their right-of-way that they desire with the 60 foot right-of-way. So this 50 foot with a 5 foot utility easement on either side may Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 work out as a reasonable compromise in this case. The continuation of required dedication for Lyman Blvd in addition to what we've already shown as dedication continues to add more and more dEbt-of-way to our formula of how much of this ~ is being construed as right-of-way and it's already very large and we showed some of those numbers to you last tim~. That it has a fairly large component of right-of-way dedication. And what that does is it technically makes their lot smaller so enlarging right-of-way of interior streets. Adding more right-of-way to the perime~ in essence continues to shrink technically the amount of land that goes into our lots. And we're really talking about where should this land be. Should we have it in fight-of-way or should it be in a lot. But the physical plan, exactly where the streets will be, exactly where the homes will be is a very good plan and that's what we want to pursue. And what we're asking for is for you to consider in our PUD application and subdivision is this need for flexibility in how we technically address these issues but giving us the ability to be efficient. To create a good subdivision. Good deign that addresses many hard issues on all it's perimete~ And to consolidate in the interior. And this is a very reasonable request I believe. Item number 26 is fairly simple. That we had talked about a date for a cut off for doing l/rs_ding and erosion control and so forth as Nove~ lSth. It still says October 31st and I think this is okay with your staff. And number 32 is an additional request. This is one of the new ones. That more lxails and sidewalks be built in the subdivision to continue giving access to other neighborhoods at Bandimere Park. We've already agreed to one connec~on through and it seems like, and it's not very specific that even more is being asked. We think that We've done quite a bit. We have a mad syslmn that's really designed to keep cars paflced in the driveways as most subdivisions are designed with curvalinear standard width and in most subdivisions, and certainly in the subdivisions that are around this site. Most people do their bicycling and so forth on the edge of the street and get to the park. And so we're making the connection for the wail from Lake Riley Bird but then it enters the surer system and I think at this point, the way we have it designed and splitting up the di~erent wads so people go out in different directions, minimal traffic is cremed and the roads as used in a typical subdivision in a suburban area. It will work very well. And the need for additional trail or sidewalk we don't think is necessary here. The other thing that we're (inclinE, that Lundgren Bros finds when they talk to their customers, and where do you or what qualities do you want in your lot. That when it comes to brining a sidewalk or something they have to maintain again in their front yard, these are some of the things they've left the inner city for. Because they didn't want to shovel sidewalks. They have a bigger driveway now and that _seems to be enough for them and this is one thing they tend to choose otherwise. Other than the ones that might have a sidewalk. So we'd like not to add that as an additional btuden to the subdivision. To summarize, we're really here trying to cooperate with the neighborhood. To all their concerns. We're trying to dedicate as much park, as much right-of-way as we possibly can. Cooperate in all reasonable fashions but we're getting squished. We've tried to look at all the options. We end up losing lots ff we make absolutely all these con--ions. And we start Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 losing affordability of the subdivision. Lundgren Bros and Ten-y can speak a little more to this~ It's important that they have a diversity of product in the sense that it all can't be the high end buildings in the woods. We need diverse but very good quality neighborhoods. And this is not low end by any means but it is part of a variety of neighborhoods that Lundgren is trying to create. One in which should have reasonable costs. Oood design and a variety of lots. Some largc...and some smaller where people don't have to maintain as large a lot. So it matches a broad spectrum of cuswmer needs. So we hope you consider these things and wc would liirc to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would other members of thc commission like to see Terry give us more bac~und on why this should be rezoned a PUD7 Any thoughts on that7 Scott: No. Batzli: You don't want to see it more? Ladd? Conrad: That's up to Terry. Batzli: Okay. Farmakes: I agree with Ladd. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: That's thc proposer's option cerudnly. Batzli: Okay. Well he basically asked us if we wanted to see more so that's why I'm asking the question. Ledvina: Well, I don't need to see any more. Batzli: Okay. I was asking the fellow commissioners whether they wanted to see more bac~und as to why this should be rezoned PUD and the underwhelming response I got was that, that's at your option so I think the answer was no, at least at this time. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Yes please. Lydia Ardoyno: Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Before I have a couple comments but first I'd like to get a clarification of just exactly where this road is going to come_ in to Lake Riley from that cul-de-sac. If it's going to come in. I'm not, one of the issues we discussed was safety and I'm trying to meas~ the level of safety and what we perceive it to Planning Commission Meeting- November 17, 1993 be and what you perceive it to be. Hempel: It would be at this location here where the proposed cul-de-sac is on the drawing. Lydia Ardoyno: And where's Lake Riley7 Hempel: Lake Riley Blvd is right here. Scott: Is there any way that the residents who live on Lake Riley Blvd can get a fix as to where that's coming out because I know that there's probably some people who, there's probably 3 or 4 people here today who think that that cul-de-sac is coming right in front of their house. And based upon that diagram and anything that we've received, I don't think any of the residents have a due. Unfommately, neither do I. Generous: I have an approximate address. It's somewhere around 9131 or 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Scott: How much of a swing is that as far as regdences? Lydia Ardoyno: My question is, how many homes are .there between Lyman Blvd and the cul-de-sac on Lake Riley7 Generous: You ~ at the end of the road? Lydia Ardoyno: From Lyman to the cul-de-sac. I'm guessing there's a dozen. Batzli: Are you asking for information on how many there are going north to south until you hit the proposed mad7 Lydia Ardoyno: I think so. Batzli: Now, I hate to either ask this question but do you live on Lake Riley Blvd7 Lydia Ardoyno: Yeah. I just gave you. Batzli: Okay. Okay. So I mean I'll ask you. How many do you think there are7 I mean between there. Lydia Ardoyno: ...I'd say there's a dozen but I'm guessing because I don't know where this cul-de-sac's going to be at some point. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Well let's assume it comes out right at the southeasimm corner of the property there. Say about a dozen because I don't know that our people have gone out and actually physically counted. So you'll Irrobably have as good information. Lydia Ardoyno: Well again, I'm only gues~ng where the cul-de-sac is..Jqo one knows for sure where that cul-de-sac's going to be. Batzli: No, but I'm saying assume it comes out right at the southeastern, the southern most Lydia Ardoyno: About 8 then? 8 horn~. Resident: There's 8 to the comer of that... Lydia Ardoyno: So there's 8 homes. Is that kind of a general consensus7 There's 87... Okay, let me go on. Batzli: Please, I mean get to your point. Lydia Ardoyno: My point is that I'm trying to measure the safety issue from a rational viewpoint and I live further down so I mean it doesn't...corning in if it doesn't impact me one way or the other, but it seems to me like it has a lot to .do about opening up that and it doesn't seem to be there's going to be very much increase in the safety of the residents on Lake Riley because you've got 2 or 3 that arc right there where Lyman is and that's, you know unless a tree happens to fall right there, which may happen or may not happen, so you've got 2 or 3 that it isn't going to make much difference here because they're right on Lyman and then you've got another maybe 5 or 6 that are going to be in that area between where the cul-de-sac is and Lyman Blvd and then the rest of us are still in the same situation we've always been in_ So it just seem_ .~ like it's a lot of to do being made about the safety when you try to rneasu~ exactly what is the benefit, there doesn't seem to be very much benefit to very many people. And those 5 or 6 all are opposed to the open_ ing anyhow and the rest of us that are down there, it's all going to be the same thing. No ~dewalks. Narrow wads. Everyone's looking out for the kids on the bicycles and we're all, that's fine. We're willing to live with that so I don't understand why everyone thinks it's going to be such an in~ in our safety to put that roadway in...maybe I'm mi~ing something. Scott: I think I know one of the, I was one of the people who would like to see the connection and generally speaking, the comments that we get on developments from the Fire Marshal are primarily just make sure there's enough fire hydrants and the streets are labeled accordingly and that's usually about all we get. This is the first development where there 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 was a paragraph that stated something to the effect ths_t in a relative recent past there have been a number of fires in that area and because of the one access point, that they felt that the safety of the residents was compromised and also the lack of water. And then from doing some other research on my part, from what I understand to fight a fire in that particular area you need at least 3 vehicles. And if you also add to that another public safety, you could have a half a dozen vehicles down there and if this happens to be during the winter where you have access restricted even further. So I was ~ by the fact that the Fire Marshal took the time to cite that. Because he normally does not get very excited about these things. He keeps it fairly straight. Lydia Ardoyno: Sure. We were all impressed by that but the fact of the ms__tt~_ is, he's only talking about 8 homes that are going to get an impr. ovement. The rest of us it's still the same thing. Scott: No. Conrad: No, no, no. That's not true. Lydia Ardoyno: It's the same thing for that stretch of road. The only situation that changes it is if something has to happen. A lree falls on that little section of the road. Conrad: That's the point. Lydia Ardoyno: Then you get to come through, all through the Lundgren Bros development but it's a very narrow piece, very narrow. It's not even, I don't know. How many yards, a few yards up there. I just, it seems like a lot for a little in my opinion. Ba~li: Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. One of you two sirs. Del Smith: I'm Del Smith. I'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I also have some questions on the validity of the safety issue. I think it was told last meeting, one of our residents did speak to whomever, fire chief or whoever and as you recall they indicated that there really wasn't an issue from a safety standpoint. That they could go either way on it. I'd re, you know you get down to the end of the cul-de-sac, whether there's a connection there or not, whether it really benefits anybody. I guess I have a real hsrd time with that. Whether the tracks are down there, and to get back and forth from the end of that cul-de-sac isn't going to be any easier no mat~ whether there's an access there or not. So I guess I'd like to really have you look at that issue. Any other traditional mflY:w that's on Lake Riley Blvd, if you've driven it, no ~ what end you're on, it's nan'ow. And with kids it's even, you've 3O Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 got to really watch it so we're real concerned about additional traffic. I guess I just wanted to remind you too that there is a petition signed by probably about 90% of the residents against having this connection made so I just wanted to remind you of that. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of staff. One of the comments I asked last meeting was a response on that letter. The resident came up and talked about the fire chief. The letter I had in my packet contradicted that and what we say from thc resident, as far as I know is the ~sident's interpretation. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but it was in conflict with what I had in my packet. Did you get a response at all in that regard? Generous: No we didn't. Krauss: We've had no further clarification. We have a written letter that was given to us by thc Fire Marshal. He had wld us that he was going to sit down with thc Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief and review the matter. This did not originate with us. This is not a made up issue. This is an issue that came about based upon his fighting 3 fires in the neighborhood. And he has not deviated from that. Farmakes: So the position that we have here cturently is the most updated position, is that correct? Krauss: That's the one... Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. Russ Frederick. I'm Russ Frederick. I live at ~lO Lyman Blvd. In conjunction with this safety factor, I'm fight across the road to the north. My house burned in March. I'm on a dead end. It's a 60 foot right-of-way. And there is a factor on your narrow roads. It's not a developed wad it's yet a private road but I agree with these people. Wc're willing to live with the situation. In my case it didn't make any difference. It was a gas fire. The house was gone before the Fire Department got there anyway but there is a certain amount of problem. I will go along with that. But my other concern is talking about a 50 foot fight-of- way across the road. We wanted, or had a 50 foot right-of-way and it's shown on the map going north there. But I believe it was 2 years ago when the fellow wanted to sell his property and there had to be a 60 foot right-of-way in order for him to sell and we all had to go along with it. I ~inlr that's only fair that it is a standard and I think it's a good standard. Very good one. The other thing I feel is that you start going to your smaller lot sizes. You pull down an area invariably and I feel that if a person can't maintain the ~ lot size, then 31 Plavning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 you've got to... Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your couunents. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Jarnie Heilicher: Jamie Heilicher from 9280 Kiowa Trail. Just one quick question. You had referred to the approval, or at least the reco~tion from the Planning Commission or that you were going to have a back to back cul-de-sac and then you furthered that by saying until 212 was built. I'd like an explanation of, or a contradiction of what the definition of 212 and why there isn't any difference? Batzli: Go ahead. Generous: Well we believe that when Highway 212 is resolved, the tm/ftc patterns in this area will change and people will predominantly go to the north and so, opening up this section would be beneficial for the community because the city is developing Bsndimere Parle One of the elements of that development is we'd-like to put a parking area off of 92nd Street and the only way that works out is if that roadway is open to provide openings from either end. And so the reason for the cul-de-sac is beca~ we believe there's some merit that people will use the mad from the development down Kiowa Trail to the south. Jamie Heilicher: So it's intended to be an access to the park through cars at the intersection of Kiowa Trail and. Generous: And 92nd, yes. Krauss: You have to understand the major access to the padc is going to be off Highway 101. What the park's director was looking at was an internal access for rexidents. It's far enough away from a lot of homes that a small parking area from that side of the park may be Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Eldon Berkland: Eldon Berkland. I'm from Kiow~..9261 Kiowa TraiL There was an area of the staff report that really concerned especially my wife and myself and our next door neighbor, Pete and Wendy Pemrick. If you look on the map that's in your packet it shows the Kiowa Trail, our property. We have a driveway, we share a common driveway off of the end of Kiowa Trail. This driveway's been used since the 50's. It was discovered in 1984 when the Dolejsi's bought the property that this driveway encroached on their propalT. Since this affects them selling their pr~ and developing this lot we've been in 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 negotiations with thc Dolejsi's... This weekend we resolved our conflict. What we did was, in effect established a 14 foot fight-of-way permanent easement on their pmper~ for a roadway as well as a 16 foot common easement on all of our properties[ There's acUmlly 4 property owners but there's only 2 of us that use this,' regularly use this driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail Somewhere in the verbiage he talks about maybe having to relocate this driveway to come off a cul-de-sac from the Lundgren Bros development. I'm sure Terry's building an excellent deveiopment but we don't want to be in his neighborhood. We like Kiowa Trail. We bought our house and feel very much a part of this neighbarhood and would be very oppo~ to becoming a part of another neighborhood. Changing our address. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Hallie Bcrshow: HalUe Bcrshow, 92'71 Kiowa Trail I have a question about the cul-de-sac. I just found out about this at dinner time but what I heard is that thc back to back cul-de-sacs are going to be enlarged, or on Kiowa Trail it is and that's our property you're planning to enlarge it on to. I want to know what's going to happen to Kiowa Trail. Batzli: Thank you. Hcmpel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that at this point. I did have a telephone conversation earlier today with Mr. Bcrquist regarding the back to back turn around so I may have given some erroneous information as far as the exact location of it. I did indicate at a point the cul-de-sac may be, with a new subdivision...on Kiowa provide access, parking... access to the Lundgren residents to use Bandimere Park. Then after conversation with staff members my understanding that the proposal would be dead ending the Lundgren development at the south property line of the development in a temporary cul-de-sac and also provide...turn around facih'ty at the very northerly end of Kiowa Trail. Therefore the existing gravel driveway that is out there now would utilize existing Kiowa Trail and not the Lundgren Bros development. What Mr. Berquist read in the report with regards to relocating the driveway, I believe for clarification pm'poses is the existing home site of Mr. Dolejsi. The driveway does run from kind of a skewed angle with the proposed new roadway and then eventually tie in the very southern tip of the development. What we would like to see when the new roadway is built in front of the Dolejsi paw& that..for their driveway to be perpendi~ to the roadway and the old driveway. Batzli: That's for thc driveway from thc house down to the southern botmdary? Hempel: That's correcC Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Pat Swcnson: Pat Swenson and I live on Lake Riley Blvd. As some of you may know I'm associated with the city from the past and I'm acutely consdous of the necessi~ of roads for fire protection and health prol~-tion. However, and I really have not proposed it up to this point. However, with the potential use of a parking area for the park, my ears are b~7,oming very acute because I can see that we have, as you may know, a very large apartment complex on the north end of Lake Riley. And I can see a great many of those people driving through a very narrow road, which is true. Through, this is one area where they would come up Lake Riley to go into that complex to get to the parking area for the park. I cannot see anybody taking this as an access to TH 101 for instance. I think it would be a drcuitous route and... However, with the potential for the parking area at the end of that area, I could see that this could present a very dangerous situation for young people. We've got a lot of litlle kids. I would like to have that addressed. Batzli: Thank you. Hallie Bershow: Excuse me. I don't think my question's been answ~ about...where the cul-de-sac gces. Batzli: I think that Dave Iried to address that. Can you show us on the map? Hallle Bershow: I'm not sure... Hempel: Are you located on the lot here? Resident: She's on the first lot right there. Hempel: The first lot here? Okay. It's my understanding that the future park and...we're referring to is back in this area. The dead end cul-de-sacs would be...for the Lundgren subdivision it'd be a temporary cul-de-sac at this location and then what exists up there now I believe is just a paved section straight on through to a gravel section and it pretty much how it exists today...being able to un'n around up there for the last 20 years so I don't really see us expanding the pavement section up there any wider than absolutely necessary. So we would not be taking any more additional property of your's for the turn around. Don Sitter:. I'll wske this real quick, lust a clarificafiom My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. I'm the last property to the east shown here. I also have acce~ to my property through this Kiowa TtaiL Our normal drive comes in through Lake Riley Blvd. A couple of things in the staff report. It says that there is no recorded easement for these properties and I Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 think that's in error. We do have a mutual 2 rod easement across the back of the property. Unfortunately somewhere in the past a surv~or, the story goes it was a drunk surveyor and got off 16 feet and so the road got placed in the wrong spot and we worked very hard with the neighbors over the last few weeks to meet. I think we had 5 different meetings and our objective was to save the trees. To save the existing roadway and make everybody happy with what we came up with. And we did come up with an agreement with the Dolejsi's and the four neighborhood properties that live here and I understand from what Dave is saying, we're going to keep that now? It's not going W, I mean this is the same? When we made this agreement, that will hold with the city? You're not changing the turn around and we are still going to have access across these 4 properties from Klowa, is that right? Hempel: I haven't seen that, that's correct. Don Sittec. Basically we have a 2 rod easement right now and we're moving that easement to go over the road where it exists. The pavement that comes into these two properties. So we're really just trying to make right what was done wrong 75 years ago or whenever that drunk surveyor... Hempel: I guess depending exactly where your driveway enters Kiowa Trail in reiation~hilp to the property line there to the Dolejsi and Lundgren development. Maybe the entrance gets shifted slightly to the south. Something like that. You're not coming out onto that cul-de-sac to the north. You'll have to maintain your Kiowa access. Don SitIec. Okay, and I think that's what we really want. Is to maintain the Kiowa access and not have to cut down maybe the trees that are on the property. There's some very nice mature ire, es there and that's what we're trying. And I'd just like to say we worked hard with the neighbors and I want to make sure we maintain that. And if that's the case, then I'd like to say thank you for leaving that a cul-de-sac at the end of Kiowa Trail We were all against that last time so... Batzli: Well, I don't know that Dave or Paul or Bob or anyone from thc city here can promise you anything until we act on it and then thc City Council tak~ it up so you need to continue to follow your issue. Don Sitl~r: Okay. Well then I think I'd like to remind you of the neighborhood involvement last time and remember us in your reparc Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Terry? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Members of the commi.~4ion, Ten'y Forbord. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I always feel so bad when I call you Ten'y and then you call me_ Mr. Chair. Terry Forbord: The other night in Orono I did that and they begged for me to call them by their first name. Not to be formal so I tried. I'd like to talk about a couple things related to a couple of these issues. The health, safety and welfare issue is an issue that we tak~ into consideration on every neighborhood that we develop. I have relatives that are planners. I would say we're probably one of, if not the only land developer that I know that has an assistant fire chief to consult with all the time on our subdivisions to try to get their feedback. Every firemen that I know personally, and even our own consultant will tell you that if you came to them and askeA them a question about health, safety, welfare, that it would only stand to reason that they would tell you from a best case scenario, here's what we would prefer. And if I was a firemen, that's what I'd say also because obviously their concern is to stabiliTg and protect propa~. So if they were given a choice, and you said to them now if you could put a road here or you could make this road this wide or the radius of this road could be this, or if you could have a fire hydrant here, I can guarantee you the firemen would say all the things that would be the best case scenario. And they should do that. Absolutely. Now pan of the job of a fire marshal in reviewing subdivisions is to look at all these issues and then find the issues that he could, if he had a wish list, amend or change or whatever. One of the things that's never pointed out, when these get to a body like yourself or a City Council is that, does that mean that in an. ideal situation that there won't be a problem either. The fact is that there were 3 fires on this road and that we've' spent a lot of time talking about it. The fact is the fire department fought fires. The §enfleman who's house burned down burned down before the fire department §or there but they did get there. They did fight the fire. If this connection would have been here as proposed, those fires would not have been fought any more diligently. I can document for you fires that have occurr~ in this city recently that were on roads that were totally accessible. They had problems with those fires. They weren't dead ends so you have to keep things in balance here and you've got to say, that it's possible that fires can ha~ anywhere. It's possible even in an ideal situation a house can bum to the ground and a life may be lost nnfommately. But I think it's in error to say that if this connection is made, all of a sudden you're ~y going to enhance the health, safety and welfare of this community. I thinlr that's a subjective s~__ternen_ t. About the cul- de-sac. Lundgren Bros has, as was already stated, wonlri not be opposed to having no connections. We're talking about 134 lots in here and you could easily, and there are plenty of neighborhoods within this commnnity and other commnnitles, that have 2 accesse~ for 134 lots. You're talking roughly what, about 6'] lots per access. That's manageable. This will. not be a unique animal unlike any other subdivision or area in the Twin Cities. There are other areas just like that. So it is possible that you can have no other access. You conltt close Kiowa Trail You wouldn't have to make this access here and this nci~borhood would function and there'd be more than 2 ways in and out. There were some items and I didn't know if the Planning Commission wanted to talk about them tonight. I guess I'll leave those Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 up to them. They're related to affordabih'ty. They were items of discussion that were in the staff report and I guess I thought maybe they were put there because one of the Planning Commissions may have called and wanted to discuss it so I wani~l to offer it for yon tonight if you want to ~llr about that or if you'd ~ me to address anything further while I'm up here. I would be happy to. Batzli: I'd like you to address reforestation. Terry Forbord: Okay. The reforestation. I'm not sure, I think refor~tation is a good idea. I'm not sure in what context it was meant to be applied here. I mean that there was some suggestion about working with the University and working with some volunteer organizations and such and that's fine with me. I'm not sure exactly what's meant beyond that. Batzli: Do you still like it if you have to provide some of the money for some of the reforestation plant materials? Terry Forbord: I think if it goes beyond what is being proposed in our landscape plan, I think it's unfair. I think that even at the Tree Board meeting when some of the developers were asked to come in and there was discus~on about the reforestation of Chanhassen and there were many long time residents that were present at that meeting and they were willing to state that before development occurred in Chanhassen, there weren't a lot of trees because most of the trees have been clear cut by the farmers and there were a lot of statements to say how they could see from where the City Hall is now down to Lotus Lake. But when development occurs, people come in and the plant a lot of Irees. Now all of you know, or I assume you know that when we develop we plant a lot of trees. We exceed what is normally required by a great deal and beyond that, when the people move inw their homes, if they can't afford it immediately, they're not only...but as soon as they can afford it, they plant a lot of landscaping. And so over time these kind of things occur by themselves. It's not uncommon for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a neighborhood of this size on landscaping. That is not a small amount. And so when there was some discussion about reforestation, I'm not sure what it ~t and I didn't know if they were asking us to contribute additional money beyond what we were proposing to do but I thinir what we were proposing to do was truly a lot..Jot of money. Everything has a price and if you elect to have me talk about affordability, I will talk about that and landscaping and things like that I would say are directly rehted to that. Batzli: Paul and Bob. Under the current landscaping plan. We don't have our copies of the plan anymore so we can't look at it but in your opinion, is I.~ndgren Bros going well above and beyond what they're required to do? Under the PUD ordinance. 37 Phnnlng Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Krauss: I think what they've done so far is consistent with a standard PUD. Is it..2IK)? No. Probably not. Batzli: How much better is it than our standard subdivision ordinance? Krauss: Well our standard subdivision ordinance has been amended to require landscaping, significant landscaping on selec~ streets and this ~ is bounded on two sides by collector streets so you'd get that in any case. As far as the 1 tree per lot goes, that's a standard requirement as well I don't have a count in front of me to know how they have gone beyond that. We came up with that condition after reviewing the site. After reviewing some direction of the Phmning Commission relative to this is a PUD. V~/hat are you looking for. Relative to the relationship of this site to the pazk and to the highway and to the fact that the only thing that they've had growing on it for the last 3 or 4 years is corn and soybeans. We felt that that was an appropriate thing to look at. Farmakes: Is there any other PUD that has a 46% undersized lot ratio? Krauss: That's a question of a different color. Yeah, I would suspect there are. We never looked to see. I ~ if you want to look at PUD's, you can look at the 9th Addition at Lake Susan I-Iills which was reviewed under a di~t PUD ordinance. But has an average lot size of 12,000 I believe, or 12,500. This has an average of 15,000 or better. There is no number, I know the Planning Commission dwelled on this extensively at the last meeting. We're at a loss to know what to do with it. There is no standard in the code that says thou shall have some percentage of lots above the standard. It just says the average shall be. Farmakes: I understand that. The problem that I had With this, when I first occun~ _this was actually another Lundgren development. The W'fllow development over on Lake Lucy Road. It d~ds on which point you want to make with this, whether or not you go to the average size. Particularly with ~ that ~ in the wetland areas and areas that even under waditional development would not be buildable. But if you take them into c, on~lerafion in formula, if you wish to beef up the square footage, you add property that under any development is not developable. And it seems to me that depe~_ding on how you wish to read the formula, it becomes a deceptive issue. And what we're really look at here, it seem_ s to me, is that if the ratio for traditional development is 15,000 square, how many lots that we're looking at, percentage wise in the development are under sized. Under or below that 1:5,000. And that to me is a more palatable figure. What percentage is that than looking at large lots, particular in this property also has to a lesser extent but also has pwpeny that cannot be built on which is being used to factor that ratio. Scott: And especially the lots that, I've heard the last 2 meetings that we've had and has 38 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 been said the same way that the large lots that border Highway 101 have been poruayed as being made very large for the purpose of buffering, blah, blah, blah when the bottom line is that there's a pipeline running under there and it doesn't mak~ any difference. So I get real tired of hearing that kind of stuff. And then also obviously these are like 45,0(X)-50,000 square foot lots and I think that's kind of, that's a specific example I think of what you're talking about Farmakes: And in a way I hate to bring that up at this meeting because I think that's a problem with the formulation that we have. And that has nothing to do right now with this particular development It's a problem that I had originally when I looked at the W'fllow where the lot sizes were u'uly inflated by square footages on ratios for average sized lots. Krauss: Because of the wetland. Farmakes: Because of the wetlands where no matter what you built there, no matter how you built it, you couldn't build on those. Krauss: And this is part of my concern when this PUD ordinance was put into place. Wetland acreage was excluded from that caloflafion. Farmakes: Right, now in this case though we have a pipeline situation. Krauss: Which is a different thing occmxing. Farmakes: Coxre~ so I guess for me, in looking at this, somehow we have to come up with where we would like that to go, either looking at buildable square feet and looking at ratios against that and I'm perfectly fine with that. And I'm not saying that we should institute a fixed percentage of under sized lots because I think that that will probably take away our flexibility, in particular with odd property where difficult type property that you're trying to save trees or natural facilities. But I have a problem, like I said whenever you can take statistics one way or the other, depe~_ding on which way you'd like to go. I like statistics that reflect factual information and that can't be taken one way or the other. And I just have a, I don't know how the rest of the commission feeh on this issue but it seem_ s again that the issue that we brought up in the meeting, and I think a majority of the people here brought it up, was the issue of under sized lots percentage wise and we looking at what's acceptable. A third? A half? If the intent statement of the PUD I think discussed that specifically, that we should look at it closer as that percentage increased in size. And so I'll save the rest for my comments and I don't want to belabor the issue but I am confused and I hate to sit here and make decisions on that based that I'm still confused on that issue. Because I think it's something that we should target. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Batzli: Yes. Terry Forbord: Lundgren Bros could have laid this out di~nfly and we could have more lots in a standard subdivision- I believe even staff pointed that out. At least I'm trying to find it. I read it today. I thought they eluded to that. We could have done something over in this area with lots over here whether that pipelinc was there or not. We could have done that. There's a lot of things that I can do here that would givc me more lots but I know and I know that you know that it would not be as nice a neighborhood. Now we only have a number of tools that we can work with when we come to the city. The first item that we work with is the comprehensive plan. What are the goals and objectives of the city. The city has a housing policy within their c~ensive plan and it talks about all kinds of different things related to housing. Some of them have to do with diversity. Diversification- Pricing. Cost. Things like that There's a lot of things that affect cost and diversification of housing. Thc other things are the ordinances and the codes. And there isn't anything in the PUD ordinance that talks about you're supposed to have this many lots of this and this many lots of that. There was at one time. There also was an ordinance at one time when all the fights- of-way were 50 feet also so things change and so we look at the items, the rules that we're supposed to follow and we try to bring for& proposals where everything isn't the same. It's specifi~y our intent to not make all the lots the same. Not make them all the same size. We want to provide some diversity. We clearly could have done some more things to address all the questions that I've heard each one d you make here tonight and if we would have done it I don't think this would look the way that you would like to see it. Because I've heard enough of the comments over the years and what I do hear that you like in neighborhoods and by doing those other things, we would be taking those things away ultimately. Lot size is a subjective thing. In Chanhassen you find a lot of people, at least these days who feel that if it's bigger it's better. Well that's not always true. Remember, when you drive through thi., neighborhood, when it's done, I can't tell how large those lots are and I do this for a living. I can't go through one neighborhood that we've developed or anybody else's and say well there's a 8,500 square foot one and there's a ES,000 over there. This one's 30. I can't ~ and I do _this for a living. You can't ~ There's no lines on the ground but how does the neighborhood feel Now some people might feel it's a little tight in here. On some people they might say boy, this isn't as tight as where I came from in Minneapolis. At Near Mountain there's two whole cul-de-sacs of lots from 8,.500 square feet to 11,000 square feet and I bet you there's very few people in the city who've driven in there even know that, because you can't see the lines on the ground. They just say well ~ is a nice little neighborhood. Now it may not be for everybody but these are large lots in reality. Not all of them. Some of them are bigger than others but we could have gotten around, and this was not an attempt to try to mislead anybody here. We could have come and cut across Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 this pipeline and put some lots back in this area. You can go across a pipeline with a driveway or a road. Absolutely. There's roads all over across that pipeline all through town. So we could have done those things~ There wasn't an attract to mislead or deceive. An atmnpt to try to come up with something that's creative and deal, it's a physical consl~int that we have to deal with and we try to deal with it in the most ~ve manner as possible. And try to retain some degree of affordability, which agsin I'd be happy to talk about if the Planning Commission elects to. Batzli: Okay, thank you Terry. Is there anybody else that would like to address the commission7 Yes ma'am. Brevity will be appreciatr~ Kate Halverson: Kate Halverson, 9283 Kiowa Trail And last ~ I was here I thought that the back to back cul-de-sac situation there was better than a thru street going through. But wnight I've been iistening lind hear talk about 212 and the possible connections and the possibility of just postponing it for the future. I fecl that I need to §o on record saying that I am opposed to that cul-de-sac there on the Lundgren side...lot to build a great house on... because I am concerned. I've heard several good reasons that fire mlcks will get there anyway so we don't need it through that. We don't need that for that future possibility. Also I've heard talk about the direction of 212 going north. So like what is the point then of even doing a back to back and I would just as soon eliminate any potential of that taking place in the future. And from what I can see here, you know it's somewhat necessary...the possibility to happen down the road and I feel I need to say something because I don't think anybody's spoken to that issue and I don't want it to come up in 3 to 5 years from now. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Unless there's someone else who would like to address the commission, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Com'ad: No, let's keep it open. Batzli: Do you want to keep it open? Scott: So moved. Generous: Mr. Chairman? If I may. Mary Ellen Iessup at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd called me today and she said she couldn't make it tonight but she wanted me to give you her opinion about the, specifically about the Lake Riley Blvd connection. Batzli: Okay. Generous: She is concerned about in~ traf~ x~sulting from this connection. She said 41 Plavning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the problem really is that Lake Riley Blvd is a substandard road and that the city is proposing a bandaid correction to that. Instead of doing that the city should look into i~g the substandard roadway itself and providing water service down Lake Riley Blvd. Batzli: Okay. I assune that if we did that, these people would be assessed and then we'd have even more people in here. Yeah, okay. Did you make her aware of that by the way? Generous: I did mention that. Batzli: Okay. Well I appreciate her commen~ Thank you. Would anyone else lille to address the commission? Is there a motion to close? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to dose the public hear/ng, All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was dosed. Batzli: Matt, let's start with you agsin: Ledvina: Okay. The Kiowa Trail issue with the consm~on of a temporary mm around or whatever, is there acu~y going to be any consu'uction out there on Kiowa Trail? Off of tl~ subdivision? Hempel: At this point we didn't propose anything I guess. As I mentioned earlier, it's been maintained for the last 15-20 years in it's curreat condition. Ledvina: So essentially you'd have a temporary cai-de-sac that would be built on the Lundgren Bros ~ and then the ban'icade and that would be that Is that correct? Hernpel: Essentially. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Dave as it relates to the Lundgren Bros proposal with the 50 foot right-of-way and the 5 foot utility easement on each side of the road. What is your opinion of that? Does that get what we ne~ as well? Hempel: No it doesn't because with every plat, every front yard there's a 10 foot drainage utility easement dedicated along with the 60 foot wide right-of-way. It's engineering's belief that the 60 foot right-of-way is required to provide the road maintenance and safe travel for vehicles as well as pedestrians. We just had an incident here yesterday and part of today where we had a substandard sized street and ended up digging up the street to put in water and sewer service in. Ended up closing off the street It was a dead end sueec It happened to be...Lane up here near Shorewood. The residents incapacitated for nearly 12 hours. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Should there have been an emergency_one example. It's a random event that happens but it does happen. So we changed our standard I believe 2 years ago from a 50 foot wide right-of- way to a 60 foot wide right-of-way for those reasons. We needed additional right-of-way. All other developments included in the city dedicate the 60 foot fight-of-way it seems like. Even PUD's unless there's been other topographic consffsints such as lree preservation, severe grade diff~c~ which would require additional grs_din§ or a retaining wall a~l so forth and we have made modifications in those areas. But areas again though where, a little more secluded areas that were dead end cul-de-sacs and so forth...or the amount of traffic is much less... Ledvina: Okay, thanks. Let's see on condition number 5 I would support thc applicant's contention that the cost of the trail segments built by the developer be credited to the trail fees. I think that makes sense but as we saw in another proposal, that necessarily wasa't the case but I'd like to state that. And I guess talking about the main issues as it relates to lot size, I know that there's been a lot of discu~n on the number of small lots here but I guess I support this development as it's laid out. I do believe that the smaller lots and potentially the lower priced housing in _this area can relate to good diversity for affordability. For many new residents of Chanhassen. I think there's value in mbring a development where you have potentially $300,000.00 houses and $125,000.00 houses or $100,000.00 houses. I don't know what the numbers are but those types of ratios. I think as a PUD we see that the lots around the perimeter are the larger sized lots and I think that potentially if we had all 1:5,000 square foot lots you may see more residences in here that surrounds development di~-ussing their specific concerns as it relates to that fact. So I'm buying into that. I think that you're developing a self contained development and that's going to be well planned and I do believe it will work. Batzli: So you like the fact that they've done, in essence, a detacto blending of this neighborhood with the surrounding neighborhoods? Ledvina: Yes. Batzli: And that's an amenity both to the city and future residents of this development? Ledvina: Yes, I think that's so. I don't know if there were more residents here discussing that issue, ff we had 15,000 foot lots around here we would be saying, well if this were a PUD you could have done this. I don't think, maybe that point hasn't been err~hasized but I think it's a factor in evaluating this. I like the curvalinear layout of the streets. I think that's going to add a lot of character. I think that the houses, obviously the lots are small but I think those, that's not necessarily a bad thing. 43 Planning Commi.~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: What do you think about the, and maybe you mentioned this and I misplaced what you said but thc Lake Riley Blvd access? Ledvina: No, I didn't mention thaL I would support the slxff recommendation on that. I think we discussed that from quite a few different angles and I think that's a reasonable connection to make. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: It's going to be interesting to see how we get a consensus on this. Actually I wouldn't want the connection to Lake Riley. I was oNposed to that. I'd rather have the street, Lake Riley Blvd upgraded. Batzli: Can I interrupt you right there? Let me ask a question Paul and/or Dave. Why can't we extend some water fi'om the main that I would asso_me is going, looping around this development over to Lake Riley Blvd for a fire hydrant or two, if the main problem is getting pumper tracks in there. Hcmpel: That is actually one of our, would be one of our conditions for the applicant. If the scenario before you tonight is approved with a cul-de-sac we would require that a fire hydrant or fire water line be extended through the cul-de-sac through the common, road common property. It's to Lake Riley Blvd right-of-way for future connection and extension along Lake Riley Blvd to help flow, fire flow of water quality. That's a given. Batzli: Okay. So but you could extend it and put a, at ~ one hydrant if not two along Lake Riley on the comer, the northern and southerly camera? Hempel: More appropriate is fire hydrant p~t when the watermain is exte~ through the entire length of Lake Riley Blvd to ensure adequate fire flows are provided in the fire hydrants. Otherwise you have a sequence of dead end cul-de-sacs and water lines. It doesn't give you thc flow that you may need. Batzli: Would it be better than nothing? Hempel: At this point, it comes down, from good sound en~neering judgment and as well as economics. Sure, a hydrant there would help...demand use it may not give us the fire protection you need. Batzli: So what you're saying is, you're eventually you'd want to loop it so that it runs down Lake Riley Blvd. But if you can't have that today because thc city can't afford to do it and. Planing Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Hempel: The residents don't want it. Batzli: RighL Would you request that those hydrants be put in? Hempel: At this point, no. I guess I would just look for the future connect/on of looping that water... Batzli: So you'd just have them stub it to the edge of the property and not even put a hydrant there? Hempel: That's what we'd typic~y do, yes. Batzli: Okay. Okay, sorry Ladd. Conrad: K. iowa connection- I'm concerned with parking. I think staff brought up some real good points. I think the back to back cul-de-sacs is what I suggested before. That's what I think protects the neighborhood from some of the immediate trail% considerations but I haven't resolved the parking problem for the park. I really don't know how that gets handled. Actually the residents want ~ fixings and I guess there's a price on a lot of these things. I think in terms of improvement of the cul-de-sac, I think the residents would have to pay for it. If they want to maintain isoht/on~ I think then it's their street and that would be a cost factor. But that would be very definitely, it's real clear in my mind that that would be their load to pay for. And I would give it back to Riley, I'd do the same thing you know and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this but really if you don't want the connection to this, then there should be a sm~et irr~. overnent and they should pay for it. Keep the isolation but pay for what it takes to provide decent city service and protection on those things so there's a cost. It's not like I'm saying, I want to preserve the neighborhood. I think that's real valid but on the other hand, it's sort of an easy out by not compensating with something. I think a 60 foot right-of-way is still the right thing to do. I think there has to be some trails corning from the north down Highway 101. I don't know that And botWm line, 56 or whatever the number is, substandard or small lots, there's still too many small lots in this property. It's just, you know what's the right number? We don't have numbers in our ordinance because we don't want them. You kind of take a look and you get a feel for these things and in this case I'm still not persuaded that 56 is a right number of very small lots and I think maybe that's education on our part but I don't think we've ever had a PUD that looked like this on property that really didn't have any natural mmaities. I think when we put in some small lots and Lundgren has done that on their other developments, those small lots have always had some natural ~ that have done, that have made up for those small spaces and they've done a real nice job. Here it's not the case. At least to my satisfaction. We have small lo~. And I guess I'm not persuaded that we're getting affordable housing. 45 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Nov~ 17, 1993 So regardless of what I said about connections to streets and all ~is other stuff, I don't like thc PUD. I tbinl~ their 56 or whatever the number is, lots below 15,000 square feet is really not what I'm comfortable with. I like the general design of this. I think there's a lot of nice feamre~ I think 56 lots, small lots are just too many. Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: Yeah I didn't pick up on any new information to change my idea. I mean I believe that it's a well laid out design. I cite similar problems that Ladd does. I'm not going to go into that. Another comment on connections. I think it was the first Planning Commission meeting that we held this year dealt with our ordinance on cul-de-sacs which we reduced thc length I think down to 600 feet. And the wne has always been, if we can logically make a connection to shorten a cul-de-sac, we're going to lake advantage of that. So I've beaten that one to death. I don't have any more comments on it but I don't support this as a PUD. I don't believe it addresses the intent of our PUD ordinance and do not support it and that's the end of my comments. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I think I made my comments earlier about.what I use as a guideline and that's thc percentage of lots overall. I think, I'm thinking more of a third and it's almost a half. I am looking at the pipeline situation. I use that as an example. Could be a ravine. Could be a slope. Could be one of many things and the different things that we look at, in looking at percentages. What 1 look at is buildable square feet when I'm inter[n~ting some of the interpretable things of our PUD intenL I look at, from a design stslldpoint, look IR the pipeline there. If a road was run adjacent to the pipeline or followed it, it would cut off several of the lots. You could put homes there but it would make for considerable design problems. As far as selling a home that's sitting on Wp of a pipeline, I doubt it very much. I use that as an example. I think that from a design concept, surrounding larger lots around the smaller homes is fine. I don't have a problem with that. It's an innovative way to do it. It also reduces the amount of conflict with the surrotlnding neighborhoods, particularly neighborhoods that may have been there a long time. In some cases maybe larger lots. Beyond our standard requirement~ What I have a problem with is the amount of percentages of the overaU development. I would like to see that reducod. I've said that in my last comments at the last meeting. I don't see them red~ The comments that haven't been addressed here tonight is talking about why such a large amount of undersized lots. I think that the goals of providing a diversity of housing is ~ine. Those are commendable. I don't think that the city's position on that has been defined, at least that I know of and that the City'S still wrestling with thaL I'm not against it. I just would prefer to see it defined better. I do not see in this report in discussing this issue the median income in Chanhassen, the Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 mix]lan incom~ ill thc metro area or th~ median incorl~ ill the Stal~ of )v(|nm-~Ota. It's an ambiguous statement that's in thc~ and I would, if it is a driving ~ in reducing the cost of thc house, I'd li~ to see mor~ information on that type of issue in future developments that come forward here. I think that that's important and basically it takes a lot of the review I think from tho commissions. A lot of infommfion that wo could use in determining this factor. But what that percentago would be say for instance within the development Again I want to state that I think the goals of what was tho intent here are commendable. $o I don't want to, I don't want to discourago what obviously was a development that took some time and care in coming up with. In the issue of the connection on Kiowa, I would havo liked, again my comments that were made to see more issue between the parking and access to the park from that direction and tho cul-de-sac. I don't see any plans in the packet here. I don't see any options to that. I don't see Option A, B, C or D. In fact I don't even have my plans here. I'm looking at the piece here. That's displayed and I don't see that altered from tho original meeting. I don't see, so I see verbal options here but I don't see, don't see any plans to review. So I would not, unless I see that I would feel uncomfonablo about taking any direction with that. As in thc comments made in my last meeting, there are substandard roads and in some cases lots. Not in this case but based on oki Chanhassen development, where oki rules were in effect versus newer rules in this case. Obviously as a city progresses and changes, the rtfl~ and considerations in 1960 are not the same as they are in 1993. The City constantly is wring to improve and change along with envimnmentsl factors and so on and we change things. And I do not think that enough congdemfion is given when we come into a situation where we're going to si~nificanfly change a neighborhood situation that is an older neighborhood when new roles are in effect. I'd agree with Ladd's ¢omIq'omis~ on that i~u~. As far as the Lake Riley Blvd. However, I don't thinlr that this is the issue here to be discussing road improvements on Lake Riley. That would have to be a separate issue and the residents would all have to be made aware of what that would be as far as assessments and' so on so I don't think that can really be coupled in with this. On the issue of city staff reco~tion not to reduce the right-of-way issue, I support that. There's just a lot of things here that don't make this fly in my mind and I would vote to not approve it. Batzli: 8o you would vote no on the entire PUD? Farmakes: Yes. Batzli: I mentally counted 3 no votes for the PUD. I would vote yes but it sounds like I'm going to be in the minority. I'll still give at least brid comments here. I disagree with Jeff's pacentage analysis and you know I'm, my tenure here on the Planning Commission waning, as opposed to waxing. The issue came up when we were looking at the PUD's as to what was acceptable lot size. I guess it was funny to me, or somewhat ironic that I argued so long and hard regarding lot size and everybody thought that small lots were okay. And now we Planning Commission Meeting- November 17, 1993 see PUD's and everybody wants larger lots. I feel vindicated but we've got the ordinance we've got. I live in a PUD and I live on a substm~lard sized lot and you probably can't tell that and it does cause a certain amount of intm, esting problems in the neighborhood but they're not that big of a deal so while everybody else has gone to bigger lots, over the years I think I've gone the other way and maybe I'm just ~ a half cycle behind you guys or something here but. Conrad: You did a good job of persuading us. Batzli: I did such a good job of persnsrling you and in the ~time I seem to have gone the other way. So it really seems to me that if the development was done right, you look at the development Lundgren Bros did up, I suppose it's Shorewood up on the hill there wl:t~ they do have the sms_!!er lot sizes and you can tell those lots are less than 15,000 square feet. You know I don't believe Terry when he says he couldn't tell that those were undea,sized lots. Maybe if they're closer you can tell but you know an 8,000 square foot lot looks pretty small The houses are on top of each other. And they did a very good job with those lots but you know, you can tell those are small lots. Anyway. The upshot for me is if in fact we are getting blending, which we would not othemdse get, and ff we were getting something else and all I eau, have figured out so far is that we're get~g right-of-way and we're getting blending in exchange for Lundgren Bros trying to sqni~ some homes together. And that would probably be okay with me except I would like to see. some more lsndscsping. And I think that if they did that, I think you'd have a nice little development. So I would be in favor of this PUD provided that some of these concepts of ref~fion and Lund~ Bros helping out in that in some way was accomplished. I think that the break away barrier is fine on Kiowa. I would like to see that however, I do not want to see that, it will be removed automatically once 212 is built. I would rather see that it came back to the city for study and this was not a knee jerk based on 212 being built. I think that would be an error. I think the residents should have input at that time. And in f~t I would suggest that it's even done kind of ~ 212 is built to see what's what rather than projections of traffic patterns. As far as the Lake Riley Blvd access goes, I think Ladd is fight and it is a bandaid to put an access through there if in fact the real problem is a substandard road and they need water on that street. On the other hand ~Ieff is right that you really can't or shouldn't link thi~ development with upgrading that road. And I think that to the extent staff and en~neering can work with · Lundgren to figure out how to get some water pressure and a couple fire hydrants over there, that's really I think the biggest concern. In re-reading the Fire Chief's memo, really what he was talking about was the mnk~ truffle back and forth on the road and if you didn't have to do that, the pumper u'ueks, or whatever they are, that probably would mitigate the problem, at least in this one particular instance. $o I would like to see these neighbm~oods not intruded by linking them unless we absolutely had to. And those were my main comments. Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I make a few comments? Batzli: Yes. Terry Forbord: One of the owners is here this evening and I think if the Planning Commission would like w, I'm sure he would volunteer the infarmaiion to you that led up to our control of this site. There were over 6 developers, or at least that's what I was wld, somewhere between 4 to 6 developers competing for this piece of pwperty. I can ~ you I know fairly well that half of those people, the type of products that they do and I feel very confident that I know what they would be proposing for this, And I can tell you that I know they would meet the city codes and I can tell you that it wouldn't look like this. It would look more like, the old wonderful subdivision I showed you last time. Granted it may not look exactly like this but that's the kind of development that you'll probably see on this site if you don't allow a PUD to be utilized here. I know what the concerns were at the last meeting. The first thing that I went back to do was I figured out okay, well how can I try to accommodate many of the concerns that the Planning Commission has so the next time that I go back in front of them, they say weal geez. They went back and they redid this and pulled some of these lots out and boy I can vote for thig. I can't pull any lots out because the numbers don't work. Now and maybe that's not a consideration of the city but then the almmafive is that somebody else can come in and develop it and they'll develop it in a pattern that won't be as creative but all the lots will be 15,000 square feet. And then when everybody's done, say well they're all 15,000 square feet. We got what we wanted. I'm still not convinced that I've ever heard that from this Planning Commi~tion or a previous one or any City Council say that that's what they want. But the bottom line is, the only way to do it is to take lots out and when you look at the raw dengity of this, this is not a dense project. It isn't. Those numbers don't lie. So yeah, we can take lots out but then we can't do the deal So the alternative is that somebody else can come in and do it in a different manner but maybe I've misjudged over the years what I think the city is looking for. But in some of the comments that I hear over and over again, I don't think I have. But the owner knows that when we walk away he will be able to sell hi.~ property. I can guarantee it. It will jugt be developed differently. And so I'm just trAling you that obviously we'll pursue it with the City Council. It's clear the Planning Commission doesn't support the proposal but we may not do everything right, exactly the way the city hopes to see it but we really try and we try to create nice neighborhoods so when they're done they don't look ~ some things that we believe that everybody would rather they not look lik~. But the only reason I mention this to you is because I did try to take lots out. I made some lots bigger but the numbers don't work and that gets back to the affordability issue that nobody asked me about. There's no such thing as affordability in Chanhassen and there won't be. Not until you come out maybe with $00 square foot lots and until there's MUSA expansion and there's more land available and the price of land goes down. Then maybe it will start getting to a threshold where I think 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 from the general public's mind they'd call affordable. But every 6me you exact something, you insist on larger lots and you insist on wider streets and you insist on mare trees and you insist on, all those things cost money that ultimately the homeowner pays for. And I have to just pass it on. I can't absorb it. And so that's why we propose many of the thing8 that we do to try and add some different sizes and that sort of thing. I'm sorry that we were unable to do a betm' job. We tried the best that we could. Batzli: Thank you for your comments Terry. Does anyone have a motion? Lcd~: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Preliminary PUD #93-6 subject to the staff conditions with the following modifications. Modifying number 5 to add, the cost of trail segments built by the development shall be credil~xi to trail fees. Number 26. The date as it relates to site grading be changed from October 31st to November 15th. Number 27, the condition be deleted as it is ~ at condition number 11. And adding a condition number 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project to occur along the right-of-ways associated with TH 101 and also Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. In your condition 30. I don't recall. Did you want I/iowa to automatically open if 212 was built? Ledvina: I didn't' consider that I guess I would amend my motion to slate that the city re- evaluate the modifications, the opening of Kiowa Trail in response to the co~on of 212 and I don't know if it's appropria~ to reque~ a public ~g or something of that sort. Batzli: In your motion you did want to connect Lake Riley, ~ To Lake Riley? Batzli: What condition is that7 Conrad: I couldn't find it. Ledvina: I assumed it was in there. Conrad: There's a condition relating to the trail easement Number S. Batzli: Number 17. Phase 3 of the development Is that the? You don't want to delete that hell? 5O Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: No. Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? Conrad: I don't know. I think just discussion. I think that Terry is talking about trying to develop I think. He knows that Chanhassen develops with a concern with lot size. He knows that. And I think it's been echoed by Planning Commission and City Council over and over again in a variety of ways. So you know it's not that there's a magic nnmher and it's not that we don't want to go below the 15,000. We're talking about proportion and that's what this, in my mind, that's what the issue is right now. Farmakes: Is this discussion or are we voting on the motion? Batzli: This is discussion. Farmakes: I support those comments, My comments on the issue of lot size Brian were percentages. I would even entertain lots smaller. That's not the point. The point is, the percentage of the development and that's what I've grabbed onto in looking at these tables because I find the information to be not always representative of the facts with the relationship that we're using. It's not intentional It's just what we use as cril~fia and that's what I have a problem with. I'm closer to a third and this is closer to a half. Ledvina: Well if they were 14,999, I ~ you could say that they're. Farmakes: But a lot of them aren't. A lot of them are closer to 12 to 11. Ledvina: I understand. Conrad: There's a lot of small lots. Fmmakes: I don't mind diversity. I don't see diversity here. I see about haft of it being under sized. And what I'm saying here is I'd be more amenable to a third. It's not the issue or the inl~nt of what the design is trying to achieve. But I'm not sure that that's spelled out very well for us either so I would not be displeau~ to see this come_ back again,. I think that generally this development is worth pursuing. It's not, if the nu~mbers aren't there, then they're not there. Batzli: Well, yeah. You know my problem with looking at it as a pementage is, the whole concept in my mind, at least of a PUD is you allow clustering to get open space and protection of natural features. Here we have no nattual features. So the issue is whether 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 we're getting a larger feeling to the neighborhood by getting the blending that they're doing. Now whether they're doing it because they have to do it, because of the pipeline or because they're going to have much more expensive lots that can look through the trees, inbetween houses onw the lake. Whatever reason they're doing it, there is a certain amount of open space and it's not a leal dense development. So you know if it's, maybe the numbers didn't work. Maybe he can recal~te them and maybe even move the ~ point the wrong way on one of his figures but he can take a few lots out and maybe...but I think the point of it that there is a clustering here. There is some open space. The development doesn't have a real fight, enclosed look, at least as far as I can tell imm a two dimensional representation on the map. And like I said, I'm here to tell you that living in a PUD with under sized lots isn't all that bad. Conrad: I just don't see it Brian. Batzli: I know and you cithcr sec it or you don't Conrad: You see it and I don't see it at all I see the inner circle as being real dense. And what we've done is put a dense area separated imm two major, two highways. Two roadways. Moved them away. I guess I'm valuing that I think ff I was a resident there, I would value that but in terms of how I look at this, it's a real dense area. Farmakes: And I also. Batzli: But is there a down side to that? What's the down side? Conrad: They've got to live there. Ledvina: They're going to choose to live there. Conrad: Right. I don't care who, yeah. Anybody can and I'm not going to t~ll you that I don't care. But philosophically, this is really a philosophical deal We planned with lot ~ so long here. When you change the lot size in Chanhassen, there's got to be a real clear reason why because we really perceive that to be very important. Really perceive that and along with natural amenities. And I haven't been sold on that. So when you break that one philosophy, and I tell you. I can go down to 8-10,000. I don't have a problem with small parcels. I don't but it's g~g me someplace. It's getting us the cluster with a great deal of open space and I just haven't seen the significant benefit to tak~ me down to the small lots here. I just don't see the benefit. And therefore I don't see the reason to break our standard which is what we really hold dear to us. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: In the past we've had real clear things that we were trying to save to allow the clustering. We've had the wetlands. We've had the ravines. We've had forests. Here you have a lot with nothing on it. In essence. A plowed field let's assume for a rnlnllte. What are you going to try to save, or are you just going to, are you going to require more pazkland to be dedicated7 What are you going to do7 Conrad: This is not a good candidate for a PUD you know. It's not. Yet on the other hand. Ledvina: Do you like the alternative? Conrad: Hey, that's fine. That's just fine. A standard subdivision is just fine with me. Farmakes: And I don't have a problem with seeing this again if there are lots closer to 15,000 rather than percen~es that they have. I'd even enterlain away from a third or higher to a half if more of them were larger percen~e wise. So I did not get the calculator out but if there were fewer of them between 11 and 12, and more of them 13 to 14, I would enterlain chan~ng my vote in that regard so. If you're looking for any flexibility there. Batzli: I respectfully disagree with Ladd's comment I think that the city, the zeddents, the neighbors, everybody's getting something by doing _this as a PUD this way rather than bringing in a straight subdivision but that's neither here nor there. Okay. Well, is there any other discussion? Otherwise I'll call the question. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commimion recommend approval of preliminary PUD ~P)3-6 subject to the foil.wing conditions: 0 Submittal of street names to thc Public Safety Depot, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval . Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage floor elevation before final plat approval 3. Tree preservation/landscaping: a. Detailed plans for l~rimel~'r bcrming and lanclsc~4ng. A landscaped buff~ shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 be Tree planting to meet rnininmm size standards in City Code and to be selected from the official tree list landscaping to be covered by sa~ finandnl guarantee~ to assure installation and survivaL d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the development. Development of an approved lnnd~cape budget prior to City approval of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fe~ e e ge e 10. 11. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The ~rail segment shall be built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting property and appropriate credit given toward the trail dedication fees. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman Boulevnxd and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public fight-of-way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lymnn Boulevard, or Lak~ Riley Boulevard. The developer shall consmlct all utility and street i .mpmvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff ~-view and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approvaL As a condition of final plat npproval, the applicant shaH be required to enter into a PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. Phnn/ng Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 0e The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be emplo~ to require a buffer strip and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast comer of the si~e, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block S. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades throughout thc subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent grades. Swrm sewers shall be designed and consu'ucted to facih'tate a 10-year storm event. The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the surface wa~ discharge rate from thc subdivision at thc predevclopcd runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with final platting of Phase L The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodal~ the storm runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards the cost of any pond oversi=ing as a result of additional runoff general~ from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be design~ in ~ce to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to exte~ the cul-de-sac to connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat additional road right-of-way along Lake Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The street right-of-way throughout the subdivision shall be/50 feet wide. During the consm~on of each phase, tempor~ turnaro~ shall be provided on all dead end streets which are proposed to be cxtende/L Barricades shall be placed at the end of thc temporary tumaro~s with a sign indicating that "this street shall be extended in the future". The applicant/property owner of Ouflot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Ouflot F ff one currently does not exist or eliminate the issue by relocating the driveway off of the orooer~. 55 Planning Commisdon Meeting - November 17, 1993 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City Council authorizing a public improvement project for the exte~on of trunk utility service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations. 23. The applicant shall provide a 6-inch ~ stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the well and septic system fails. 2~. The applicant shah receive and comply with an pertinent agency per-its i.e Watershed District, Health Department, MPC. A, Willim~ Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC. 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November 15 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and ~ will be constructed yet that year. All disun'bed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Managen~t Practice Handbook for erosion and sediment control 27. Deleted. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the extension of trunk utility improv~ts and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 29.~. Ouflot F shall be platted _as_ a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be bnilt tmon. Reloc~ the driveway for this lot so ~s~ it con _nec~ perp~_ di_cnlnrly to ~e proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable tO the En~n_eaing Department. Back-to-back cul-de-sacs shall be vrovid0/~t ~he Y, iowa Tr~i..'l conn~'tifon, The pavement for the northern cul-de-sac ahnll be in. _~tslled to the proiect ~ llne, A bre~knw~y barric~_d_e 8hnl] be in~tsll_ed to prohibit thro~)?,h tra~c Qn Kiowa Trsi]. The cul-de-sac shall be tempoxary until either nrea ~ents petition ~e CiW to open_ _th_e connection or Highway 212 is con_~ucted at which time p'affic p~__uerns w/ll be chsn?.ed. The city 8hn!! re-evalsmt~_ the Kiowa conn__,~i_'on in respome to the 21~ 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision. 32. Sidews. lks or ped_e~s~sn trgil.,q shs11 be provid_ed connccfin~ l-~ke Riley Bo~_ev~rd snd Lvws_n Boulevard tO B.s. ndim~er~ P~rk, This tr~,.il ~y .~-m shsll include a trsil se_.m~__t built within the 92nd Street fight-of-way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Par~ 33. That the dty and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project to occur along the right-of-ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with Bandimere Park. Ledvina voted in favor and the rest op~. The motion failed with a vote of I to 4. B8~li: I'll state my own reasons for voting against the motion. Obviously I seconded it so I was hopeful that we could take thc connection to Lake Riley Blvd out. Since that stayed in, I voted against it. Otherwise I would vote for it. Also with the understanding that the applicant would work with city staff to try to get some fire hydrants to the people on Lake Riley Blvd. Ladd, your reasons for voting no. Conrad: The small lots. In addition I'm not, we haven't resolved the parking situation for the park now that we've put two back to back cul-de-sacs there. And the fact that I do want to make sure that the Lake Riley is served with water but not connected. Batzli: Okay, Joe. Sco~ Mine was the same as it was last time~ h was the proportion of lots that were quite a bit smaller than our minimums. And then ~ that being...stated as well as the 60 foot easement. 'I3:Lere was no change to the plan so obviously we're up against a financial, you know some financial requirements on the part of the developer and there's no movement so I didn't see anything new so I felt, I did not feel compelled to change. Batzli: Okay. Terry Forbard: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Could we turn up the volume? We can't hear any of the comments here that are being made by almost all members of the Planning Commission. Are the microphones working? Batzli: Yeah... Terry Forbord: I heard Ladd. I did not hear the last comment. 57 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ba~li: Okay, Joe. Can your cpc at? Scott: My last comment was, I didn't change my opinion of the development from last time bccause I saw no ncw information with regard to lot size. Proportion under 15,000 or the plan relative to 60 foot right-of-ways. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I think I've already spelled out in detail my issue on the small lots. The issue of I/iowa. It seems to me that what I would like to see is a dexign relationship between access to that park and even putting a cul-de-sac on Kiowa~ It seems to me that those two issues in that particular area are interrelated in that corner down there. And I haven't been terribly satisfied with, to make an informed decision based on what I've seen in the plan~ Or even options, I would not like to see Kiowa connected unless the residents versus the old new neighborhood issue that I discussed earlier. Unless there was a feeling there that it should be. On the issue of Lake Riley, I think that that a~sin is something, that issue versus the ~ hydrants. The improvement of the hi.way and so on, I think Ladd summed that comment up and I won't repeat it. On the issue of the 15,000 square foot loc I would like to make one more comment. There's a reason why people want to come to Chanhassen to live and it seems that traditional development or traditional development ordinance is looked down upon. It seems to have served this community well. I think also, to me anyway, from what I've seen, irregardless of how I feel about it as a designer, and I think that there's a great deal of information to support city staff on the issue of smaller lots and diversity and so on. There is a clear, I think direction based on the information that we §ot from the community and the information from our elected representatives that this is an issue that we have to give serious consideration to when we go below it. And I don't see where we have the §o ahead to put that aside and I think that it's, if we're here to reflect the interest of the community, I think that if we look at percentages of development, if all our PUD's are goin§ to be 50% under sized or 46% under sized, and we use that as a guide post, it seems to me that we will never see anything but PUD's. Maybe we should just eliminate all the rest of our ordinances. Batzli: Some would say that would be a good thing. Farmakes: Some would. In this particular case, I also am driving hard to find a reason and I don't want to compare this to a traditional development because I haven't seen a traditional development on this piece of property. $o it would be a lot of what the staff report said and what was underlined were the intent statements. They weren't addressed specifically to this piece of property. And some of the statements were ambiguous to me. And if I'm goin§ to vote on something, I think to do it responsibly, it shouldn't be ambiguous. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ba~Ji: Okay, thank you. That motion failed 1 vote for~ 4 votes against We normally- recommend something to the City Council. So is there another motion? Conrad: I recommend denhl of the proposed preliminav] planned nnlt development atrprov~ of 80 acres, rezoning the property zoned A2, Agdculmml Estates to PUD ~ntial and preliminary plat approval to create 134 single family lots. P]snning Case ~)3-6 PUD. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to deny the preliminary PUD is)3-6 of 81)J acres of property to create 135 single family lots, prdiminary plat and rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD-R. AH voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Batzli: I think I made my feelings known career. Matt, did you want to add anything? Ledvina: No. Batzli: Okay. This goes to City Council when7 Krauss: December 13th. Batzli: December 13th. Thank you very much everyone for coming in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 3, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Paul, do you have anything to report from the Director7 Krauss: Well I did...Thc City Council is concerned and upset that the Highway 5 plan has not yet been acted upon- I was not at that meeting but Kate, I think quite rightfully pointed out that we scheduled it 3 times and all 3 times it...l:00 in the morning. She apparently got her head chopped off by the City CounciL_City Council actually asked for a moratorium issue be raised for the third time on Highway 5. So we have a moratorium ordinance coming back 59 Planning Commission Meeting- November 17, 1993 to the City Council on Monday. Now it affects properties in the corridor .... approve that and the Planning Commission probably still won't get to the ordinance, to the plan, because there's a lot of properties outside of the corridor as you saw tonight that's still going until 11:00 or 12:00 at night. What I suggested to them is that they order you to clear several agendas. What we're suggesting is the December 15th one, which I think some of you have been contacted on already. And the second meeting in lanuary which will be a public hearing. We've got the field trip tentatively scheduled for Saturday, December 4th. On the December 15th meeting, some of you asked that if we do that, if we hold it earlier. We'd be more than happy to do that. Have dinner for everybody and have a real work session where it's the only topic on there. We could start at 6fl)0 if that works for you alL But that's what the City Council is anglin§ to do one way or the other. Other than that, I don't know what else. I mean cverything... Batzli: City Council's angling to do, I missed that. What gte they going to do? Krauss: Well they're angling one or the other. I mean they want to get the plan acted upon and every time a development comes up, in the corridor, even though we make sure it's conforming to the corridor plan, the mere fact that it rears it's ugly head without the plan being adopted, we take hits on that so. Scott: Well I know and I remember with that Centex development Farwske, s: That was the one that precipitated it. Scott: Right. And there were enough knowledgeable people who know about the Highway 5 study and what's e~ and the study areas and the architectural requiremeats. I was extremely surprised because as part of the public record there were some very specific discussions about what the requirements were. And the developer specifically asked for some guidance, which I know Jeff and Nancy were able to give some but. Farmakes: I think that the issue here and if, we made the comments I flfink at the last meeting in regards to the Centrex development. The issue I think is when we had thc meeting, or discussion afterwards we talked about the issue of loading up for so many of these developments and getting enough time. Having been through that thing for 2 years with Paul, it is not something we're going to cover in a meeting. And by the time we get to it it's 11:00 and obviously we've got to take a different direction and I'm open to whatever you suggest to address that issue but it will take a long time to a~irnils~ this amount of infommtion. Batzli: Well I view this as no less ~t than the co ,mpreh~ve plan and it's going to Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 take that kind of an effort. I really think Paul that you have to kind of take the bull by the horns and start scheduling meetings as you did with the comp plan and we're just going to have work meetings and work our way through it and we can't possibly do it starting at 11:00 after these meetings. buss: No. That's clear. The problem is schednling woddng those. It's gotten to the point where there's no nights left in the week to do a special meeting. I mean Monday night I had a special meeting for the City CoundL Two of them. Tonight I had a TH 101 meeting. A Highway 101 before t~i.~ tonight. Next week we have Tree Board this and it's getting impossible to find nights to do it which is why I'm asking the City Council, see I don't have, I have the authority to bun~ an item if it's half cocked and we don't have enough information to deal with it but otherwise I'm obligated to process a development proposals we receive in a consistent manner. That's why I'm asking the City Council for the authority to say no. You'll just have clear agendas and nothing else will happen. Farrnakes: Are you looking for support from us to send a let~ on or...? Krauss: I kind of assumed we had it. Farmolre~: We touched on that at the last meeting. I asked you how long it took to tam around these things and maybe they have to wait longer. I mean it seemed to me ~ you mm around these things far faster than many of the other things that happen. Batzli: I really think if I could comment on that. We are getting more and more and more last minute thingy's from developers, the neighbors, everybody and it does you guys no good and it does us guys no good to be getting letters written the same day that you haven't even seen yet. And if that means that you have to put out the packets a week and a half in advance but slow down the process so that you at least get feedback from the developer and then, you know whatever it takes because this is ludicrous. This is really silly and I think these roles need to be examined as far as forcing you guys to get it out in 24 hour turn around and then suddenly the developer couw~ in at the last hour and says, oh by the way. We disagree with 8 points and they stand up there and try to go over each one of them with us without having talked to you guys. Scott: Well and the thing is, and I told the fellow from the engineering firm. I said if I was rtmning this meeting, I would have tabled your item irnm_~_i~ly for laying that on the Planning Commission and wasting time. But you know I fully support the idea of cleating the agendas. Sitting down and starting at 6:00 and working through the Highway 5. I believe it's extremely important and just on that issue, I don't see any reason why we can't make a requirement that if there's going to be anything that's going to be discussed at a 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Plal~ning Commission meeting, that it needs to be presented to the city staff 48, 72, however many hours before the Planning Commission meeting and we will not take into consideration any documentation presented other than with that kind of a lead time. Because I personally rely very heavily on what the city staff has to say about things, although obviously I can make some decisions on my own but you can't matt to it. We can't react to it. Batzli: And L if you have a neighbor coming in giving US something at th~ last minute, I don't mind thaC That's a different issue. It's the developer coming in with all sorts of conditions that they don't agree with. I assume they got their package on Friday or Sattuday if they had to go pick it up, just like we did. Krauss: We've been trying to, I mean we've been telling them certainly. Lundgren knows this. That thc packet's are printed Thursday and Friday. In many cases we've taken it upon ourselves to fax it to them so it doem't get...or we ask them to stop by and pick it up. Balzli: But you know, it seems for some reason that we're getting more and more and mare of these last second letters from the, I suppose what's happening is Lundgren's picking it up Friday. They send it over to their engineers and their engineers sit on it for a day and then they type it up and revise it. By the time they get it it's Wednesday but then there's something wrong with the system that they haven't had. ample time to respond and sit down and _m~ to you guys about it. , KraUSs: And I don't have a good answer for you Brian, I mean lifts last week we put out 4 packets. And people were here until 5:00-5:30 on Friday to get them out. Batzli: And I'm not saying it's your fault. That's not it at all Krauss: Well I know but you kind of get at your wits end you know. Do we spend our time on this special nwxting or do we try to meet with thc developer 3 weeks in advance? Batzli: Well you have to do it in real time. There's always going to be additional information coming in and so it's silly to say well, the report's going to be generated 2 weeks early because you know, a lot can happen in 2 weeks. But on thc other hand there has to be some rule of reason here so that we don't sit there and listen to these guys read this letter to US that you guys have never seen. I mean this is jUSt, this wasted 40 minutes tonighL And it could have been something that you guys could have said, we have no problem with anything they said. Now in this case there were problems but we've had people do that before. So and also in this case, the fact that we didn't approve it, I didn't want to table it. You know what's the point of having them come back a third time if we're not going to like what they did. But you know, in any event I would like to see, in all your spare time you examine 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 those rules and propose s~g so that this doesn't happem And whether you propose it to us or the City Council is no never mind to me other than it's not wofldng quite fight. And I would also, to the extent we have to make a resolution, a non-binding resolution, I would like us to recommend to the City Council that they do whatever it takes to do, for you to clear your personal docket and half of Kate's or whatever it's going to lake, so that we can get the Highway 5 deal done. They can't keep on loading you up with meetings and then scream and shout that we haven't looked at something. In any event. Because our rules are we don't go past 11:00. Well we've been going until 12:00, 1:00. It will be quarter aft~ by the time we get out of here wnight. And so it's not like we're not doing the job or that you're not doing the job. There's no time given our ~t constraints. Ledvina: I second that. Batzli: Okay. Last but not least we were going to talk about goals and everybody was going to bring their modified list of what they thought was i ,mportant. We didn't have our ongoing dealy bob in our packet this week. Krauss: Well actually. Batzli: Was it? Did I miss it? Krauss: It was given. .. socrelary. It was delivered late I think Baizli: Deliv~ late? Krauss: It was supposed to be. When she was putting out these four packets on Friday, she realized that thc back 2 or 3 pages of my stuff fell out and then Sharmin was going W... Batzli: Well in any event, my point was that several of us didn't have it so we couldn't do our little organizational deal and so if you can give us all one of those, I would like. to do that next time to kind of look at our goals and at least chat about it for a few minutes to see if something's important to us. Because I know things are and we may not have a lot to say about it but to the extent we're concerned citizens of Chanhassea and we put in long hours for no pay, the Council should at least be somewhat willing to listen to what we think is important. Krauss: You know the Council, they do have an annual...Planning Commission. Tt3ring to get, I get the goals and the work stuff, the ongoing wozk program to the Council during the budget session and trying to get feedback from them on that is like pulling teeth. I mean very rarely do I get any direction at all In fact last time it happened was 2 years ago when 63 Pla~ug Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 · the Mayor said he wanted an ordinance to regulate sexually orient~ businesses. Batzli: And we proceeded to sit on it. Farmakes: We sat on it until thc Supreme Couxt... Batzli: Yeah, yeah. Well we were sitting on it for a reason. We were cogitating. Ledvina: It was a lot to get through. It was a thick ordinance. buss: There's all sons of things that we just haven't been getting to. I mean the whole issue of the B F district. South Chan. Farrnakes: Well if the problem when you open the MUSA obviously is that it's a supply and demand situation. We have a finite amount of people working for the city. We have a finite amount of time to review this stuff. We don't seem to have a, we seem to have an in~nite amount of applications for developnumt so it seems to me that the crux of that issue is the amount of time it takes us to turn this stuff around. I should say you because you and your staff do it. Balzli: Well but he's had turn over his staff recently and they've been given a lot of new things recently, in addition to the development. The Tree Board. Your dealy bob down in the ravine to get the funds. I ~ all this stuff. Swamp. Technical lin-ms. Krauss: ...that throw you for a loop is all of a sudden I found myself rnnning this organized collection program. And I come back to my office after one of the meetings and I've got 26 irau~ phone calls on my voicemail. And those kinds of things kill your week re, al quickly. It's nothing new but it just makes it real tough. Batzli: $o the~ were 26 people that kind of navigated their way through the phone voicemail system. That was pretty good. I've got to get your direct dial number one of these days. Kranss: 117. Batzli: Oooh, on tape. Conrad: Are we going to get a schedule for the Highway 5? If we're going to push this Highway 5 thing through, shouldn't we have a schedule? Batzli: I tbinir we should have a schedule. E~ent suggestion. I'm glad you brought it up. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Krauss: What we're working on right now is the 15th is a spec~ rmefing. Conrad: I'd like a written schedule. This is what we do. When we do it. And I'd like that to go to the City Council. Ledvina: Review chapters 2 thru 3 or 2 thru 5 or whatever. Batzli: I would just schedule them. I mean literally. People will show up if you give a schedule, ff every time we sit there and m~lre, phone calls, playing phone ta~ trying to figure out who's going to come. If you just give us a schedule of every second week, third week, whatever it's going to be of at this time we're ~g, people will come. We'll make time and we'll come. Scott: Or every other Planning Commim'on m~g starts at 6:00. Krauss: What we're looking at doing is one or two special meetings plus the trip and then public hearing. Batzli: Pardon me7 Krauss: One to two. Probably two. The 15th and maybe one special meeting and then our tour of thc corridor. That should, I mean it's not earth shatm/ng stuff. I ~ half the commission sat on it. B~_t~.li: We've gone over a lot of this before but wc haven't gone over the particular plan that they've come up with. I mean some of us on the commission at least looked at this pretty heavily even dining the comprehensive plan. Krauss: Riiht. Ba~zli: So you know, it won't be all new but clearly what they've done is new. How they've tied it all together. So it's going to take a while, I agree. But give us a schedule. I agree with that. Is there a motion to adjourn7 Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meetin~ AH voted in fhvor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjoum~ at 11:11 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director 5:5 Planing Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Prepared by Nan- Opheim 66