The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 1993 12 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 1993 Chairman Ba~li called the public hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Diane Harbem, Ladd Conrad, loc Scott. left Fannak~ and Nancy Mancrino MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Ledvina STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director;, Kate Aanenson, Senior Plannec, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer, and Bob Generous, Planner Il CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Number 1, which was to have a public heating tonight will not be heard, and that's the application by Lotus Realty Services and Bloomberg Companies. Is that fight Kate? Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: So if you're here for the first item, that will not be heard tonight. That's been pulled from our agenda. So we're going to move onto the second item. We're going to wait for just a few minutes because there may be some people who thought that it would be starting a little bit later than it will but so what we're probably going to do is ask for the Director's Report from our Planning Director first and then we'H hold the public hearing for the conceptual PUD development where the applicants are Boyers, So having said that, I'll give you a brief intro. We are the Chanhassen Planning Commission. We're it group of Chanhassen residents appointed by the City Council and Mayor to hear land use and other zoning issues. We do not make the final decisions. Rather those decisions are made by the City CounciL We make recommendations to the City Council so we encourage everyone to follow their issue, regnrdless of which way we go here tonight. Follow that issue up to the City CounciL Having said that, as I indicated, we'll be delaying the public hendng momentarily on the second item and Paul, if you want to give ns the Planning Director's report first, why don't you do that. Krauss: Sure. At the November 22nd Council meeting the following actions were taken. The idea of impo.~ng a moraWrium on the Highway 5 Corridor was discussed for I believe the third time. Staff continues to indicate that the Planning Commission's lack of getting the Highway 5 plan was not for lack of deske but just for lack of time and that.in order to get to it. I also pointed out to the City Council that a moratorium on Highway 5 wouldn't stop most of the development proposals we're getting from corning in because most of them azen't coming in from Highway 5. At your last meeting and tonight's being a good case in point. Phnning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 $o they agreed with our proposal that we should clear several agendas. They gave us the authority to clear your December 15th agenda and your second meeting in January and I've outlined the schedule where we've got a proposed special meeting for the Planning Comrnission in January if we need it. They also pretty well told me ff I need to clear any other agendas, just to go do it. If it takes longer than that but they do want to get. Mancino: Tonight? Krauss: They do want to get the plan on their desks by February, and I said I thought that was a goal that we could meet. Most of the Planning Commission, many of you are already familiar with it. It's a matter of getting input and passing it on. Af~ they decided not to impose a moratorium, the concept plan for the Centex PUD, which is the 232 unit townhouse development on Highway 5 and Galp~ was approv~ There was an additional condition attached to it that bas/cally said we're approving the concept but don't come back until Highway ~5 is a done deal and the plan's in place. Basically a similar impo. sition was placed on Opus last year and we anticipate a similar one might be, we're getting another development proposal on the area between McGlynn's and Bluff Creek and the school site and we believe that that's going to be subject to the same limitations. They already moved the PUD concept for 190 single family townhouse dwelling units for Tandem Properties, Mission Hills down by the new 212 corridor and TH 101 was approved. There was some tinkering, minor tinkering with the conditions. There was some concern about the furore commercial. Councilman Senn added...auto related uses and I said well that's fine but I think the council really ought to take a look at the bigger picture because there's quite a bit of commavially identified as zoned property around thc four quadrants of that interchange and they agreed that that's something that should be looked at and along with the TH 101 aligmnent study that they're doing, they ask~ Fred HoisingWn and myself to tackle a...to re- examine the land use development...The last thing of interest to the Planning Commission that was on there was we had a lengthy discussion about the tree preservation plans for Lake Susan Hills 9th and Trotters Ridge. As I think we made you aware, there's signifwant problems that have developed in enforcing the tree preservation plan. These were pmje~ that went beyond where we've ever gone before with the tree preservation and they were well intenfioned efforts but they did cause pretty significant problems with odmlni~ttion and... The City Council agreed that some modifications should be rn~de to these development contracts. They authorized me to negotiate what,er I needed to do to do it but they also said that to the extent that additional trees are going to come down that weren't anticipated to be removed when the projects were originally approved, that if additional trees come down, it needs to be replaced... Mancino: One to one repot? Planning Commission Meeting - ~ber 1, 199'3 Krauss: That's my undcrsumding. Well by caliper inch. So the developer does has some flexibility but it comes at a price.. .We 'll have to see how that moves along. On a non- Council item, we are trying to get together and create what we're calling the Bluff Creek initiative which is a multi-agency approach, locally based and will involve..Anvolve residents to plan for the fact, and hopefully recreationally utilize thc Bluff Creek corridor. This is a new initiative. It's a new concept that's been developed by the DN1L What's unique about it is it brings a lot of different agencies on linc at the same time so you're working from the same book. And we're going to be putting together a grant applicant for LA2MR funding, which is the lottery money. We're going to be getting that together and submitting to them at the end of Sanuary. It's a competitive process. It's a political process but we think having a lot of agencies on board...and hopefully we'll be successful with that And long term too, I think it opens the door to substantial implementation funding. I mean planning funding is often times easy to get but it readly doesn't accomplish a whole lot except.but this will allow us to get in line...dollars to acquire land to reforest, to protect areas, to build trails, to build watrz quality basins, and really take an overall Batzli: What lines would we be getting into7 Krauss: What? Batzli: What lines are we getting into? Implementation. You said that would allow us to get into line. Do you have something in mind? Someone's going to help us buy it? Krauss: Well actually yeah. There arc clean water action grants. There is funding available for the Watershed District that's as~ on a whole district basis. One of the more interesting funding concepts came about from the Metro Cotmcfl. I won't go inw detail but it involves the settlement of what would have been a lawsuit between the Metro Waste Control Commission...National Environmental Protection Agency where because it's the Metro Council because it's the State of Minnesota is making progtess...clean-llp the Minnesota River, and because the metro region doesn't want to pay $400 or $500 million to upgrade thc sewer plants on thc Minnesota River for...water quality, they're saying tqne. But they want the region to pay $10 roillinn into a fund to do water quality izrq~vement projects in thc lower Minnesota River basin. Well, we arc in thc lower Minnesota River Basin and we're one of the best...community's taking an activist position in protecting our environmental feattu~ and we think we stand a good chance of being at the head of that line for some of that funding. So we're very hopcfid with that. Thc last thing I wanted to mention is, thus far we've had 4 or 5 applicants for the open positions on the Planning Commission. We had a staff meeting today and we think what we're going to do is schedule the interviews, if it works out for people, towards the end of our Highway 5 meeting on the lSth so that we get a good mce~g in place and get them schedulcd...welL or 8:30 in that kind of a time~'ame so Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 we can get the productive part of the ~g out of the way and then when we get tired of talking about Highway S, then we...so that's possibly the way it will end up. Mancino: And each interview is 1S minutes7 Krauss: Typically... Batzli: Okay. We didn't have any Minul~s this time around? Krauss: Well the Minutes, you know because our meetings are going so late and Nann is doing so many Minutes for so many of our commissions, and it was a short week, there was just no way to get them out. We have the Minutes in the office. I could have given them to you tonight but I didn't think that would be... Scott: Well I think it's imp~t to, since the development was denied on TH 101 s_nd Lyman, I think it's important that the n'embcrs of the City Council get those lVfinutcs so they can see some of that reasoning because my guess, yeah my guess is they're going to see that on their agenda. Krauss: Yeah. We have them in hand. The Council packet does not go out until next week. Week after that. So they'll certainly have them. Mancino: I would also like to get a copy because I wasn't here for that meeting and I'd like to hear the rationale. Aanenson: They'll be in the next packet. Krauss: Unless you'd like it in advance of the Council meeting. Mancino: Yeah, that'd be great. Krauss: Well why don't we mail it out... Batzli: Okay. Was that thc end of your report Paul? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Moving right along. Commission Meeting - December 1, 19~ PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ~ LAND U~. DESIGNATION FROM RF~IDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO _~$mE_NTI~I. I~H~DIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPTI~AL PLANNED UNIT DEVI~I~}PMI~_~ FOR ~ SINGI.~ FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13A7 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONF_~D RSF AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN wA~qHTA BAY ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE~ SPINNAKER WHARF~ BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION. Pubfic Present: Name AOdre~ Bruce Hubbard Bob Boycr Dave Truax Tom & Ann Metz Joe Boyer John Boycr John Blumentritt Kelly Sheehan Janis Bremer Alan Tollefson Don Sueker St~we Hall Jim & Jo Ginther Sue Fiedlcr 2841 Washta Bay 5020 Suburban Drive 4879 Drake Street 3201 Dartmouth 3630 Virginia Avenue, Decphavea 16601 Meadowbrook Lane, Wayzata 22720 Galpin Lane, Shorewood 29151 Washta Bay Road 2961 Washta Bay Road 2931 Washta Bay Road 3111 Darlmouth Drive 6221 Arbor Lane 3131 DarUnouth Drive 3121 Darunouth Drive Kate Aanenson present! the staff report on this item. Batzli: This is a conceptual PUD so we're not necxasaffiy looking at this exact configuration. But in this case, is it required that we vote to rezone or have some sort of finding8 that this would be a good PUD site? And this isn't currently zoned PUD, correct? Aanenson: Correct. You have to, the way the PUD ordinance says, in order to do a zero or cluster you have to have medium density. So what we're recording is as a part of this if you felt comfortable with that, to recommend change to the PUD ordinance to allow cluster or zero lot line in the single family zone. Maucino: And reduce the lot size and the minimum to 5,000. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Aanenson: Well, yeah in a cluster situation. Krauss: But this is a concept. You're not being asked to take any formal action on that tonight at the concept. Your concept st~s are optional but they're the point in the process that you can give a lot of guidance to the developer of telling them that there's no way that you're going to proceed or telling them to proceed with modifications or tr~ing them it's perfect the way it is. It's really a fact finding level in the plan approval progrm~ $o that's, you're giving guidance on that wnight. You're not being asked to take fomml action. Batzli: Normally it troubles me when we change our ordinance like this when one project comes in. I assume that, have you looked at other instances in the city where something like this would be done and does it make sense? I mean you've guided us through one other one that occured, maybe or maybe not under this current PUD ordinance. Aanenson: We. Il thc obvious imp~~ is once you do thag you're going to have requests from a lot of people to do that. I mean that's the first thing that has to...come in for 5,000 square foot lots. But I think what you're going to have to look at is, what we're tqAug to say with this one too is what's exactly, are you getting more nnits? V~/hat you're getting is clustering of units and more open space. I don't think we're increasing the total number of units that can be built in this project. What we're doing is we're clusm~g them at the...opea space and again, afl~ you approve it, you can still deny any specific project just like you've done with the other project. You just said you felt it didn't meet the merits of the PUD. So we go through that same process. Batzli: Well what troubles me, and I'm just talking out loud here, so I hope I don't foam at the mouth. Is that if you're going to build an upscale development like this, you're not going to situate the units fight on Highway 7. You can't build in the wetlands and there's ordinances on how close you can build to the lake. $o have we really clustered the units here given this style of development? ICrauss: Well, you can play devil's advocate here and I don't like being cast in the role of the devil, and so many developers would want to do, .they show you the worst case situation. But you could get, it's very conceivable that you would get a developer doing standard single family subdivision, straight 15,000 square foot lots. Sam some of them up against the highway. You can do that. You don't have any regulation against it. The lot just has to be a little deeper. They probably wouldn't be very nice lots. They probably wouldn't be very expensive homes but drive down the highway. You see people that have done just that. And then you would plop in your home where you could live. As Kate points out, the net density in this thing is no different than if you went with the standard single family subdivision. If you distribute the buildable area here. Not the wetlands. Not the lakes. If you distribute the Pla~niug Commi~ion Meeting- ~ber 1, 1993 buildable area here amongst the units that they have, they're in excess of 15,000 square feet units. Clearly these are not 15,000 square foot lots. They're much smaller lots. Everything else in held in common. There are large green spaces. A lot of the site's untouched and we think that yes...clustering. And it's substanthd clustering. Farmakes: If they're considering the channel to be shoreland, is the lake setback then applying to that channel? Krauss: Yes it would. They're not considering, they would prefer not to I suppose. We got a read from the DNR that the DNR considers it shareland. Farmakes: Okay. But what I'm saying is then, there's a setback then that goes all the way around that channel, correct? Mancino: A~g to the DNR. Farmakes: So if there's a setback on the lot line to the, let's see that wonld be to the easL How would you build on that property anyway? Traditional or PUD or otherwise. What would it be 50 feet? 100 feet? Krauss: On this site? Farmakes: Yeah. You need an access road to get there. Krauss: Yeah, it's on the floor there and I think they'll show it to you. Now when we reviewed that early draft we pointed that out to them. That the units that ~ had shown on the east side of the channel were probably not legitimate units _and when they went back in everything else. Farmakes: So I'm looking at that with the se~ and an access road and a setback from the lot line, and they can still get a house in there. Or are you saying that they could not? Krauss: On the cast side of the channel? Fannnkes: Well on this side of thc drawing. I'm looking at. Krauss: My side over here? Farmakes: It would be the east, yes. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: No, we don't think. The...if there are any bnilding sites on the east side, they're minimal. Farmakes: So PUD, traditional or othezwise, would preclud~ any b~ild~8 on that area7 Mancino: We could build there is what you're saying? Aanenson: Or you go through, I mean it's weflat~ If you alt~r it and that is ag urban wetland which we...city proc~ to go through the wetland al~on. Scott: How would you access that via a street? Krauss: That was one of the problems they had with the street connection to the east. It became impractical to do it. However, it wouldn't be the first time and if you really wanted w push it, yeah. You build a privat~ drive through the ag urban weOand 8nd you mitigate what you can take out of the wetland to get there. It's been done. In fact you just r~ri~ at your last meeting I think. Batzli: Sanda's. Krauss: To access the island. Farmakes: Is there a mad currently there? I'm assuming not. Okay, so it would have to access someone else's property then to cross over to get them? Krauss: It would be easier to access across somebody's property. Otherwise they have to build something through that ag urban wetland. Farmakes: Well, and the upper part is wetland. I'm looking for some open area behind the ordinary high water mark and I'm somewhat ~g what he's saying. The only really open area of the lot is filled with development and can you point out to me what, by using a PUD here you feel that we're opening up. Krauss: Well I'd like the devclopcr to do thcir presentation. I mean I can stand hcre. Farmak~: I'm assuming this was pan of your discussion when you had this. Krauss: Yeah, there wcre substantial common space located along Highway 7 and in the northwest corner, down along the lakeshore itself and then there's some common areas behind some of the units. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant have a presen~on for thc Planning Commission? If you could come up and give us your name and address and who you're representing for the John Blumentri~ Members of the Planning Commi~ion of Chanha~en, my name is John Blumentritt with Boyer Bnilding Corporation and I am the individual that ~ this area site plan that we're about to review. First of all I wish to thank Kate Aaneuson and the planning staff because we did go through a tremendous arno~nt of differenc..but it seems like as we look at right now we have a well constructed report in that we really only have several concerns that seem to...and yet to be ~solved. But we appreciate the Planning Comrni_ssion and it's recommendation for approval Now as we look at the site plan, and I'll just step around for a moment to show you this. One more ~ again. Highway 7 is on the north side. Thc shores of Minnewashta are on the south side. Arbor Lane is at this point. It's labeled Arbor Drive. It's Arbor Lane. Onto Dartmouth and that's forming the access and then Washta Bay Road is on the easterly side. Not including the channel of course, as mentioned, this site is 13.47 acres of property. For a moment pkase let me give the Planning Commission a brief history on how Boyer Building Corporation an'ived at the Woposal you're about to review. As Mr. Krauss had mentioned, during the past summer we prep~ a sketch of the site plan containing 37 units. Let me just put that up for a moment Wo ff I can. Once this sketch was developed, we requested a meeting with Mr. Krauss and asked him to pedorm a conceptual review. At that meeting Mr. Krauss and other members of the planning staff had very guarded concerns indicating that the wetlands and the shoreland ardinances and the boating and other issues may pop up and of course they didn't want to discourage us from pursuing this thing but they reminded us that there definitely were some things that we needed to have resolved that obviously there's a series of other regulaWry agencies that would have some say in this thing. And that was fine. We wanted to just test the waters and get a feel of what that might be. During the Parade of Homes we have another subdivision that you can see the photographs down on the floor, that's called Gideon Cove over in Shorewood. What we wanted to do was use thi, one, if you would, as a test balloon because the units over at Shorewood, the e ,rnl~y nester homes that we have there, sold out. So what we decided to do was to put this site plan up and inquire with some of the people that came through of it's viability and we wanted to test the market. We did want to see if there was some appeal to this as a potential home site. We had indicated on a no pressure ba~ that if peuple were to be interested, if this was something that may appeal to them, would they please sign our guest register. Again, it would be something that we'd keep them casually informed as thh went through the planning process and indeed it became a reality, that we would be in much with them. We have over 100 different names sign our register. I guess that concluded our mafl~t study. We refined this 37 unit proposal Went back to the planning commission and fortunately then we found out all the difl~culities we were about to incur. We had a choice. It was either refine the dedgn and resolve all the regulatory agency Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 issues or limit the number of units and don't infringe on the sensitive areas, So then we went back to the drawing board one more time and that's this that you're about to look at. With several more atmnpts we finally arrived at a conceptual plan. That plan that you see of Spinnaker Wharf. And now as we move to the present we have several issues. When designing Spinnaker Wharf several extrerr~y hnpormnt characteristic~ and criteria needed to be resolved. Because the design is exclusively desi~ for em?ty nester lif~le, the urgency of clustering and the demand for security and low maintenan~ were of paramount importance. Issue B. The cun-ent comprehensive plan does not allow for clustering of residences in a low density residential area. Even though our development is well within the 1.2 to 4 units per acre criteria. The negative presence, or Ixsue C. The negative presence of Highway ? and the noisy effec~ generated from 17,000 to 19,000 cars per day definitely is a big concern. Issue D. The existing of the wetlands on the site. We were instmaed by Mr. Krauss to use the Chanhassen wetlands inventory delineation for planning purposes, or to hire a wetlands consultant. We selected for expediency the Chanhassen map. The wetlands to the southwest side of the ~, that's here, is 4.2. I'm sorry, is .42 acres desigl~s~d as a natural wetland and presently appears as a cattail mat. The channel wetland is something else, and that we need to very seriously evaluate, and I mean very seriously. The channel wetland is created from surface draina~ storm water culverts that protrude at the northwest and the northeast side of the site. And again I'll show you where those are. Up at this point and then there's one underneath this area that comes through there. These culverts were installed during the construction of Highway 7. From the north side of Highway ? through the drainage ditches, through the culverts, now comes fertilizers, chemicals, salts, topsoil runoff and other untreated sediment. These effects rocket down the drainage ditches and into the channel and ultimately into Lake l~4innewashtlL To call this even an ag wetland is unbelievable because in reality it's a lot worse than that. Other issues existed but let us now mm to our solutions that this present. Solution #1. With the existence of 26 units on an approximately 13./5 acre site, the density is less than 2 units per acre gross. Well within the lower range of the low density residential limits. We are confident that this solves the density and the uaffic issues. Solution g2. By allowing the clustering of homes, we can now create the benefits of empty nester living. Architectural integrity, common association, privately maintained streets, consisting of ground maintenance and neighborhood secmity. Solution//3. The clustering allows us not to distrub the shoreline area or the existing wetlands. This proposal does not invade the wetlands and leaves mnple land for buffering to the wetlands. Solution//4. With strategically placed NURP ponds and an internal storm sewer, this developmem will enhance the current adverse ground water effects. The site plan is an effort to encourage environmental sensitivity by using NURP ponds, by using internal storm sewers, by using curbs, gutters and topography. -Treating the runoff water enhances the water quality before it enters into Lake Minnewashta. There is one negative. To call on Boyer Building Corporation to pay for the internal runoff generated from this development is fair. To call for us to pay, or to plan, install and pay for runoff generated from neighboring 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 properties, Highway 7 and the neighborhood of Shorew0od is not fair. This is an issue that will need further review and it is our intent to continue this with the planning staff, with MnDot and with the city of Shorewood. Lastly I'd ~ us to turn to page 11 of the staff report and go through the list of recommended items on this report. Item number 1. As mentioned, we will work with the staff regarding the drainage system but understand serious financial issues still exist. Item number 2, the development agreement is fine. We have no problem with that at all. Item 3, it is also understood. Grading, drainage and utility plans and specifications will be provided during this planning process. Item number 4. The 24 foot wide instead of 20 foot wide street may be acceptable. This appears inigally to be excessive blacktopping especially if item 10, the fire marshal's letter which calls for no street parking prevails. We will continue to investigate this matter with the staff. Item 5. The tmm around at the end of Dartmouth is not desirab~, nor do we see that as being acceptable. We will continue this issue with the slxff and present a reasonable solution at the tn~Aiminary level of the PUD hearing. Item 6. Rather than engaging a wetland specialist to look at the channel, our preference is to acknowledge the channel runoff is a serious concern. Until a walrr system is constructed, thia matlrr will worsen. Our preference is to move along expeditiously and get this matter resolved. So let us together engage our engineers and assemble the construction documents and get _this water sysU~m done. Itern 7. With the current site plan, we doubt if we infringe on several of these areas and agencies but it is our concern and we will resolve the necessary permitting. Item 8. The soil and en~neering, that's obvious. That does need to be done and we agree that that is a critical issue to resolve. Item number 9. The building official compliance. Again, that is very accepm~. Item 10. The fire marshal's compliance needs in~tion but we plan on wanting to resolve this...Item 11. I want to divert this issue to Robert Boyer in a moment, but please allow me to finish just these last final items. It~n 12, removal of the house. That's fine. We have no problem with that either. Item number 13. Amendment of the PUD ordinance, that's great. We love that one a lot. We hope that happens. Item number 14. The q~nlity of the existing trees will be inventoried and incorpoml~ at the lowest cost. We don't feelt he wetland revegetation plan is called for because we will not be disturbing that that already exists. We will provide a final landscaping plan for approval to the staff, to the Planning Commiasion and to the City Council during thia PUD process. Item 15. Dm'lng our investigations we found, or we now find a problem with what is desi~~ as trail fees. While no clear plan seems to exist, we feel perhaps a better solution would be to inform the future homeowners that a future assessment of $200.00 will be charged once the trail plan is put into effect Thia we feel wo~ld be far more equitable. As we summarize our site plan design, it's our belief the plan functions extremely well and presents many benefits and advantages but we have to leave this decision to your's. We hope that the planning staff will agree with all of the members who have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this project. That it is a good project. Thank you very much and at thi.~ point I'm going to turn thia one item over to Bob Boyer. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay, thank you. Bob Boycr: Once again my name is Bob Boyer. I reside at ~020 Suburban Drive in Shorewood. I think the reason John requested that I address the docldu~ issue is simply from the slandpoint that I'm a former resident out there. I used to live on the property. In fact the property directly west of this development was developed by my father, Joe Boycr and this area over here was where we resided for many years. So intims_t,-.ly aware of the lake and I think some of the concerns of the individuals here too that probably will speak to thi, particular issue. So rather than get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, what i'd prefer to do is, ! think this is a public hearing isn't it? Batzli: Yes it is. Bob Boycr: Defer to those people who have come to discuss the issue and let them discuss what's bccn said up to this time. Then as the dockage .issue becomes an issue of concern, we can talk about that in mare detail Batzli: I would actually prefer that, if you have an argument as to why you don't agree with the staff report, that you provide it now because otherwise we're going to get into a back and forth thing where residents want to say something and then they haven't heard what you have to say in support of more docks. So if you could at least briefly provide us the skeWhy details of, if you do have an argument or you are requesting more dock spaces, that you tell us that now before I open it up for the public. Bob Boyer: Alright. I guess suffice to say we do have some concern about what I feel is a fairly arbitrary method for establishing the 12 units, or 12 docks on the lakeshore. Ca'minly as the staff has mentioned in the report, the Nropa'ty has in excess of 1,900 linear feet of lakesho~. The DNR required, at a certain amount of distress for us, we had to live within the constraints of that 1,900 lineal feet of lakeshore in the process of planning the development. We would like as well the benefit of that, to be able to use that for the recreational advantage of the people that are going to be living there. In certain respects I guess I see myself not only as a developer, I'm concerned about our investment here. But also an advocate for those people, those 26 homeowners that are going to be living on the property, when I say that we just wanted to be treated fairly. Because we're the last guys on the block so to speak and everybody else has got their docks and got their lakeshorc, I guess our concern is that we use the framework that's in place and the ordinances that are in place to allow us to have the dockage that I believe we deserve to have. We req~ 26 docks and I believe that was, that's a fair amount and a fair figure. We went through a number of different methods with which to calculate the dockage that we requested. One which is the simplest, which I understand probably does not apply but it gives a sense of density at least, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 is this one dock per 75 feet of lakeshore, If you use that particular calcuflafions, which I believe is the calculations proposed by the Deparunent of Nat~al Resources and used on single family residences, that would arrive at 26 boats. Precisely what we reco~ using. The staff has used in their report a recommendation of provi_',~ing dockage for 6 boats along that lakeshore. That would, with 3 boats per dock, would allow dockage far 18 boats. We feel it's fair that if we're considering lakesh~ dockage, of 6 boats along the lakesh~ that we also allow if this was in fact a single family development, there would also be half acre, 75 foot frontage lots, along the pennlnsula as weli. And since that is considered lakeshore, that there would also be an additional 7 homesites in that location. So with 6 homesites and 7 homesites, we're talking approximately 13 single family, contiguous lakeshore homesites. That would provide in the upper range of 39, ultimately we could have 39 boats. And we're just not asking for that. We're just asking that you give every resident in the development, 26 individuals, or homes, an oppommity to use the lake and to enjoy the lake. I guess that's our viewpoint. Farmakes: I have a question. Is the pwpeny currently t~,ed at 1,900 feet of lakeshore? Bob Boyer: I believe it is, yes. It's desi~ lakeshore. Farmakes: Is the prope~ value figured at 1,900 l~mn|ng feet of shoreline? Bob Boyer: I'm not sure from a property, I gue~ dad you'd have to address that. I presume that the valuation of the property is based upon the lakeshore that's there. Joe Boyer: We pay our taxes ~ing to the city assessments, and that's... Bob Boyer: I'm not sure when the assessor comes out and assesses the pwpa'ty, that he necessarily says that this is hkeshore or isn't lakeshore. I'm not sure he's actually gone to the effort of finding that out. Certainly if this were phtted out as single, ar half acre lois, people fronting the existing channel would be considered lakeshore owners. I don't have any doubt of that. Farmakes: The County mx assessor has a formula for calculating lakeshore and assessing the value to the pwperty based on nmning feet for each lake in this city. And that's why I brought it up as a question, and I'm sure that that is calculated based on occasion to access a wetland area and not necessarily usable shoreline. And the reason I ask is what, was the county assessing that ~, were they using the 1,900 feet as a rule for valuating the propa'ty curnmfly. I undersland the DNR aud I read the staff report in that regard aud I just, it seems like, I'd ~ to know if other government agencies here are also towing in line with the 1,900 feet... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - Decem~ 1, 199~ Bob Boyer: I'm son'y, I don't have an answer for you on that. F~nnak~: Okay, thank you. Mancino: I have a couple questions. The existing channel is deep enough to get in docks and boats? In that chsnnel. Bob Boyer: Yeah. In fact people do oft~ times take their boats down through there. It's a spot where people who fish, so you can traverse it with a boat. Mancino: And if you live at number 21, to get to your dock, your dock out in the channel, don't you have to go. Bob Boyer: Right h~? Mancino: Yeah. To the west of the channel You have to go through wetlands to get to the dock, correct? Muck and peat. Bob Boyer: There would be wetlands right in this area, that's correct And the area that's light green is the wetlands area which quite frankly is not untypical around ~ Minnemnka, or Minnewashta has significant wetland areas between people's property and the actual wa~ line which, and people do, just nm their docks right through the wethnd~ We're not proposing to do that. What we're proposing is to clusl~ the dockage at the end here. We really do not want to disturb the shoreline at all; Shart of provi_'din§ a 4 foot dock out to the boats. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate and/or Paul. Why are we talking about the number of boats since what they're trying to do is get one dock space for every home and we're not really approving the number of homesites on the pwpeny right now? Aanenson: Well, the PUD ordinance says, I mean the beachlot ordinance says, based on square footage and frontage you can have x number of docks and what that says is 30,000 square feet for the first dock with 100 feet of frontage, plus additional 20,000 square feet for additional docks. So really in order to get, you only need 2 acres to get the three docks. They could have more than, it's a matlm' if they had 12 units they could, or excuse me, if they even had 20 units, they could probably still have more docks. First they do a PUD...you may want to leave that open ended at this point but I think that's a concern of the neighbors. The total number of docks. Batzli: Well, but this doesn't seem very conceptual if we're limiting it to a number of dock 14 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - December 1, 1~ spaces when we, it seans apparent to me that this plan, if it's conceptual, may or may not end up with 26. Aanenson: I agree with you but. Basil: They want the number of boat spaces that they've got units on the property. Aanenson: I guess thc staff's position is we don't feel there should be direct correlation to thc number of units and the number of dock spaces. I guess that's our position. Batzli: Okay, but why are we talking about it now? That's my question. Krauss: Well it is, we've been working around thc lake long enough to know that this is a major issue for all those that live on the lake. It happens every t/me anything is being developed here. It is a concern for us~ It is something that the PUD gives you ability to exewise comrol over that you wouldn't normally have if this came in as a straight subdivision~ And what we're recomn~n_ding is that under the PIJD you exerdse it. Aanenson: And they would like an answer to know that. That'd be part of whether or not they want to proceed based on the number of dock slips so they want some direction from you. Whether you tie it down to a specific number or give them a range. I think that's a concern. Batzli: Okay. Did you have something to add? Bob Boycr: Ycah, if I could. I don't want thc misconception that we're, that we necessarily have a direct correlation from homedtes to dockage. The reason we selected the 26 obviously is we do have 26 homes but I think it's obvious to see that because of the lakeshore we have, we have the potential for more boats. We're just ~in~.ly saying, all we want is 26 because that's all the homeowners there's going to be. We're not requesting any additional. We're not requesting pull up slips or any of that stuff that I think under the shoreland regulation would be allowed. All we want is an oppartunity for the homeowners to be on the lake if they want to. Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there are reaidents or other people who would like to address the comn'dsdon, please step forward to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Tom Merz: My name is Tom Metz. I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Would you be kind 15 Planning Commission Meeting- ~ber 1, 19~ enough to put that first map back up where you showed the...I live in ~oe Boyer's first addition. It's been part of the Boyer family my whole life so as I speak, if this sounds negative, it's more of a protection of my home. These are good people. If somebody's going to develop it, Boyer's are the finest people~ When I look at this l~roject as it was introduced, you know whether they talk about cluster homes or non-cluster homes, and they talked about the zoning and they talked about the...and they talk about 2.3 units per acre. I'm not smart enough to sit back here and try to tell you whether it's good or bad. As a person, I live in the adjoiniqg neighborhood and as you look at the impact that this project is going to have, and espedaliy if you just t~ire, let's just talk about Joe Boycr's Sterling Estates on the west side of it and the Minnewashta Heights on the east side and if you look at all those homes on each side of it, you're looking at one acre lots plus or minus. You're looking at residential small impact neighborhoods. And now you want to take this unit and they'll take Arbor Drive and they'll take, the center portion, they'll take all of these 26 units that will generate probably 180 plus or minus car tm/Y~ per day and they'll all come out of Arbor Lane and my objection is that this unit, or this development doesn't stand on it's own. It's imp~g the adjoining neighborhoods and if there was some way that they could find to concentra/E whatever they're doing so they had their own ~ of access or egress, maybe thi, is something that's more palatable. But you talk about making all of that impact and putting it onto our neighborhood, to me that is not in keeping with something that we have, or our lifestyle. ~ We bought homes in areas that are low density, low impact and you're making all of a sudden this development will make our's into a very high impact and high density. I think that also if we talk about planning, when you look at the ultim~ goal and we listened to the...about the senior citizens and how they want to get access in and out...To me it would seem logical that they will take Dartmouth Drive and somehow connect it tin, ugh Washta Bay Road so in essence what we are doing is allowing that entire neighborhood to flow down to some type of a semaphore where all can get access on or off or across Highway 7. By putting this neighborhood in there without any connection access, we are completing eliminating any further, whatever we want to do. Send our kids down to the shopping center. Whatever happens, to me that just seems like good planning. If you allow this development road to go through, you are completing impacting what I think makes better planning. To try to speak about to cluster the homes, I don't know that I have a lot to offer about that. I think the next issue that we get onto the lake issue, and for all you know that this end of the bay is, of Lake Minqewashta is very ecologically sensitive. It's about a 10 to 12 foot lake. It's got a lot of silt in the bottom of it. And a lot of boat tmtY~ makes it, the turbity which increases the weed growth which increases all the many _things that happen in the lakE. Vi/hen you look at this project and you go from Boyer's, this addition has got probably 800 feet. As you go to the west, all the way up to Nagele's point, there's probably a series of 7 docks and there's probably only 7 boats. As you take from Boyer's addition and we go back into that bay to, I'm sorry. Nagele's would be to the west. The other one would be to the east. There's probably, oh let's see. There's probably about 3,000 feet if you go to the east and you 16 Planning Commi~ion Meeting - Decem~ 1, 1993 probably don't see 6 or 7 boats to the ease 6 or 7 docks and 6 or 7 boats. Somebody made- a statement that each boat, or each dock is allowed to have 3 boats. Well I think that may be true if they are, if it were my dock I could put 3 boats on it but I couldn't build a dock, put my boat and have 2 of my fi-lends come up and put a dock. This isn't in keeping with the ordinance. Is that a true statement? Aanenson: Ye~ Tom Merz: Okay. So when he made a stamnent about 3 boats along the shore, you don't see any boats, or you don't see a typical neighborhood dock with more flum 1 boat. What that means is that you §o around the rest of the bay and you look at the regional padc that's got over 15,000 feet of shore and they'd probably have 35 boats in there. You talk about Minnewashta Parkway that's got 120 homes in there, plus or minus, and there aren't 12 boats in that neighborhood. If you look at the 1Viinnewashta Heights has got 75 homes and probably there's 11 boats, plus or minus, and that's would allow for an outlot. Boyer's has got 10% of this bay and they're asking for between 14 and 28 boats. Well, there's only 7, there's 14 boats, plus or minus, on this whole mile and a haft of lake, shore and they're asking to double it up in 800 feet, which to me i~n't a good thing. Let's see. I guess that those are the two issue~ How do we properly protect our interest on the site if we're maintaining the quality of our lots and the quality of that lake... We expect that this 10%, or this 800 feet of lakeshore probably could be judged in the same way that we are. Because it is a channel, it goes through there that some years ago somebody man made and it's not navi~ble to go back in with some big boats and if they think they're going to line with docks, that isn't in keeping with that either. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the cornmi_~sion? Brevity would be encouraged. Bruce Hubbard: My name is Bruce Hubbard. I live on 2841 Washta Bay Road. lust on the east side of there. I would certainly have to agree with what he said about the boats and the dockage that are on the lake presently. I also have a similar concern that we seem to be raising about the number of homes that we should be comparing this to. It seems that if you look at the way things are plotted up there, and you talk about the wetlands and the amount of homes that you could put in there with the setbacks, cowing out of 26 or any number close to that, doesn't seem to be at all feasible. And if you used a number that you would be able to do a single family and then cluster those, then you would have some usable open space but the open space that we're seeing on this, most of it's wetland that we can't use depending on... So it just doesn't seem to make sense to use that kind of density that we're starting out 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 19~ with to arrive at the total anmunt that shon~ld be clustered. Ba~li: Thank you. Would anyone else? Jim Ginthcr: My name is Jun Ointhcr. I live at 3131 DarUnouth Drive and I sent a fax today to thc commission. I don't know if any of you have had a chance to get that. Aanenson: Yeah, they do... Jim Ginthcr: So I don't want to belalx~r the point if you've already had a chance to read it but I did want to make a couple of points here and highlight that for you. Again like Tom Mcrz stated, we aren't really in fundamental opposition to thc project that the Boycrs have presented here. Secondly, as I also feel very strongly and if we're going to have a developer there, that we would be hard pressed to find someone beucr than the Boycrs to do this because like the Mcrz', the Boyers were neighbors of our's for the years that we initiatly moved into Lake Minnewashta and I think they truly do have a concern about that area. Specifically we're concerned about two areas and that is the singular access via Dartmouth Drive to the project and the proposed 26 docks for boat slips. The congestion that we see that will occur from this project concerns us since there is only one outlet through Darlmouth Drive and through Arbor Drive. By adding 52 cars, potentially for this 2 car garage complex, then we're §oin§ to have...our neighborhood of over 150 trips daily out that one singular access road. Now already there is a s~nificant delay in the morning getting out onto Highway ? from Arbor Drive. It's not uncommon to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes tO g~t OUt onto that drive and that's just if 1 or 2 cars are sitting there. Now if you have 6 or 8 or 10 cars sittin8 there, which I think you're going to have, with one outlet for this whole complex, 26 homes, 50 some cars, _this wait is not going to be 2 or 3 minute. It's going to be 10 minutes. It's 80in§ to become more dangerous or to have people making an effort in a rush to get out and I'm concerned about the safety as we think about people accessin~ onto Highway 7, with 17,000 to 19,000 cars and as we all know, Highway 7's becoming a more rapidly traveled road all the time. Secondly, beyond the delay part, is that we also have in terms of accessing Arbor off of Highway 7, we currently have a very dangerous situation. I think it's been rec~ to the Departlneat of Transportation where they mislined that road just this past sununer so literally you come up a hill; approaching on from the highway, have to make a left turn and it's not a safe left turn right now. Now if we're goin§ to bring 52 more cars trying to make a left mm onto something that's already unsafe, we're really looking for significantly impacting a dangerous situation there. Within Sterling Estates, which is the subdivision adjoining this property to the west, there are no ~alks. Consequently there's constant, continual pedestrian foot tm/ftc in the streets, specifically Arbor Drive and Dartmouth and that's where people walk. Children play out there. People 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Decem~ 1, 1993 walk out there. Guests that come into the neighborhood or taking a walk through the neighborhood there, and you could not possibly come into this neighborhood on a ~ and not find people walking up and down Arbor Drive and Damnouth Drive and now this is the only singular acc~s that we're talking about for another $0 plus cars traveling that road 150 tirrw.,s a day. So I'm very concerned about the safety within Sterling Estates. I'm concerned about the safety that it's going to be for both Sterling Estates and the proposed Spinn~irt~r~ ~ people all trying to access the same area off of one outlet. I think avcry reasonable solution is to add a second access at the east border of the property onto Washta Bay Road, which was the original earlier option as you saw those presented in the original plan. And we heard here just this evening that it has been done and can be done. That a privat~ road can be put across wetlands to access another road. I think that's not going to be a convenience factor only but it's certainly going to be a safety factor that I think should be strongly considered by this commi.~,sion. The second concerll that we have is the excessive amount of boats contemplated with 26 boat slips. I'm not going to belabor that point but fight across this bay, to thc south of this proposcd subdivision is a 400 acre, lake regional park with two public accesses and a good amount of time, ~tion and planning was developed years ago when that park was planned to permit only 35 boats. 35 boats from that 400 acre park. Two accesses. Park to acconunodale hundreds of people. To put 35 boats on this lake. And now we're asking f~r 26 boats from a 13 acre pamel to be put onto this lake. It just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, as I think there's a little bit of mirrors being played in the sense of the channel that is on this propc~. It is a unique channel in the sense that what it does by the DNR's definition of all of thai being lake. ahore, is 1,900 feei of lakeshore, for that 13 acres is prel~ unl~listic when you consider that ail you can do is possibly turn a rowboat around in thsI 3 feet of wal~r thai is in tha~ channel And when you're considering the fact that the whole east side of the channel is now designated as wetland that can't be disturbed, how that becomes lakeshore that now is calculated in detennining the number of homes that can be considcred as lakeshore. Lilm~y speaking, if that channel were removed, we would be looking at something that would be about 6 or ? houses that could possibly at the most front this lake. And now we're talking 26 houses. So in other developments in the past, on Lake l~llnnewashla and I would imagine other lakes, they just didn't happen to have a channel going back into a small piece of property that all of a sudden gives it 1,900 fcct of lakcshore. So I just think, it's an illusion as far as considering that amount of lakeshore for that small parcel of land. Ninally, to give you a thought about a workable solution there is that, what we would like to suggest is that the number of boat slips be limited to the same number of cluster homes thai actually front the lake. I believe the...plan hcre shows 8 homes fronting the lake and consequently we think that a reasonable solution would be 8 boat slips on one dock and then in addition to that, I would concur with what we saw in the staff's report and that is a couple of racks back in the channel area for small sailboats and canoes could be kept bexause that would then allow the people who are in reality really off the lake, those cluster homes behind the lakesh~ homes, they would have 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 access to the lake through the sailboats, the canoes and the type of things that other people use in similar situations around Lak~ ]~linnewashta who in reality have homes off the ~ And in reality those cluster homes that don't front Lake Minnewashta are truly not lakeshore homes and we don't think they ousht to be treated as lakeshore homes, trmally, in conclusion, we've been residents of this area for over 20 years. We have developed a nice home in that area, as have many other neighbors here. I just sat down the other evening and figured out that we paid well over $100,000.00 in real estate taxes for the property that we have here on this lake. And we're not opposed to progress. We're not opposed to development that meets community needs and enhances a very special natural resource that exists here in Chanhassen. I think we need to rerncm~ that that lake is special It's not Lake Minnctonka. It's not a zoo out there. It's a special natural resource. Very special by thc lake region park that's been developed on the east side. As wc add development, as wc add congestion, I think you need to give strong consideration to thc amount of boats that you put on this lake. Consequently I think that it's very irr~. ortant that this body, as well as Carver County and the Stat~ be very consciously concerned of those ]q/[|nngashta ~ts who live our daily lives on that lake. Wc raise our families on that lake and who arc going to be most impacted by what is done with this property. So I thank you for your consktcrafion. Batzli: Thank you. You said we several times. Are you ~g to yourseff and your wife? Jim Ginther: Yes. I'm speaking for my wife and myself. Basil: Okay. Okay. I didn't know if you were speaking for other residents. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Janis Breton. My name is Janis Bremcr and I re. si& at 2961 Washta Bay Road, and if I could use a pointer I'll show you where that pr~ is. I think I can show you where the property is. It is these two lots, which you can see has about, let's see ff I get this fight. 400 feet of the boundary of Joe Boyer's protmny. In general I'd like to say that we ~rnply disagree with changing the zone. That if it's low density zoning, it needs to remain low density zoning. In terms of some of the points that have been made, we've been living on that property for almost 8 years. The boats that go into the channel are rowboats. They can barelytum around. Go up there some day. You can walk in and out. There is a lot of desilptamt wetlands. We have constantly checked with the city about what is supposed to be occurring on that property. $oe Boyer may be an excellent developer. I don't know. I don't know much about property development in this area. What I do know is he's been very disrespectful of our ~, and what that speaks to in the future I simply want you to know thac He's brought heavy equipment in there. He has plowed down trees. He has turned the equipment around on our ~ and said, oh. I didn't know where the pwpeny bordered. Planning Commi~ion Meeting - December 1, 1~3 The wetland expert that came in was...from the city of Chanhassen, also di~,~~ul of our property. This does not speak well in terms of future development. We do not have a dock on our 100 feet of lakeshore because of the camiis and the natmal lakeshore there. The little square that's emp~E, I wanted to mention the fact that that's owned by Pete Boycr, who's Joe's son. So if you're looking at wanting a road to the north side of our pwperty, the only way to get onto Washta Bay Road is to use I think it's 50 feet that Pete still owns, that's our access road that has had no maintenance done to it in ? 1/2 years~ Try driving on it. Okay? He may be a good developer. It doesn't look like it where we're sitting. And do we have to get involved in that kind of project? The respected wetlands which is the empty property to the west of us, oh I guess they've had heavy equipment in on it at least 3 to 4 times in the past ? years. 1oe has allowed his son to plant trees there, one suspects in order to build up the wetland. I don't know that okay but there are planted trees on that land. A lon§ row of them. It hasn't been left in it's natural state. Now maybe that's..2or devel~t. I don't know. I know we were told by the city that there is no variance and there hasn't ever been unless we sell some of our pwpc~ for building houses on flu: east side of that channel. Putting a road into Washta Bay, no disrespect to Arbor Lane. I think that's an enormous problem but it's going to create an identical problem at Washta Bay Road. Corning out on Washta Bay Road you've got to, have you guys driven on it recently? Whoomp. And then you turn right and there's this great little swoopy hill. I suppose you conhq rebuild that and fix things like that but I think you're going to have the same uaffic density problem even if you access both ways. And again, there's 50 fe~ to get from our east edge of our pmpe~ to Washta Bay Road. The only non-private property there has got 50 feet that's owned by Pete Boyer. And you may want to know that. Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your conunents. Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan and I live at 29//1 Washta Bay Road wMch would be right on the apex of the right angle there on Washta Bay Road takes a jog going east. And evexything that's been said tonight I guess I can't ~ a lot. I'm generally agree with most of it. The only thing I'd like to add is that I do own a Boyer home and of course they are good builders, however the road that you're discussing as far as connecting the east and west sides of that pr~ on that channel, there's a little dirt road that Sanis was elaborating on. I would not like to see a lot of excess uaffic on that road obviously because I live in front of it. So the problcm you have with the traffic getting on and off of, I believe it's Dartmouth Drive. I can see just an increase in tm[~ flow with this project and I think this...second the motion to keep it the way it is. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Don Sucker: My name is Don Sucker and I live right next to where the proposed division is 21 Planning Commission Meeting - ~ber 1, 1~ to go, 3111 Dartmouth Drive. Batzli: Are you on the north or south side of Dartmouth7 Don Sueker: The north sidc. South side, cxcusc me. Batzli: South side. Towards the lake. Don Sueker: Right. I guess I want to agree with everything that Tom and Tun have said as far as the accessibility and I think when L and I've only been there 2 years. When I bou/ht the property I originally thought I liked the wilderness part of it and all the aspects of being the quiet, nice, quite bay. Now I think with, you know you're talking about putting 26 boats in. I'm going to be looking at a marina down there. Not really a residen~ area that is, I think he built a wonderful area there but I think this is changing the whole concept. And I think I would ~ to reiterate also that I thlnir they do build nice homes. I've been in a lot of the homes that he's built in the area but I guess I'm opposed to all the traffic that would be coming through there. And I did talk to your fire marshal and your fire chief, although they would not admit it probably now. They are in favor of a double access road in any addition, being what it may be. I guess that's all I've got to say. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall I live at 6221 Arbor Lane, which is the property just adjacent to Highway 7 and south of TH 7. I only wish to address the Inffic studies which give a particular projection on the number of trips. Now I know that that's an exact science. My problem is that they then average that through the day saying you'll have x number of trips per hour. What they're not looking at is those will be clustered like the homes. They'll be clustered in the morning hours and the evening hours, even if they're empty nesting, unless they've retired from life, they carry out their duties during the day like the rest of us, They'll leave in the morning. They'll be back in the evening. Visitors will be a similar sitllflfion. Those traffic patterns, you can't take the number of trips per hour and say you're only going to add 4 trips an hour or 8 trips an hour. They'll be clustered in the same fashion that the residents are presently u~ing. And if you do an average, and I'll just..litfle story. A man with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a bucket of i~e water. On average he's comfortable but it's not appropria~. Bat=Ii: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. Joe Boyer: I am Joe Boyer and I live in Deephaven now. I lived in ~ for quite a few years and at one time I did apply for the Planning Commiss/on for the City of 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Chanlmssen but as it turns out, because I was au advocate of the shoreline walk sysm'a, and had control on boat moWrs on the Lake 1V[|nnewashta, but anyhow. That's...control but when I moved in here, the people were~ .. their sewage pnmp...on the woekend~ Dumping their sewage over on my property which would eventually flow into the lake. The lakeshore... sewage system and I think my project forefron~ the sewage system through that area. But anyhow, we've planted uees and we've been very c~ about the environment. The development of that area and we have good people living in our areas. Very good people. Wc'vc got au excellent clientele and a lot of these people that will live in this area, this new area, are going to be neighbors to the people that have tried to keep them out or cut them down you know. Now if I build ? houses along the shoreline, as in Sterling Estates, 21 boats fight? Plus canoes and rowboats and swimming docks and all that sort of thing. You know. Now this whole area, 26 homes, it's almost, it's not quite 2 homes to the acre. That lot... proportionally is greta,' than the He/ghts or Minnetonka Lows or whatever and Sterling Estates there we have lot sizes with 3/4 of an acre plus. 3/4 of an acre...~y're mostly all half and in some cases a third of an acre. And these homes will do nothing but enhance the are~ It's §ood for the area. There is no more land. All the laud we had you see you know. GOd doesn't build any more you know. So you have to make use of what you have~ Good use you know and it should be functional as well pleadug to the eye. I think with the way they designed this area, it will work well and probably half the people in there won't even own a boat. And I think the city of Chanha~sen is remiss in not having a ~ system around the entire lake. For the runners, the walkers, and that sort of thing you know. That's my only concern. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Joe Boyer: Along the lakeshore I meant. A trail system around on the lakeshore. Batzli: Right on the lakeshore. Joe Boyer: On the lakeshore, you bet. Scott moved, Mancino seconded to dose the public heartng~ All voted in favor and the motion carrie& The public hearing was dosed. Batzli: Nancy, we'll start with you. Diane successfully avoided eye contact Mancino: ...the Boyer Corporation's development in Shorewood, Gideon Cove and it's very top quality development. Wooded lots. Lakeshore views. Nature trail. Appealing exterior with thc cedar shingles, siding...quiet neighborhood. Kind_ of off the beaten track and I think 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 199~ there's no question that they would do a quality job here in Chanhassen and I would suplm't their dcvelopment here. I'd love to see it. I'm an empty nester. A young e .rn1~ nester. However, I am uncomfortable, I think the core issue for me is changing the zoning of land and modifying the PUD ordinance. Right now it's zoned RSF, single fsmily residen~ low density which means that the minimum size, lot size is 15,000 square feet. Now ff we were w, if they come in and asked for a PUD ~ingle family Iow density, the minimum lot size could be 11,000 square feet with the average lot size for the entire PUD, maintaining the a 15,000 foot minimum. But that won't work because they're asking for a minimum of 5,000 square foot. That's what the cluster homes have shown the lot sizes to be. So they're asking for 5,000 minimum square foot lot size so it would be down from our 11,000. They're asking for 5,000. I don't know what the implications for the average lot size for that would be. Does that make sense Kate7 I'm kind of asking her I guess~ Aanenson: As I eluded to earlier, it'd be the same scenario now with some of the ones that have requested PUD. You have to go through the analysis. Mancino: But if we said, yes. Okay, to a 5,000 minimum lot size because this is a duster home. Minimum lot line. What would be the average? Would you still have the average, Aanenson: And you can't exceed the dcusity requirements. You still have that range as I pointed out. What you're doing is you're just creating more open space. You're not putting Mancino: But these are pretty big changes because couldn't anyone where, through the whole rest of the city, let's say on Highway 41 which is fairly traveled. Someone could come in RSF zone and say I want to put a PUD in there and I want to do cluster, etc? Mancino: $o we have. Aanenson: You'd go through the same process you do now when you look at a PUD. As looking at the...same criteria. Whether you build... Krauss: I'm not sure if I sec thc issue as globally as you're implying. First of all I wrote that section of the PUD ordinance and to be honest I wrote it in another community and I wrote it for a specific project that's on Minneton~ Boulevard and we adopted our PUD ordinance. We felt we neede some way to regulate that. So I mean that was the, I mean it wasn't done to structure any particular situation in Chanhassen. So there's no real derivation Planning Commission Meeting- Decem~ 1, 1~3 that you can associate with it. The Red Cedar Cove townhomes were done under an earlier PUD ordinance that have no bearing on this. I think the critical point though here Nancy is you keep reflecting on 15,000 square foot lot area and the fact that under standard single family PUD's you can get it down to 11,000 but you have to average it up to 15,000. I think we would argue here that you're doing the same thing. When you e'~ all the wetland areas on this site. You're only looking at dry ground and you distribute that dry gron~nd amongst the units that are being proposed, divide it amongst the 26 units, you're getting mare than 13,000 square feet of dry ground per unit. It's just in a different place. It's not in somebody's individ' ual back yard or front yard. It's in a common space. Thi~ is not the wetlands we're talking about This is dry ground and I think if that's a key factor. If you continue to look at the requirement that when you take a net distribution, that you still maintain that 15,000 square feet, I don't think we've done anything... Mancino: But that's also minimum. I mean if a traditional subdivision in there, we would have I think more open space. Krauss: Well, thaI's a philosophical argument or discussion we've had a number of ~ I personally have argued that when you chop space up inw yards, which is typically the case, you do a fairly crummy job of prcservi~ natural fcatm~. You don't have any kind of common amenities. You don't have the ability to isolate homes from the highway. You don't have thc ability to isolate homes further back from the lake. Mancino: Well sure they do because they've already got thai on Highway 7. If you go down Highway 7, if you go west on TH ? to TH 41, a lot of those homes, a lot of those subdivisions were put in there are back away from Highway 7. I mean they're not fight up to the highway and they were done as good developments and they were done as single family traditional and obviously the developer looked and said, none of the ~ngle famih'y people want to live here want to live on Hi. way ?. I mean that's just a given whether you're going to do single family or you're going to do PUD. Kranss: But for every example that I can show you instances where homes are 50 feet away from the highway. I don't know what would actually occur here but anything's possible. Mancino: Do you think we should change the PUD just for this one parcel? I mean shouldn't we go back into the parcel and say well let's do this medi, m density then? Let's rezone it? ..xlon't we have enough, when we did the com!~hen~ve plan. When the comprehensive plan was done, you know there was all this information gathered about what we needed for land use and I assume, because I wasn't here, that the Planning Commission and the City Council went through and said this is how much we need for medium density housing. Otherwise we want the rest of it to be single family. And have the numbers Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 changed so we need more medium density housing in Ct~ml~ssen? Krauss: I think what the comprehensive plan says is that you want that much land dedica~ to low density uses, and thi, is consistent with that. It never says that all winds up being single family uses. One of the other problems you have with writing ardinanc~ is that products change. Needs change. It's hard to anticilme evet)rthing that's coming down the pike with an ordinance. The idea of detached cluster single family housing is a relatively new one that's been around Minnesota for the last 5 or 6 or 7 years and a lot of ordinances don't deal with it very well I think our ordinance in hind sight might not deal with it very well. Mancino: Well I'd like to hear some opinions from the other planning commiss/oners. Dave, I have a question for you about the traffic on Arbor Drive. Are Dartmouth Drive and Arbor Drive substandard streets or are they pretty good? Are they 32 foot width? Can they take this amount of traffic? Hempel: They are an older neighborhood. The streets are not quite as wide as we build them today. I'm actu~y not sure of the width of the su~-t but I would imagine it's probably 44 feet wide without curb and gutter. MnDot, there's another development proposed west of this which will be coming in this winter on the nartheast corner of Highway 41. Or actually southeast comer of Highway 41 and. Not 41, Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. Exou~ me, which is kind of the same scenario of accessing onto the highway and providing secondary access to the adjacent established neighborhood. There's no doubt that the uaff:w on Highway ?, it is very difficult to make turning movements into the residen~ neighborhoods. MnDot is currently proposing to do some additional turn lanes...in '94-'95 along this segment of Highway 7. There's also proposed uaffic signals at the intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 at some future date which would also help gapping the traffic to assist in turning movements into these neighborhoods. MnDot's also looking at elimina~g an access point or two onto Highway 7. Some of these neighborhoods that are capable of looping interior or whether it's a frontage road type scenario. Batzli: Are you suggesting that these people would exit via Dogwood eventually? Hempel: Well, it's possible of maybe accessing another street west of Arbor Drive. If that's Dogwood, that's very well possible. I guess at this point that's conccptual...ccrtainly be in contact with them if this proceeded...along the preliminary plat sta~e...~en~nts that were proposed along Highway 7 as well as access points eliminating along Highway 7. As far as a secondary access out of this site, the engineering staff as well as public safety have always gone for a secondary access site out of a parcel whenever it's feas/ble. However this circumstance, due to thc impact on the ~ with the channel area there, we did propose... Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 Mancino: V~nat about, and I think you already said no to me but the north/south private drive. Why cnn't that go straight up into Highway 7 nnd have an access off Highway 7 straight up? Hcmpcl: lVlnDot does regulate acccss points along the highway. Typically they're like a quarter mile apart~ or they are nowadays. They limit access so wc don't have all the~ turning movements every couple hundred feet down which would really make it b_a*~rdous. So I would seriously doubt they would even allow it. And then the other constrsint is the grade. There's a severe grade difference there so that's the Ol~Ogition to that. Farmakes: Is the wetland there natural? Aanenson: Along the channel is ag urban. But adjacent to the lake it's natural Krauss: You ~ is it natural as in... Farmakes: Yeah. In other words, by altering all the land, sun'o~g land around it. Krauss: It's hard to tell. It's pretty...that much of the land that's coming through that ag urban wetland is discharged from developments in Shorewood. Discharge from Highway 7 and it's focused through a pipe. Now the~'s probably a natural drainage pattern there of some sort before it...but it's keeping it a wet a lot more than probably it used to be...You know this is a concept and I think we should encourage people to throw ideas on the table. Kate and I were talking about something that may be a-possibility. We know MnDot will probably kick if there's any additionnl access points onto the highway but there may be n possibility of conslructing n better access through this development and actually dosing Aanenson: As you mentioned Brian, there is a significant grade change but it may be coming down. Making this a public street and then closing Arbor off. That would keep that, that's something that maybe we could investigate. Mancino: I guess that's abou~ Batzli: What do you think about the boats? Mancino: What do I think about the boats? Well, my core issue is whether I even feel we should be putting in any...with cluster homes with 5,000. I'm not sold on changing the ordinance to justify this development yet. Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 Harberts.' Changing the zoning or the ordinance? Mancino: Changing the PUD ordinance to allow cluster homes, zero lot size to be in a low density versus a medium density desi~ Batzli: Okay. Mancino: So the boats follow what comes after that. My other concern about that is, I mean I like to have a lot of tools and diversity to plan and as things come in but you know if I lived in an area, in a neighborhood and beside me was undeveloped land and it was zoned RSF and I went to City Hall and I said, hey ~ me a little bit about what can happen...and I come down here and do my due diligence and they say, well it's single family residential You can have lot sizes 15,000. Besides you can have do it with the PUD ordinance...there could be some 11,000. Okay, fine. Oood, I understand that. Then all of a sudden in the middle of things we're saying, you actually could have now. You've been here a few years. You could have cluster home, which I have nothing against cluster homes but 5,000 square foot lots, I don't know. I think I'd want. I know things change but I think that that would msire a lot of people mad. Batzli: Well, just to play devil's advocate. They're getting further separation by doing this because if they did it RSF, they'd probably have a 30 foot backyard perhaps. That's about all that's requirexi. Maybe 40. Right now they're spaced at least 100 feet from the existing home, at least according to the conceptual map and. Mancino: You ~ on the east, on the west side? Batzli: On the west side. On the east side, I mean there's obviously an incredible space inbetween the houses as a buffer. And it does work out to be nearly, you know if you'll just take the net property, regardless of how you squeeze it in there. Pie shapes or weird jigsaw pn=.=.le shapes to get the right footage, it does work out to be nearly a half acre per unit. The net. Based on the net acreage of the development so. Mancino: Taking away wetlands and what you do. Batzli: Well based on our report. The way it says the net. You know whatever that is. So zero lot lines was what I had initially, as we were doing the PUD. The clustering. The squishing in. Allow those people to live next to each other. They're buying ~nto it. They know what they're getting into. They're leaving ~ space. You're doing unique things around the perimeter. I like that in a PUD. I'd want to see that and so I don't, you know the 15,000 square foot thing wasn't a big deal to me provided you were doing something unique 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 that justified it being a PUD. Maybe that's my focus here but I don't have the huge problem about the 15,000 square feet because this is kind of what I envisioned a PUD to be for. As opposed to tasking 11,000 square foot lots and then .making one big one so somebody can keep all the trees in their backyard, which is what we've been seeing. So this excites me._ So, I don't know. Mancino: In traditional or non-traditional developments? Batzli: I don't know that, I mean these are going to be you know I think, they're not going to be inexpensive homes. I think they're going to be nice homes and Boyers build nice homes so I don't have a problem with that, and I don't know that the neighbors had a problem with that so much as, you know if it came back in here with a regular development and they were able to fit 26 homes on there, we might not like it and the neighbors are stuck with the exact same amount of impact concern/nE number of daily trips. Because I really don't see us, although I'm open for suggestions, putting a road through the wetland and across that other person's house that isn't part of the lot and then this 50 foot access. I kind of liked Paul's idea but this is going to impact it no matter how they develop it. And I'd like to see us obviously minimize the impact on the neighbors but I don't know that the fact that they're on small lots impacts them that much. So I think there is nice buffering around that side. We can argue. We can have them pull it a little bit or something but that's just my conceptual feel here. left. Farmakes: I first of all have to give my sympathy to whoever was decided on this lot. It's almost like something out of a college exam. What a strange development problem. L first of all would like to clarify what it is we're doing here tonight by approving or disapproving this. Can we do that again Mr. C~airman? Batzli: We're merely saying whether we think thi~ would be 8. good PUD development. Something along the lines we're looking at but we're not n~y approving what we're looking at. Farmakes: Okay. I think that's now abundantly not clear. I want to compliment the builder. I also went and looked at I believe the same development 1V~ce homes and I hope you build a lot of them in this city. And I like clustering also. And this piece of property would not be a bad idea for clustering. From a design point I think that you probably utility, this property to it's maximum potential by doing this~ I'm not so sure given that with the surro~g property to the east and west that that fits in that welL I did not hear extensive comments by adjacent property owners to the density issue or PUD. I know sometimes when you're discussing PUD's they say get a little strange. They're not as easy to put your finger on as some of the single family traditional quotas that developers have to meet. And I am 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 199:3 wondering also, and calculating this ~ we look at these dens~ again. I have the same problem I had last week, or two weeks ago. Four weeks ago when we look at these issues and we talk about densities in our formula. I think there's something inherently wrong with our density formula. Particularly on these types of 1)roperties. When we get properties like this that have a high ratio of undevelopable property within the development. It's your wetlands, trees, in this case a channel dug years ago. You're getting density ratios that are skewed. They're really not telling us the same thing that they would be telling us if it was a piece of farmland. And we don't make allowances for that, that I know of. We're using tables to fall back on things to give us s~ that it's okay here. We're going to do this and going back to the first one that I got onto when I was here up on the Lake Lucy Road. The Willows ~. I was looking at these huge property alotments and these huge density. We were getting a low density but I was looking at these houses and they were all peppered very close to one another. And all these setbacks played into mind and the lot lines went into the wetlands and went out. They were cal~ls__~l as square foola~e~ I kind of came to the conclusion that these tables weren't telling me the story that I wanl~xi to know. Anyway, also I'd like to address the comment of the 1,900 squsre feet used for calaflatin~ some of the concern that was talked about here Wnight .with the boal~ and so on. Ba~li: I'm sorry, you're refening to the shoreline? 1,900 feet of shoreline? Farmakes: Correct. What do we have? 17 issues that we went through here with the minimum lot size, or we had. Aanenson: The beachlots. Farmakes: The beachlo~ Non-conforming beachlots. And so we spent the entire year going over lake access issues to this lake and so we do have some experience with ~g and hearing with many neighbors on Lake Minnewashta property owners. I know how sometimes there's cross jurisdiction betw~n this in evaluating what is shoreline and what is boat averages or the formulas that we use for putting dockage and how many houses and there's so many formulas they're not to be believed but somehow they come to the conclusion that the most restrictive formulas apply. In looking at thi~, I wonder whether or not the County is evaluating this pr~ as 1,~0 square feet of shoreline in mxat/on. I can't imagine that the existing channel is not making up the majority of that shoreline that's being figured into the boating ratio. And I too would agree that it's a mirror situation. I think it's also giving a dismruxi view of shoreline. I have a problem with this as a cluster area in this location. Not in general terms or design terms. The fact tim it's marke~ application, whether it's a need or not is really an issue of marketing and not really something that we should be deciding here. Whether or not the market will dictate what these homes are, as they often have throughout the decades of real estate and Chanhassen will be developed between the 60's and the year Planning ~ommission Meeting - D~eznbe~ 1, 199B 2000. And those demands for housing have changed along with the population. And the skew between these needs now and the needs on either end of it, I'm having trouble digesting this fitting in there. That's it. I guess I would go with the staff reco~tion if they had a dock but I still have the problem with addressing that issue if I'm really having a hard time supporting the issue of clustering in general in this location. Batzli: Okay. Soc. Scotc I think from, to talk ~out clustering. I think an example of where that really works, and I can't remember the name of the developn2mt but it was part of the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. That made tons of sense. I mean it was zoned for that partiodsr type of housing. I'll borrow a page from Ladd's hymn book. One of the things that is not entirely evident when you look at something like this is what's on either side and a lot of ~ what we rely upon is not only getting out to the site. Driving around. Walking around. Looking and going, oh my gosh. This is what RSF means here. That's what RSF means here. So trying to look at it in a total concept, I always have a problem when something needs to be rezoned, espedally when you've got folks that have made investments on either side. And espedally when you have the same developer who's actually developed the residen~ single family. So I would not be in favor of rozonlng this particRlar ~. I'm not going to dwell on other points that have been msde that I also agree with. lust one question. Aren't we creating a beck of a cul-de-sac here with one enuauce or shouldn't we just avoid that because we don't have as much flex/~W with access to ITlghway 7? Is that something we just blow off? Because much has been made about cul-de-sac lengths and so forth. Hernpel: The looped sma-et sy~m could be employed here by eliminating one of the lots or Lot S to loop back out. Sc. otc So that's doable. Okay. I don't really have anything else to add. Everything's been udk~ about. Batzli: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I think Joe said what my biggest concern is, and that's the continuity of between the neighbors and this pmtm'ty. In general the duster housing, and I don't have a real problem with. I think I would, if I were to design this to protect the neighbors to the west, I would take off probably Lots S and 11 and have an access up to TH 7 out of this development and not run this development through the neighboring area. I really do have a problem running it all through the neighboring area fight now. I think that's a major impact That's not what we try to do here in Chanhassen. We kind of protect the people that are here and I think if there is a way to run this development out to Highway 7, I think that would, in closing off 31 Planning Commi.~sion Meeting- December 1, 1993 Arbor Drive, boy that makes a whole lot of sense to me. If that's possible. If it's not possible, then I have some real problems with the PUD. So there's some contingencies here. If I can get you out to Highway 7 without impacting the neighborhood, then I feel that maybe we can protect the neighbors and the quality of life that they have. Or the style that they bought into. If we can't, then I have a real tough time with thi~ In Umm of density, this is a case where clung I like. Again, and the planning depot ko~s coming to us saying this works. This is great. On paper it doesn't look ~ we've really clust~cl to preserve something because on paper it looks like a lot of this stuff has to be there then or preserved anyway. So if the developer came in and said well, we're going to buffer the development to the west with 125 foot open space, nh. I get it. I actually uncl~m~ why we clustered the houses. I don't see that here. What we've done is run all these nnits out through the neighborhood to the west. I guess I'm not in favor of that yet until I know I can't get out onto Highway 7 out of this development It is one big long cul-de-sac is what it is and we fight those every 2 weeks here. I don't likr that Staff kris beating us up because we, I don't know. It's just one big long cul-de-sac. In trrms of dockage. I think our ordinance should guide us. I don't count, in rny mind and maybe the courts have to figure this one out but the channel is not lakeshore, The reason we have a lakeahore ordinance and all the things that we do is to kind of protrct the lake and the channel doesn't count so for the first 200 feet you get 3 boats. For the next 300 feet you get another '3. So whatever the land is on the lake, that's how many boats you get. I think in my mind it's real ¢le.41r. We don't have to be arbitrary about that and maybe our ordinance never considered channels that were dredged into what we were doing but the channel in my mind doesn't count. So we're somep~ between 9 and 12 boats. Someplace like that nnd I think stuff laid that out. Number 2, or my final point is, I really don't like to have a development dictate something. Changing the PUD ordinance. I wouldn't mind revisting the PUD ordinance to see ff it should happen. If we should have zero lot lines in the residentiaL I think what that would force us to do is say if we do, then we're looking for this so there would be some give and take in that ordinance that we deveiop. But again, I wouldn't mind r~/igt' 'ting that myself. I see some nice things about this. I don't see it in sync with the neighborhoods surro~g it. I think however if it can have it's own separate entrance, I flfink then some of my concerns vnnish. And if I saw Parcel 5 and 11 vanish, maybe we have buffered ~he neighbors to the west That's my Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane. Harberts: I guess I like the higher density use of land. Discuss regional ism with regards to sewer and all that but I'll just leave it at that tonight. You put in the 7 or 8 15,000 square feet lots with...you've got 48 trips compared to what, 52? So in trrms of traffic that's going to be generated, I think it's to some extent (i of 1 or haft a dozen of the other one when you look at something ~ that. Is it more a matter of systrm management I do have n concern 32 Planning Commission Meeting - ~ber 1, 1993 though with the streets are, I guess as I will describe it as maybe substandard because they're 24 inches, or 24 feet but again you're putting in your 8 lots. You've got the same traf~ going out on the s~reets. I think Ladd's point throu~ about access to TH 7, staff's perspective of closing off Arbor I think has a lot of merit to look at. That would mak~ me a little bit more comfortable with that. I'm a little, I'm uncomfortable with changing this to a PUD simply because again if you talk about affardable housing, I think that's one of the strong merits of PUD that should be looked at and it's being com?romi~. I know markets, land prices dictate. You know people have to get a buck out of thh. I understand that. I guess from a city perspective, as we talk about our planning goals and objectives, I'd like to see a little bit more anphasize in terms of affordable housing. I think it's ~ for a community to have more diversity in housing but getting off of that, going back to this particular project. I'll support it. I'll support the concept. Interesting with clustering. I'm guessing there's going to be an association ~g with the snow and things like that. I'm going to leave it to the expertise of staff as well as public safety or the fire department or whatever to address traffic. Tslri~g inW consideration I think those comments made by everyone has a lot of merit on this. With regards to the boats. I also agree that, I don't count the existing channel I think staff used at this point a good methodology as I understand what's available in tenns of calculating that. $o I'm just going to, I guess I'll support this in concept. I will be interested to see what comes back in as a preliminary site plan. Bob Boyer: Mr. Chairman? Batzli: Yes. Bob Boyer: As a developer, will we have an opp~ty to just address the commission just one more time? Address just some of thc issues that I think we can maybe clarify a few things. I guess my presumption is we're going to take a vote here at some point in time. Batzli: Yes. I have to ramble here for a few minutes but why don't, go ahead. Why don't you, I'll give you about 3 minutes if you want to address specific points. Bob Boyer: I know there's, as I listened to each person present their concerns, probably the biggest concern I hear among the Council _members is missing this housing type in sandwiching between existing single family homes, rest. I think ff you look around the ~ area you'll see examples of this. Gideon Cove certainly is an example of a development of this sort. It was put right smack in the middle of a single family development and yeah, we had some opposition but I ~nk what we're hearing people saying as demographics change and people you know, our sodety's aging and they're housing needs are changing as well What all these people are saying is, don't stick us by the highway. I don't want to be Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 along 494. I don't want to be along the con~ors and major freeways which is typically where a lot of cities are positioning their higher density type of housing. And I hear a lot of these people saying, we don't want it either. That's why there's such a tremendous d_~nsnd for this type of housing. People want to continue to be in the neighborhoods they raised their kids in. The neighborhoods that they enjoyed through the years. They don't want to be stuck out by the freeway so we've found that there's a tremendous acceptance of _this type of housing amoung the people that we've w(ntced with in the past. Single family homeowners that are now living adjacent to developments that we've put in, as well as other developments other builders have done such as Arose. Certainly Gideon Cove is one that we've done and Red Cedar Cove is one that's done on the south side of the hke` We've seen tremendous success in the acceptance level of those in the neigh~ communities. Not only that but the neighboring communities have actually benefitted from those type of housing developments because they are a planned development. They know the arch~ style. They know in the be~nning that those homes, those areas are going to be planned and they're going to be maintained pcq~-mally by professional people. Wc know that there are going to be enhanced and attractive for many, many ycars to come. You don't havc that kind of assurance when you plunk a house on a half acre lot and each person is responsible for determining how they will have maintained that pwpeny. That's just kind of defense of using mixed housing types. I don't think we need to just, you folks staying on one type of housing but we can, I think it's appropriate to mix housing ~ in a neighborhood. As far as out traffic, I'd like to just kind of reiterate what Diane said. I think originally when Dartmouth Drive was put in, this little leg of Dartmouth Drive was intended to service this property someday in the future. It was originally intended to do that. We're doing that and obviously there's going to be some opposition but if you wanted, if you say okay. Now we're dumping 26 homes on this property, that's not fair. I think what you've got to do is say what is the alternative. The alternative was to have single family development with much higher traffic levels and have them... Obviously we've got to exit somewhere and this doesn't seem to be appropria~ at least from our standpoint, an appropriate alternative. This was originally intended and designed for that purpose. I think it's a natmal thing to do. Batzli: Would you be willing to look at trying to develop an access out through this development and closing Arbor Drive? Bob Boyer: Well there is an access right here right now. There's a drive that comes out right through here which we're going to be required to close down at some point in time. Dave here, is it Dave. Is certainly probably more knowledgable on that than we are. One thing I am concerned about however is there is a co,~d_erably thick buffer of trees along TH 7 here which we want to retain. I mean that is critical to the success of this pwpeny, ff that is destroyed, not only that but there is a significant grade difference as he mentioned fi'om Highway 7 here to this ~ here. You've probably got at least a 25-30 foot grade Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 difference. I would think that...I don't see how you're going to ~.complish that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I guess I've heard several people talk about not wanting to change the zoning. What I would like to see is something on the order of what Ladd proposed and that is, what we really need, if we're going to do it, we need to take a look at it in more detail to see whether it's something we want to do. It may look good on this one parcel but we really haven't considered what it will do for other parcels and whether it's good, bad or indifferent. So I have a hard time kind of changing the ordinance based on this suddenly coming in and maybe it's because the light bulb hasn't gone on in my head as to exactly why we want to do it or not do it yet. And maybe we just need more education on that as a commission. And have it be a separate issue. Harberts: But aren't we doing that by the proposal of Supporting this in concept? Have it come back in detail so we can in a sense understand that? Ba~i: WeLl one of thc conditions would be that we would amend thc PUD ordinance to allow these types of homes in RSF. Is that right7 Aanenson: Yeah. Well, zero lot lines. Hartm'ts: Well, I mean it's like. Mancino: Yeah but we want to deal with it as two separate issues is what we're saying. Batzli: I would like to deal with it as a separate issue. I don't want to deal with it as part of this project personally. So if there was a condition it would be that, our approval of this is contingent on us looking at it separately and deciding that it was a good thing. I don't like the way that this is kind of being done. Harberts: Well basically Brian what we're doing is we've got an ordinance and this is, and I've only been on here a short lime. Isn't this like a test application of the ordinance? I ~ isn't that what's happening right now and what we're saying is we don't know if we like what we have. And with your experience and your experience Ladd on here, have you had experience with this kind of proposal7 Looking at that ordinnnce where it's tested? Where it's applied like this? Batzli: Yes. Harbens: $o isn't that what we're doing? Are we consistent or is the logic con~ent with what your experience has been? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Balzli: Well I think normally we've done exactly what~ at least I'm trying to suggest and that is, we normally put the brakes on and say, we need to look at this in the bigger picture rather than saying knee je~ well yeah looks good here. Let's do it. Scott: I don't think that, at least personally, I'm not willing to say this is the new ordinance and then come what may because I don't think that I'm in a position to deal with another, because you know that people who are really sharp in the development area, and you have options on property in a particular munidp~ty, you're going to go oh, well here's a change in thc ordinance. And you know, we're going to get more of these things and I think about the Lundgren proposal that we had a major objection to which was a PUD which had all thc fight things but didn't pass thc snLff test. I idnel of see this as being somewhat similar in that we were uncomfortabic with it. Could quantify it somewhat but I think we need to do, as you said, is put thc brakes on this particular project and then address the ordinance and then work with that and say what are we going to be getting if we make thi~ kind of change. Batzli: I think that again it would be nice to somehow be educated as to, you know I like the concept of flustering. I think that on a lot like this that's going to hard to develop, it makes some sense. I don't know that the issue with the neighbors is necessarily that these people are on small lots so much as pexhaps the more intense use of the access roads. And like I said up front, I don't know that it would be any less if it was developed in another manner with larger lots. So I'm not sure about that. I know that this is an in~ly dangerous stretch of Highway 7. The turning on and off the road is dangerous and it concerns me and anything we can do to make that safer or convince MnDot to put in some stop lights or whatever we've got to do, I think eventually we've got to get that done. To basically put 26 people entering and exiting off of Arbor, I know that's not really Arbor Drive. Whatever the real name of it is I think, that really concerns me right now. I think that needs to be looked at, even at a conceptual stage. Boats, I think staff is being consistent actually with what we've been doing. So if this showed some sort of NURP pond or something with the drainage coming off from the n~ side, if we had a little bit mo~ buffering to the west, if we talked about thc access issue, I can support this in concept very easily. I did have one question for Dave and that is, why would we go with private drives here rather than public streets? Hempel: That's a good question. I guess just based on the amount of right-of-way required, certain number of homes desi~ for net density as well as a wider pavement section. Typically when you have a cluster type home, condominium type homes...private drive is... homeowners association. Batzli: I assume we need the turn around at the end of Dartmouth Drive so since we're not going to plow the streets we need some place for people to turn around before they get Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 199~ dumped into a priv~ sy~em7 Hempel: That's c~ Batzli: Okay. I don't have any other comment~ Is there more di_~-u~ssion or a motion? Conrad: I'm not sure what our motion would be. I think the developer, this is a ~ plan review. The developer wants to take it to City Council and see what they think. There's no reason for us to table it. It's their chance to get feedback. Yet on the other hand, I don't think I want to be talking about conceptual approval fight now because so much of this is dependent on whether we want to change the PUD ordinance. So to make a motion in favor or opposed to the, I'm lost. I can't do that. I thinir; you know what I'd like to do is note what we've said and send it up to the City Council with a note saying that would they like us to review the PUD ordinance for review of the issue that this brings up. Batzli: Well let's assume that the Council wants us to look at the issue and that somehow this is contingent on us passing favorably on that issue. Would then people like this or, now assume for a minute that the Council is going to say yes, we want to do this to the PUD. Makes sense to us. Quite putzing around Planning Commission. Say yes or no. Do you like .it or not. Assmne for a minute that they want us to do that in a PUD. Do we like this as a concept or no? Without taking a formal vote. I mean everybody seems hung up on the PUD issue but, amending it but let's assume that the PUD is going to be changed and the Council wants us to do that. Do we like it? Do we not like it? From a concept standpoint. Not that you like this exact plan but does this make sense in this spot. Farmakes: Are you asking me? Batzli: Sure. Farmakes: I don't think so, no. Mancino: Because of the east/west neighborhoods? On each side of it. Farmakes: Yeah. I think it's just stuck in the wrong spot here. I'm not talking about the cluster or the PUD. I also think that there arc other issues. The reason that I didn't address the traffic, would it have to be altered from what I can see would be tmf~ areas outside of this development and I'm not sure, MnDot would be a major player in that decision and whether it's traditional or PUD. Because of the way that the development is effectively cut off on the east side. So I don't know how you're going to get around that short of putting a bridge over that channel. You're goin§ to have to redo, it would seem to me some of the 37 Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 highways to the west. I don't know how you're going to handle that, no matra' what goes in Bat=Ii: Well if they come in with a standard subdivision, they're going to get out on Arbor. Farrnakes: Well, no matter whether it's PUD or a standard, if Arbor's already a problem, a safety issue, no matter if it's intent, we're contributing to the problem and it would seem to me that outside of this development issue, public safety and highway and en~aeedng need to address that issue no matter what goes in there. Basil: I ~inlr what we need to do is basically make, I would Iii?. to at least see us make two motions. One is bas~y to somehow or another ask the Council whether they want us to lake a look at the PUD. And then make a motion on our gut feel on this and with the understanding that we think it really depends on what we end up doing with the PUD. Farmakes: I a/tee to a certain extent Also, it's not just the PUD. Our shoreland ordinance I think needs a little look at. As I recall, diwh dig.~ng was not, we didn't cover that on it. Conrad: That's probably true. I think they can rake advantage of whatever it is fight now so we probably should look at what it mea~. Sc, otc I think it's the spirit of the ordinance versus the intent. Or the zoning. Batzli: The spirit versus the intent? Harberts: ...higher level here of intent. Scott: I just wanted to see ff anybody was listening. Harberts: Sounds kind of ghostly huh. Scott: It is. I'm thinking that we should table the development and use that, and say the reason why we've tabled this is because of this issue with regard to the PUD. Use this as the test case and then, you know they're experienced in this because obviously they're the body that makes the decision. And I just use this as an example. Say this is the reason why we think we need to look at the PUD ordinance because we're probably going to get more of these. What do you want us to do? Conrad: Well does tabling allow us to pass it up to City Council7 I don't think it does. I think we have to do something. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Our comments here are on record. This is a conceptual review. It's not, we're not approving anything here right? Aanenson: ...clustm-ing, zero lot line. Batzli: Well let's assume for a minute Paul that we tabled it and said, we want to look at the PUD. We want to be educated more on what those changes mean. How quickly could you come back to us with those kind of changes and that kind of report given the fact that we've just cleared all of our agendas into February. Krauss: ...sometime in Fchnmry. Batzli: And what does that do to the applicants if we sit on this for a while? Bob Boyer: Well, it delays our projecc..we're concerned about getting this project moving. Anytime it's held up, you said you're waiting until February? ...obviously we're concerned about moving along with this project. Batzli: Okay. The risk, I think you mn a grea~ risk fight now. Just to give you my sense of what the mofion's going to be is that if we move it on tonight, we will recommend denial I haven't counted any noses here but that's what I'm hearing. So be that as it may, is there a motion? Conrad: Yeah, I would reco~ that the Planning Commission reco~ to the City Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ardinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case//93-7 with all the conditions of the staff report. Bat~.li: Is there a second? Mancino: I'll second it. Batzli: Discussion? Mancino: Discussion would be only adding to it the highway problem. Thc txat~ that we're putting in. Seeing if Dave can check out with MnDot putting in that road. Conrad: Yeah, in fact I'm glad you brought that up Nancy. I would ~ to make that point number 16 in the staff report. To re-examine access to Highway 7. Scott: And also too do we want to re-visit the applicability of including channels and like. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Farmakes: Definition of shoreline. Scott: Definition of shoreline maybe excluding channels or wha ver. Batzli: I'm sorry, Ladd. Was your motion that you recommead that thc Council instrllct US tO look at the PUD? Conrad: Right. The PUD ordinance. Batzli: Okay. And in the meantime are we tabling this? What are we doing with this? Conrad: Until, I would have tO read my motion back. I only remember a 30 second retention span. Batzli: It was just such a clever motion. Aaneuson: What I wrote down is that you recom _mend~ the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before you make any reconnnendafion. They can remand it back tO you and they can go ahead... Batzli: Okay, so our recommendation on this. So this goes up with that as the recommendation? Conrad: I think the developer should hear what they think. I don't think we should mess around with the ordinance if the City Council doesn't want us tO. Batzli: Yeah, that nugces sense. Conrad: We have so many other things tO do that if this is a priority, we'll do it. Batzli: Okay. Now you wanted to amend your motion tO include the access onto TH 7. And our second accepted that? Batzli: And we had another proposed ame~_ttment here to shareland something or other. Conrad: I don't know that I want that as a motion on this. I'd like staff to look intO that and Plaoning Cornmi~ion Meeting- December 1, 1993 Harberts: A clever way of pushing it up. Conrad: Well, to review what a channel does in terms of our ordimmce~ In terms of lakeshore footage. Batzli: Okay. Just so tha~ the applicant knows what we're about to do here. We're going to vote on, we're going to recommend to the City Council that they instruct us, whether they want us to look at the PUD or not. We're really not making a recommendation on your conceptual plan but it will go along with that as our recommendation up to the City Council. Correct Bob Boyer: $o the next meeting would be with the City Council? Bal~: Yes it would and we basically would not have made a yea or nay recommendation other than our cornmen~ on record. Tom Merz: Can you explain what does the City Council then...what will be happening with this? Batzli: The City Council can then choose to approve the concept, disprove the concept, or table it pending us looking at the PUD ordinance. Tom Merz: Will they do that with or without you looking at the ordinance? Would they just approve or? Batzli: Yes, they could. They could approve it. Disprove it or as a third alternative, table it while we looked at something. Farmakes: But what they would be approving though would be the concept. It would still come back... Conrad: It's still in the concept stage. Batzli: One at a time. HarScm: Quick, take the vote. Batzli: Sorry. Okay, is there any other discussion? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Rcsident: I had one question. You're stating that as it sits then the City Council rnak~ the decision either way. Are you not advocating your responsibility to provide them with your expertise? You have just said that you believe that the nay's would have it but instead of letting the City Council know that, you're ~irr~,ly going to pass it up saying if you want us to look at an ordinance, we will Otherwise here it is, you decide. Batzli: No, I don't think so. I hhink the reco~ will very plainly speak for itself. I'm having a tough time counting noses because the initial hurdle that we have to get over is in fact Mis PUD issue. And if we can't get to that, we really can't recommend yes or no. And so by sending it up to the Council in that manner, we are going to see this again as a sim plan. Assuming that the City Council approves it as a conceptual plan. We will see this again and wske a recommendation yes or no in it's final form. But I don't think we're able to say that it's a good concept or not given the piece of property ' that it sits on. And that's really what Resident: You're definitely not through with the issue then? Batzli: Wc are not through with the issue. We are going to see this again in all it's gory, in fact in more gory detail the second time as an acuml site plan rather than as a concel _~_~1 .. review, which is what we're doing tonight. Although you wouldn't know it by the discussion. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commt~on recommend to the City Coun~ that the Planning Commi~don review the PUD ordinance before it makes a recommendation on PUD Case 4PY3-7, with the following condition8: 1. Thc applicant shall work with the City in desi~g the interior storm drainage system in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be compensated for oversizing costs on the 30-inch trunk storm sew~ line through the site. All internal storm sewer pipes shall be deigned and constructrd for a lO-year storm event. 2. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat approval process. 3. Derailed grading and drainage and utility construction phns and specifications will be required as a part of the preliminary and final pht approval process. The construction plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's consmmion standarcl~ 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 4. The private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable un'nnround at the end of Dartmouth Drive. 6. The applicant shall have the wetland delineat~ by a qualified wetland specialist and the wetland boundary accurately deno~xt on the grading plan. 0 The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Health Depamnent~ City of Chanhassen, MnDOT, MPCA and MWCC. 8. Soil engineering on lots shown with peat or nmck will be a requirement with any future 9. Compliance with thc conditions of the Building Official letler dated November 10, 1993. 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire ~'s letter dami November 9, 1993. 11. Only 12 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at a common dock and two storage racks allowing up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be permitted. 12. The existing home on the development site be removed prior to any new co--on. 13 Amendment of the PUD Ordinance allowing for cluslrr of zero lot line homes low-density designation of the 2000 Land Use Plan. 14. 15. A tree preservation plan and wetland re-vegetation plan shall be submitted for approval Park and trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applic~on at thc rate currently in force. 16. Staff shall re-examine access onto Highway 7. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons for voting nay7 Planning Commission Meeting - Decem~ 1, 1993 Harberts: I support the concept. All we're doing is supporting the concept. I think the discussion points that were brought up were valid. I think they can be incorporated into more of a conditions report. I got over the hurdle. I'm over the hurdle folks so, that's it. Batzli: I'm over the hurdle as well I like it in concept. If we have to look at the PUD we will and the Council will tell us to and I think we should take a vote. Hadm'ts: I've been in the minority all day so what's one more. Batzli: So this goes to the Council when7 Aanenson: January 10th. Batzli: January 10th this will be in front of the Council. We encourage you to follow the issue up and let them know your concerns as well Thank you all for coming in tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTWLF. BUILDINC~ ON A SINGLE PARCEL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 54~132 SOUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET~ A 2~100 SQUARE FOOT RETAIl. BUILDING AND A 7~100 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDIN0 ON 13.11 ACRF~ OF PROPERTY ZONED BO~ GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4~ BLOCK 1~ WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION~ T.F. JAME~ COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address Charlic James John Meyers Dan Bechnan Craig Hallett Vemelle Clayton Brad Johnson Lyle King Bm Iang Tim Menning Bob King Amie Privie T.F. James Company Byerly's 6895 Chapan'al Lane Future Resident of Chanlmssen 422 Santa Fe Circle 7425 Frontier Trail 7629 Oakland 4801 Minneapolis Ave, Orono 980...Circle, Burusville 6122 Arctic Way, Edina Oateway Foods, Minneapolis Phoning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this ium~. Batzli: So do the plans that we're looking at have any rational equivalence to what's actually going to go in thcrc? Generous: Yes. Except for the sidewalk and the reduced elevation. All the building locations. Batzli: And all of the landscaping7 Generous: Well, we'll have improv~ landscaping. Ba~li: Okay. Can you go back to the Rhorshak one you had up there. Can you expls~n what that was supposed to tell us? Generous: This is just that southwest comrremial building. What they've done is reduce this elevation by 5 feeC The ground floor elevation. Balzli: $o this is just showing the new grade? Generous: Yeah. What they've done is created a steeper grade from hewe to this parking area and then this is just, it's 5 feet lower. The ground floor elevation. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Thanks. Does thc applicant have a presentation for the Planning Cormnission? Yes. Harberts: I'd like to ask one question. Is there any involvement by the HRA in this project? With Byerly's or this first segment of the project. Generous: I believe they've had discussion. Krauss: Yeah, I don't believe they've come, and Charlie you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't lhink they've come before the HRA yet. It's been discussed at a staff level I think they're scheduled for Saturday? Haxba-ts: So there's an opporumi~? Kmuss: Yeah, I think there really is, to be honest, there's almost nothing that I know of that's being done in thc downtown area in thc last 10 years that didn't had some son of TIN package attached to it. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Harberts: Does that proposal that will come before them include the whole phn or is it just for the Byerly's, or that...? Krauss: I assume it's the entire. It's based on how much tsxes are going to be genea'ated by building a development in there so, and the HRA does have, it's kind of...th~ do look at the quality of the project and would basically defer to you, the Planning CommissJ, on and the City Council on the site plan issues~ Harberts: With regard to the proposed senior housing, is that just concept or is that perhaps more than a concept in what happens? Kranss: Well let me give a...of that. When we were at the Vision 2002 meetings, there were corrunents pro and con about senior housing showing up on the corner and a post Office site. I even heard some accusations cast towards Charlie James for, somebody accuseA staff of being in the hip pocket of the developer. That we had a deal on the side and really nothing senior housing and we've referred a number of developa'~ who have come to talk to ns about senior housing, to go talk to Charlie lames. Mr. laxn~ is aware that we're seeking a site for senior housing. He's also aware that we may need to seek a site to relocaue the post office. In the intetw, st of meeting the city needs and offering a proposal to the city in terms of settling, we had...land acq~tion for the realigmnent of 78th Street Mr. lames presented this as something for our discussions and if it's, that's simply all it is. There's no deal There's no guarantees that that's to be decided. It was for illustrative purposes only. Harberts: For discussion purposes only, with senior housing, who would be the owner or is that pan of the, does it generate taxes I guess? Or is iis something that the dty will own or the HRA will lease out or what's the potential relationship there? Kranss: I guess the answer is yes. We've discussed all those options... Harberts: lust a question for Brian, or the commission here. When we look at this, are we just looking at this tonight or are we in a sense looking at this? Kranss: No, you are just loo_idng at the Byerly's and the commercial strip component. Scott: Can I ask a question? When was this, I see we have a site plan. When was this a conceptual? Kranss: It's not. It's not a PUD. I know you haven't seen it for a long time but this is actually straight zoning. This is under the CBD district. Planning Commission Meeting- ~ 1, 199~ Scott: I ~e ~ite plan approval and then for 100,000 square feet and I've got an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of paper that I'm supposed to use to do thi~. I rne~ that seem~ to m~ to ~ when wc have a lot of. Krauss: Didn't you get the full sized copy? Scott: No. No. This is it and we have a guy who wants to subdivide something into B lots and we have 3 or 4 pages. Krauss: There was some error on our part because we had full sized copies and. Scott: I'm not that good to be able to render an opinion on this based upon what I have in my packet I don't know about the other folks but I sure can't. Farmakes: Thc elevation plan is illogical Krauss: That's real unfortunate because it's not thc developers fault. We have those in our office and we assturu~ they got distributed last week. Sc. otc Maybe we should have called. Mancino: We haven't seen architecture deai~na, nothing. Scott: No. Harberts: That's the end of my questions Brian. Bat=Ii: Thank you. Threw a monkey wrench into that one didn't you? Does the developer have a presentation for the Planning Cornmiss_ion? Before we get started Charlie I should admit that the last time I think you were in front of us you told the story about a chicken and a pig walking down the road and I've used that. I've kind of stolen it from you and I just wanted to get that upfront. Charlic James: Have you kept track of how many times because I have a royalty. A nickel. Batzli: Well yeah, I just used it once but I was planning on using it again shortly so that's why I was thi~idng about it. I was hoping that you would maybe have something like that Harberts: Well enlighten the new ones here, Come on~ Don't keep us in the dark. Planning Commi~on Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: I think I've exhausted the-Council's tolerance for stories. Harberts: I think this is going to be a condition of approv~ That we hear this story. Bi_tv. Ii: I'll tell it to you ~. It's a good one. Charlie James: Well, for those of you that I haven't had the pleasure of meeting yet, my name is Charlie James. I'm with the T.F. James Company. We're a privately held firm headquartered in Eden Prairie. We're essentially a family business. We were incorporated in 1946 and we've been doing these types of projects throughout the Midwest since the early 60's. And I'm pleased to be here tonight. I think we've got really a first class project here that would be an asset to any community. If I could put these together. I apologize too that you didn't have the large drawings. We submitted 27 copies of those folded to the city at the time of submission. Why don't we start with this. Batzli: You need to actually move stage fight or left. I never did quite have that down. For the camera if you could for just one second... Scorn Stage left. Ba~Ii: Okay. I don't know, are you facing the audience or the camera? Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Charlie James: And my able assistant is, his name is John Meyers. $ohn Meyers is a Vice President of Byerly's and what we have here basically. I guess we can start with a building and I'll go into some of the site issues. We have a brick building that we brought you a sample of the material that we're talking about. It's probably good if I hold it back this far from you. And we'd be using this material in conjunction with some native Kasota stone~ Some Mankato or Kasota stone. That'd be rough cut sWne accents in these areas hem. And we started with the design of the Byerly's. We tried to articnlA~ the front of that and then have varying heights for more visual interest. And once we established the motif here, then we tried to repeat some of these same patterns with the balance of the center to give an overall cohesive feel to the project. We varied roof heights and this bailding's moving in and out of the plane here as well as up and down. We have an 8 foot grade drop from here to here and we wanted to avoid just a one long monotonous looking building here and want to link this and the clock tower, this is actually a functional item and what would be in here is stairs and eievator. And what you're seeing fight here is an enclosed walkway that would take you into the second level of this building here. 5o this is functional as we. Il as I think One of the things that we did here in working and getting some pre~ feedback from Planning Commission Meeting - Decem_her 1, 1993 staff was when the Target was done there was a concern about the wall There being just-a flat wall so what you're seeing here are little shadow lines and what we're proposing there is we'd pull the brick out from the face and create little shadow boxes in here. And then there'd be base planting of that so these are like little rectan~ elements and then we've basically repeated that on the other side of the b~jlding here where the reslaurant is and we've put windows, arched windows within those same elements. So we've tried to break up just the monotony of the big flat expanse of wall here. Let's see. This is a drive rims here and the way that this functions is that the auwmobiles are entering through here and coming out on this other side and then this bnilding is sl~pping out and playing this. This shot is a little more shadow here and it's back in. ~sed probably 30 feet and then this one pnlls out a little bit more and then this element pulls out again so this is stepping out in 3 steps and then the entry again is accentuated by being pulled out. So that kind of creates this area where cars can come through. We have a double lane in there so that we have ample slacking for the parcel pick-up. And then we've provided some planter boxes. Batzli: I had a question. Is there internal access from Byerly's. Is there a covered walkway, internal walkway down through the retail or is it entrance only through outside sidewalk and .... Charlic lames: Well both actually but where we want to direct people. lohn Meyers: Well there's no internal access. Batzli: There's no internal walkway? Charlie James: No. I mean people conJd go that way. There's nothing to prevent them from walking along underneath here. lohn Meyers: Not inside the store. There's a walkway, but it's a sidewalk from our door underneath a canopy for the drive thru right down to there. Charlie James: Okay, but yeah. And then all of us, from here all thc way down is enclosed. I mean the sidewalk in front of the shops. You have a. Mancino: So at what point does thc walkway, inmmal walkway start? John Meyers: It starts at the retail. At the other end of the retail Batzli: Okay. So there's no internal access between thc grocery sto~ and the retail? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 loire Meyers: No. Harberts: Mr. Chair. How tall is the canopy7 John Meyers: Which pan? This? Harberts: Where you drive thru or drive under or whatever7 John Meyers: Probably about 25 feec Charlie James: h's 25 on u~crc now. Harberts: From road surface to thc... John Meyers: Oh, on thc inside? John Meyers: It's a minimum of about 18 feet I think on all our stores. Charlie James: This, I'll just have to hold this one up. B~li: Has our Fire Marshal looked at that? Charlie lan~: Yes. There was a meeting with all mechanical and building inspection people. B~_~.li: Did we have a report from the Fire Marshal in the packet? Has he lool~d at this smff? Generous: He said they have no cotranent at this time. Batzli: Really? Okay. John Meyers: I ~ if it's an issue that we...we wouldn't get a pemfit obviously ~o build it. I mean that's something we deal with. Batzli: Okay. Charlie James: This may help explain what's happening across the front of the building here. Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 This represents the edge of the Byerly's store here. So here you see the drive gm)ugh coming out and these are the covered walkways here. So there's a, when you're coming into _this store, you're walking through a planting bed and then you're in a covered walkway situation and the grade drops occur at the bnildlng wall so there's a grade drop here and then this is held at pretty much the same elevation for the sidewalk and this area is going down. $o at this point you're going down on the sidewalk into the covered area. The planting beds in front and by the time you get down to this other end, you would be going up because we're holding this, the elevation from here to here constant and the site is going down a little bit. And then we have a covered walkway here and unfommately this wasn't big enough to fit on, all on one sheet but there's a projection out _this way. Now the parking that staff was concerned about is fight here. That sounds like that was confu~ing to you folks earlier this evening. Staff had a concern that thcre'd be some tm/~c conflicts betwocn people backing out hcre and entering the center from the driveway so what has been suggesl~ is that we take this parking out of here and put a planting bed in front of this plR,~ area out here and then take that parking, put it down here. There was also 11 parking stalls that functioned off of this driveway and it was...to be combined. John Meyers: It's shown on the plans. .. Charlie James: What we're talking about is miring .these out. Extending this planting bed all the way across, Removing this parking here and then orient the p~r~ing through here. John Meyers: That was a request of the staff...confnsion here. That was also a request asked if we could drop this :5 feet. So the sketch drawing that you saw is just a result of meeting with staff on Monday. They asked, can you drop this 5 feet? We said we'll see what we can do and dropped it 5 leek Charlie James: There was a concern here about, there was a reference rrmde, to Rapid Oil Change and I'm not familiar with that but I'm not sure that we have the same situation because we have over 200 feet from the center of the road back so I think we have maybe a longer slope than we do out there. I don't know. But in any event, we can drop this and there would be, the slopes would occur here and here within the green area. About the only thing that happens is that this gets, this driveway becomes a little bit steeper in here so this would be down. Held down a little bit from the rest of the project hcre. One of the things that we're talking about is trying to create an amenity area down here with some picnic tables and I just want, this looks like, maybe this looks like this is rather random but there's been enumerable drawings to get to this point. You start first I guess along with the topography and we have a situation here where we have a hill going up anywhere from 12 to 21 feet above what our grade would be here. $o it gives us the opportunity to take some of those areas of thc loading areas and by having them at the toc of the slope, thc people up here 51 Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 wouldn't really see them, I mean they'd be down like this at the toe of thc slope~ So then there were many refinements that we went through about experimenting with thc drive thru on this side. Drive thru on thi~ side and there was just many permeatations before when you combine with the need for parking and need for open space and you're trying to meet all of these...to the code with no variance, which is what we have attemp~ to do. Ali those things work to kind of push the site into a certain configuration. B~t-,.li: What is the impervious coverage on that? Charlie 1ames: Impervious would be 70%. Batzli: What's our maximum? Generous: 70. B~__~.li: So they're right at the maximum? Generous: Yes. · . Charlie James: I think we're half a percent. John Meyers: There was a little margin. Mancino: There was interior landscaping... John Meyers: Actually more interior landscaping than it looks... Charlie James: I tbinic there's 8 1/2. Well that was before the, then I guess staff was requesting that we have some islands in here in addition so I haven't looked at those calculations as to how that will increase the green but we started out in excess of the ordinance and then in the process here of designing thi~, the ordinance was changed from 5 to 8 I believe. Is that fight Paul? At 8 and I think we came in at about 8 1/2% before these subsequent changes that are being suggested or reco~ed by the staff now. One of the things that came up at one point was the view from City Hall I asked the engineers to come out and get some elevations near your City Hall Here's a cross section. We have your City Hall building here and this is a YMCA and Kerber, there's going I~ be a berm along ~. What ~ is doing. What this drawing shows is, it Shows the s/ze of the trees at a ~ level of maturity in relationship to the building. The green would be the top of the berm and thc orange represents the center line elevation of ~ and so thc combination of Kcrber coming down would be the berm on top. And then rather than just indicate that the trees 52 Phoning Commi~ion Meeting - ~ 1, 1993 would be placed directly on top of the berm, if they were off to one side or the other, flint's why I mean if they were on top of the berm there'd even be mare height here but I guess what this shows is that the combination of the trees and the natural topography in the area will serve to further screen this side of the building. T~is shows the trees that are, the ornamental trees that are proposed at the ends of these planting islands. This is overstory trees that they had requested along the central access to the site. Again, here's reference to the arched windows and those are set within a rectangular pattern. That's a repetition of this pattern here up front. This is a design reference to your fire hall Mancino: I have a couple questions. Is the back brick also? Finished in brick.. Charlie James: We're proposing, let me ~ back to the site plan. Mancino: And I love the mature trees that you're going to plant. Those are wonderful. Charlie Sames: One of the reasons for this plan here is that you have an ordinance that says the trees have to be planted every 30 feet so all we were Irying to do here is show massing and 30 feet but I mean obviously we'd like to do some groupings and do some other things but all this plan was intended as is to show the quantity as required by code and that code says every 30 feet and staff had a good idea back here.. There will be a retaining wall element in here someplace to keep the dopes down. We've got, we won't be able to make the final determination on the length and the height of that but what we intend to do is, rather than go up in just one wall, we'd take it up in se~ts and we want to use the same materials that Dean Johnson is using. The...block or. John Meyers: The Keystone brick. Charlie James: Yeah. So all of this would look tied in up here. And then staff suggested that a lot of this plant material go up the slope rather than being on the base of the slope because you've got a condition like this where it really doesn't serve to screen much being at the toe of the slope. It'd be more effective and you could almost see some of it behind the bnilding too as it goes up. Batzli: Where are your loading docks on that? Charlie Janw~: Here. And so what we've done. John Meyers: Well here, here, here, and here. Charlie Jnmes: There's a londing dock here, here, nmi here. Down here. And what we've 53 Planning Commisdon Meeting - December 1, 1993 done. What we've shown on the plans, h's hard to pick out here but we have kind of provided a brick screen wall that runs all the way down to the end of the building here and it's hard to pick it out against. Batzli: Which elevation is that? That's east? Charlie James: Yeah, facing City Hall And see there's a mack dock in here. So we've run the, there's a line in here. That's the top of it. It starts at this point here and it runs all the way over as far as it can to here. So it's like a 8 foot high wall here out of brick that screens this loading dock here and we're showing how the topography would. John Meyers: The site plan shows it. Charlic James: It's not as red as it could be but thnt's a masonry brick walL In response to your question about materiah. One thing that we would like to look at is we're trying to make a detennination whether this will be brick on masonry or brick on steel frame and that's going to be a flmction of the weather and one thing that we're looking at is we'd like to have the opportunity to consider some alternates in this area right here. Stucco that would be kind of the same color as the brick and be virtually indis~~le from it, Mancino: On the front side? John Meyers: No, just in back. Just the north side. Charlie James: And this is a hill coming down here. There's quite a slope in the topography so we're talking brick wrapping around the building here and Byerly's completely in brick here. That's just a segment back in here. One of the reasons for that is, is that this is a small tenants space and you don't really know some of these people in the future may have a need for additional space. For instance it's nice to be able to have what they call a knock out wall or something. This gives you more flexibility in the future but the tenant stucco would be the same. If we went that route, it would be the same brown. It would only be putting this segment and it would be visible from any direction- It'd be totally hidden from view from all sides here. I guess one of the things that, if there was one area that we're trying to come in under straight zoning and meet all the codes and ordinances. The one thing that seemed kind of problematic was the, was your sign ordinance. You have a sign cudinance that says that no signs can ex~ 15% of the wall area of the building and each individual sign can't be more than 80 square feet in size. Well, for instance on a retail center here, what we're proposing. This would be like maximum but this would be worst case scenario. Ba~li: Is that what we're going to get? 54 Planing Commb~ion Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlie James: Well, what I mean by that is, we have a tenant that wants this whole space here now but it has the potential to become individual spaces so I'm going to show those signs here but more than likely this is, from here to here is going to be one tenant. But in any event, what we've shown here are eight 80 foot sign areas and two 48 square foot sign areas which is the maximum tl~'s permiued in your code, That 80 square foot. With 15% of the wall area here, we would be allowed 1,188 square feet of tolal signage. We're proposing ?36 which is 400 square feet below wire your ordinance allows. $ohn Meyers: 60%. Charlie James: It's 9% instead of 15%. And similarly on the west end of &i~ building here, the code would allow 528 square feet and we're proposing 320. Or 9% in,ad of 15%. And all the signage on thi, project will be cut out letters, individual cut out letm~ and so what I've done here. I don't want you to take this wrong here but the only way I could figure out how to calculate that would was just to kind of draw like an imagina~ rectangle around an area that cut out letters might go in. So there isn't going to be any pan signs you know where they paint plexiglass. They're going to be individual cut out letters but I'm just trying to give you an idea what an 80 square foot area might look like at the max. Where this gets problematic for us, is with the Byerly's. Okay, now. On the Byerly's here, the total wall area on the south elevation is 7,500 square feet. We would be permitted under your ordinance 15%, or 1,125 square feet in signage. We have shown 431 square feet, which is only 5 3/4% of the wall area. We're allowed 15% so we're about a third of what we're allowed. The problem is that the ordinance says that no one sign can be any bigger than 80 square feet and we have 72 square feet total between these two here and 75 square feet here but in order to get the signage here that would be visible from the street, we're at 304 square feet for this element here. Now when you add all those up, as I say, you're at 431 feet total which is a third of what would be allowed. But it's one of those areas where we could put, I guess what I'm saying is, we could put. Mancino: You want to do a total aggregate. What's that 80 square feet look like for Byerly's? Did you do a rendering of it at the smaller size? The size that's allowable by ordinance. I just wanted to see it proportionally. Proportionate to the whole walL Charlie James: Here's 72 square feec Scott: What about the one on the bottom? John Meyers: h'd be about the size of this. Scott: What about that Byerly's down there? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - Dec~ 1, 1993 John Meyers: That's 304 also. Because that's the same size height. Scorn Okay. John Meyers: Basically the same logic applie~ We just don't want to get into an interpretation problem. You know t~hnically does it say each letter of the s/ii? I don't know. Each one is 80 square feet and we still wouldn't exceed the 15% maximum. We're just trying to give you, we're telling you this is what we'll do without trying to...ff you've seen our stores I think you'll, I don't know if you will, I think you'll agree that they're not overly siiied. Farmakes: I didn't see any monument... Haflxn~: You didn't sec any what Jeff7 Farmakes: Monumenture. Is there monument s/gn~ involved? Charlie James: Yeah. There'd be a pylon here and what that would look lii~, if you ~ one of these arched elements and it would be out of brick thnt matches the building nnd. Scott: How tall arc thc dimen.dons? Charlie James: Well I guess whatever the ordinance allows. Farmakes: Are we talking a pylon here or are we talking a monument? Charlic James: Well we're talking about the brick going to the ground. Krauss: The architecun'al monuments signs... Charlie James: What we're talking about is not having to sign something, come out and stick a pole in the ground and put a sign. What we're talking about is the archi~ design and arch element that repeats this motif and we will have s/gnage within that that mee~ the ordinance. Batzli: Okay. Any other issues? Charlie James: Well, I'm sure I probably forgot something hcrc but maybe I should just field some questions. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 B~_,,.li: Alright. I think we're going to have a lot of questions. What I'd like to do is'hear from the other people that showed up here tonight to make sure that they didn't show up in vain, or that we start losing them due to the Lateness of the hour. So unless you are taking issue with other conditions in the staff report, we should know that but otherwise I think you'll probably field some questions as we all talk about the project. Charlie lames: Okay. Batzli: This is a public hcarin§. Arc there other people here that would like to address thc commission7 If therc is, please comc up to thc microphone and give us your name and address for thc ~. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad $ohn~on, 742.~ Frontier Trail. Mr. Chakman, mere_rets of thc Planning Commission. I'm here to speak probably on three different categories. As you know I've been involved for a long time in the downwwn planning and have gone through a number of planning processes with all of you in developing those sites. We're also a developer, or co-developer in the project above the site call Oak Hilh that looks down on this particular site. I didn't see too much discussion about that so I'll pretend like I'm a resident up there. And then also we represent Mazket Square, which is an investment that the city has. First of all I'd like to deal with just the presentation that we've just seen and I'm going to ask questions. I'm not going to expect answers but probably questions that you should ask. And the first thing is that, from what I've seen so far, this does not conform at all to any of the requirements that we've been asked to meet relative to a downtown plan. I see no peaked roofs. I see nothing that I'm being real constantly...as far as the architectural style. This is a complete change in style from what we're being requesl~l to do and currently the three projects that we're going through the city with, all of which we'd love to have it be only a fiat roofs and types of things but I know that were not going to be accepted. So I think we were listening but I think that's a really major deviation. The second thing is that there was a number of hearings that were held at the time the Target sWre evolved and I think for many of the Planning Cornmi.~ion people participated in that and the number of different type of site plans that were prescribed for that particular site and as they were with the Target site and as Target was developed, you adhere pre~ much to that particul~ site plan that was requested as a part of those hearings. There was a site plan proposed for this side of the street One of the major objections that you all had was the pafldng that would be out in front of the store. ~fly I think this violates all of the issues that were addressed by the public at that time and I think you should at least revim't that in question. As far as the view from the north. I would think that you'd require the developer, just as you did. I guess there's somebody living in City Hall so somebody did ask what it would look like from City Hall It'd be inlmv, sting to see what it would look like to look down from above onto this roof. What type of parapets. Target was required and I think we did a good job on Target. 57 Plann/ng Commission Meet/n~ - December 1, 1993 You can drive just about any place and because of the height of the parapets and the siding of that, you cannot see any roof units. And I'm sorry to say with Market Square we weren't required quite to do that and you can see some roof units over there. It does cause some problems so I think those are three of the issues that I perceive as far as the plan is concerned and the primary one is I don't think it fits any of the architectural requirements that you're currently requiring ourselves as a major development in downtown to meec The rest of probably our discussion, I'm going to ask the folks from Gateway Foods who are here _s_nd~ also the owners of the store, Festival Foods to comment. These are probably not so much issues that have to do with planning as much as we have to get it as part of the ~ as we go through this process. They have requested additional TIF assistance from the city and we might as well start now addressing the issues that we're going to have to address as we go through this process~ So I'm going to introduce two people. One is Amie Privie. He's been in the food business for some time and he has some concerns about this particular project. Amie is the Vice President in sales and marketing for... Amic Privie: Good evening members of the Planning Commi~ion. My name is Amie Privie. I'm with Oateway Fooch. I've been up in front of you before. I'm not too sure if it was the Planning Commission or probably the City Council about 2 years ago and 2 years ago we had been requested to look at the project here as far as putting a Festival Foods store .-in towm~ A major supplier, and when I say major supplier...probably one of the largest wholesalers had turned the project down and then they came to us and we lookexi at the project and I can truthfully t~l you that we had an awful hard ~ of getting the project approved by the company I work for from the standpoint of us being able to lease and guaran~ a lease on this project. Because when we did do a survey of the cormnnnity, the numbers just didn't come out to where if we put an independent retailer into here, would it be feasible that he'd get a return on hi, investment. Fortunately Brad Johnson worlced out some things with thc City of Chanhas~n that made it a little bit more palatable to go ahead with the project and I guess the only thing I want to express this evening, and I'm kind of mystified right now as to how the city of C~lanhassen is going to support another sucker. I certainly have nothing against ~tiom Competition is very healthy but at the time of getting our project off the ground, and in looking where our retailer is today. We supply the King family that owns the Festival Food, we supply them with their grocery products. So I have a couple concerns. Nnm_hcr one I have the ICing family who owns the store. Thcre are primarily our concern for their well being. Also I have the conccm that we are on this lease. I guess I just want it to be known at this particular time, and as Brad Johnson said, thcrc's ccrtainly going to be more meetings in thc future. I can guarantee 1'11 attend every one of them but I just want it to be known up front our feelings from Gateway Foods distributor with pcople who have g~s_ranteed the lease on this project, Fc~stival Foods. And I thank you for your time. 58 Plsm~g Commission Meeting - De~em~' 1, 1993 Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: We do have the person then that co-signed the lease I guess, Lyle King. Lyle, do you want to come up and say a few wards? Lyle King: Good evening. I'm Lyle King. I'm not a public speaker. I'm a butcher by trade. First of all I wanted to say that the plans that were introduced here tonight I think are beautiful And I think would be a real asset w your city. But I'm going back to 3 years now and Super Valu was the one that was asked for a store in here for Cooper's aud I know Gary very well. A friend of our's. I was with Super Value for 20 years. And Super Valu wouldn't go on it because there was no way that they could get any projection to come out and he was told at the time it'd be at least//years, even w 10 years before this city could support a store that he wanted to put up. And so they dropped Super Valu and they came to, Brad can~ to Gateway. It was Gary McCullough at the time. One of the developers. And I worked with Gary McO~ough at Super Valu so I knew him quite well When they put this plan together they wld us it would be about a 3 year break before we would break the store in black so we knew that the help that you had given the developer on their stare, ar the development that he put up, which helped us a little bit. But the store's still in the red and I do have a couple of other little businesses that are supporting it. And ~i, stare is not going to be in the black within the next year when that help is stopped. And so I just want you to know that it's not I'm against cmnpetifion because I think they're the best c~fion there is for their price store and my price store, I think they go along and comp~t each other very well. So I'm not here to knock their business because I thinl~ they're good people. I'm just saying right at this time that there's no way that if another stare comes in here within the next year, that I can be there 2 years from now. And I thank you for your time. Batzli: Thank you. Brad Johnson: Which brings me to my point. This is a conditional use? Krauss: No it's not. Brad Johnson: Why does it say in here it is? Krauss: The store itself is not a conditional use. It's a site plan. What the conditional use. Brad Johnmn: What they're approving this evening is a conditional use. Krauss: Yeah but you're in~nuating that the stare itself is a conditional use. The s~ore itself is a permit~ use. What makes it conditional is the fact that t~ey're asking for a free 59 Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1~ standing bank building. Brad $ohnson: But that's the request this evening. Site plan approval for a bank plus a slm~. Was there a public hearing called? Krauss: Yes. Brad Johnson: Did you send out notices? Krauss: Yes. Brad Johnson: Do you have a record of that7 Krauss: We should. Brad Johnson: Okay. I'd like to have it. We don't rcmem_l~r receiving one. If it's a conditional use, is that what we're approving? I see that in the St_mutes. Batzli: We're looking at tonight a site plan and a conditional use for a free slanding building. We're looking at both. Brad Johnson: For the site? Batzli: Yes. Brad Johnson: Two buildings. Batzli: Correc~ Brad Johnson: Okay. This is just technical from here on in. Number one is then, ff you're going to approve a conditional use, item 1 would be, will be not delrirmmtal to the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and gen~'al welfare of the neighborhood of the city. Our issue with this is, the city currently has one million dollars inve~ in Market Square. We have a very good chance that ff this project is approv~ we'll lose that tenant. That's just a real. We don't think thcl~ore thai that's for the good, welfare, health of the city. Second thing is, under the conditional use permit, item number 3, will be designed and constmci~ opemt~ and maintained so as to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. And as I slmrd in the be~nning, this is a complete change in the overall plan of the downtown based upon every meeting I have ever gone to. Finally, iu~n numb~ 11. Will not depreciate Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 the surrounding property values. I submit to you that if we lose our major tenant in that store or if it goes black, we will have a significant decrease in property values in this particular area. Now what you have before you, and again this is for the record. I realize a lot of this stuff doesn't pertain to what you're doing, is basically a development that maims no econ~ sense to all the people that we have talk~ to, and we've gone out and talk~ to a number of other managers. People are corning up to me and saying, what on earth are you doing? Wasn't there a feasibility study done. You know all that idntt of stuff and I said, I really don't know how it's going to go forward. The city has trermndous liabih~ related to this in money, and that's the money they've got investrd over in Markrt Square. We would recommend, and I realize this is not your area but as you go lin'ough this process, and if you want to consider a conditional use permit, that an economic study be done by the lames Company as to the financial liability of this particular product either at the stage of the Planning Commission. It may or may not be your particular thing. But for sure by the time it reaches it the City Council and by the time it gets to the HRA because I think we all should be made aware of the finandal hnpact of this particular proposed project will probably have on downtown Chanhasse~ What you have before you is the classic over development of real estate and if you can look at, we've §ot an office tower over here somewhere that's about half full, and that's Market Square. It looks full but we have about 40% of our tenants are just get~g up to the break oven point. They require high traffic due to...as you just .. · heard, which we'll be happy to give you the-records of.. The Festival swre is losing money, as projected. Nothing new. And now we're going to build another office tower. And that's exactly what's happened in most real estate. You get too much real estate and too much of the wrong type of real estate in an area. Now that is the case we'll carry forward as we go along. I have I wish, Byerly's sounds like a good idea. We have to protect our investment in whatever way we have. We feel the city has a responsibility to our particular thing in some fashion. And I know Mr. lames has a job, he wants to develop his prolm'ty and that's, I'm not against development as you understand... We're just majorly concerned and I guess if somebody came to us with a legitima~ study that said these two stores will survive. Don't worry Brad, we could care less, and I think the city should be in the same position ~ they stand to lose a considerable amount of money. PotenCy. Thank you. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Craig Hall~a; Hi. My name's Craig Hallm I outrenfly reside ~ ~c~ ~t h~ m ~ a ~~ of ~~ mom We p~~ o~ of ~e m~~ ~ ~u ~~ ~~ n~ of ~ ~~. I ~~y ~ h~ ~ ~ wh~ B~ly'~ w~ ~i~ ~o~ d~cl~nt w~ gong ~ ~y ~ ~fion m ~ ~ I m wo~g ff I w~ gong ~ ~ ~o~g ~ ho~ogs ~ ~e s~ ~ ~hing ~~ ~o~ ~C It d~'t lo~ ~ it's gong m ha~ ~fld you ~w ~ ~ ~ fg ~ ~o~ ~~t? I ~t ~t m po~t out a co~ ~ings. 61 Planning Commission Meeting- Decem~ 1, l~J~J Generous: The site plan? Craig Hallett: Yeah. I just had a couple questions and then I'll sit down. It's getting, it's the first time I've been to one of these, h's amaz/ng how long they go. My father used to be on a planing and zoning board...and I remember him gelling home. Batzli: Did he ge~ home before midnight? Craig Hallett: No, I remember Monday nights usually went pretty late for him_ We're actually purchasing one of the first townhomes, if they ever start building them, right about here. So I'm less concerned about the Byerly's from the selfish standpoint and more curious going forward on the proposed senior development and things like that. So I'm curious how I can keep in contact as those plans move along, if there's any projections for thst. Batzli: Give these guys your name and address~ Craig Hallett: Okay. Thc other issue I have, and question I have for the people developing too, would be for the residents of that community I'm moving into that are not here to speak and my main concern would be the people have the southwest facing units, or the southeast · facing nnits, there's SOme patios that are going to be abutting up against that land and I'm curious about elevations. Are those people going to be looking at part of the top of a builtting now or are their properties actually going to be...the roof so they will be looking down. And you talked about trees and I read the plans. Spacing them every l0 feet and things like that. How will that provide that troffer for those people, and when we moved in we, or when we signed the purchase agreement we knew that, I called anyway and...zoned below us so we knew potentially what...30 or 40 foot bt!jltling vei'iR~s a 20 foot building. How that... Batzli: I'd rather have Dave answer. What's the difference in elevation there? Hempel: In that particular area I guess...I do believe there's a pretty uniform si..oni6cant difference in topography. I don't, we do have a site plan with grades...but I would say it's at least...At the rear elevation of the Byerly's buildin~...elevation is on the average of 983. And the top of the slope, this would be at the easterly, southeasterly corner of the Oak Ponds development. The top of the hill there is approximately 997. So that point there is approximately 14...elevation difference. As we continue down wwards the west... Mancino: How far away are they from the back of the building?...back of the building, you've got the slope and then where does this development start? Is it 20 feet away? Is it? 62 Planning Commiss/on Meeting- December 1, 1993 Hempel: Well that scale... Generous: About 110 to 120 feet from the building... Mancino: Thank you. Batzli: 110 feet. Okay. Hempel: Pretty close. Okay, as you exumd wes~ly, at the very westerly edge of this development, we have the parking lot elevation of 968 with an elevation at the top of Oak Ponds there of approximately 978. More than 10 foot difference there. Craig Hnllctt: Thnt's a 10 foot difference from thc base, is that fight? Their building is going to be 30 to 40 feet... Hempel: Right but... Batzli: Let's have, is there anyone else that wonld like to address the commission, while these guys huddle. Dan Beckman: Good evening. My name is Dan Beckman. I live at 6895 Chaparral Lane. I too would like to be kept informed as this proceeds forwar&.l gums, when does this go up to the lIRA for seeing ff this TIF money is being given or not? Does anybody know that7 Batzli: I don't know that it will necessarily. Charlic James: Thc next meeting is thc 16th I believe. Dan Bechnan: Of Decemtm-7 Charlie James: Yes. The third Thursday. Dan Beckman: I guess I'm a little offended by Paul's comment earlier. I'm a little baffled why a city would have to buy every business into the community over the last 10 years. If the city is rally ready for these businesses, they should want to come in. They shouldn't have to be purchased and I guess as a taxpayer and as a resident here, I'm really offended by that. There was talk earlier about a traffic lighL An additional. Is this in addition to what we have up7 Hempel: The previous tra~c studies for the downtown area, there's n series of trat~ signals 63 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 were designed in the upgrade of 78th Street with thi, intersection in front of the Byerly's was proposed for a signal when this site developed and conditions warranted based on ~ volumes...78th Street. The wiring, the conduits with the posts was cut. They were all installed so it would not be torn up and rebuilt. So it was always our intent to ~ignalize the intersection when traffic volumes wan-an~ $o yes, there will be another u'affic signal at the Target entmnc, e. Dan Beckman: I really am in opposition to this. Do you people drive down main street? lust a question. It's worst than driving into Minneapolis. I just don't see why we need another stop light. Stop lights, in my estimation, w~l stop the trat~. Four way stops can then be used efficicntly I would think, and I'm not an cn~nccr. I don't know. But I think we're a little bit over Irill on that. And secondly, who's paying for the stop light? Is the city footing the Mil on tha~ Hempel: That is all a part of the downtown upgrade with West 78th Sueet which is a combination. Krauss: Maybe we can touch on the TIF for a moment and I feel no obligation and need to defend TIF. I mean the city has been doing that for the last 14 years and Brad lohnson has been the primary ben~tter of the use of TIF. Brad Johnson: The city has. Krauss: I don't deny that Brad but the fact is, it's been used extensively and the policies that have addressed TIF are set through the HRA and are not under the purview of the Planning Corntnission, and I wouldn't ask you to get involved in the financial deliberations. I slay out of thent It's really a whole separate field of endeavor. As to the need to induce development to occur downtown. You know there's been a, I think the HRA's talked about it extensively. Market Square was very heavily subs_idiT~i. Target was less so. There's different levels of subsidy that fed back into it. But what's irr~.ortant to note is that the money that's circulated in TIF is money that is paid by these projects. It's not money that's being paid by any resident elsewhere in the city. It's thc dollars being paid by Festival By Target. By the bank. By Town Square. They're recycled back to pay for the knpwvements and pay for basically the inducement to get them in there. All the i .mlm)vements to the 78th Street roadway, all the signals, all the storm sewer, everything that you see. All the landscaping has been paid through TIF, which is essentially recycling those tax dollars. Dan Beckman: Maybe I don't understand how _this TIF money works but let me just inlm'ject something here. If L..them right in my background that I've learned on this, is TIF money not a speculation on developed property lkat you're going to have increased taxes that will be Phmning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 paid on this pwpeny. Is that not how these things...7 Krauss: I think the word speculation is wrong. I mean basically it's a conlractual srrangement. If we have a Target signed up to go to a property. If Target is goinl~ to general x number of dollars during the life of the district, the deals that the city with the liRA has usually been made is that 3 years of the increased taxes goes back to offset the cost of the special assessments and improvements that the city has put in. But that's basically, that project is paying it's own way essentially, if you understand that concept. It's not general tax revenues of any sort. From any outside source corning into it. Dan Beckman: But there are other problems that arise from having them there? Police protection, this kind of stuff and for the years that we don't reap any benefits. Krauss: Well there's all idnds of things that accrue but what also accrues is ~ous increased tax base to pay for those things. Dan Beckman: Down the road. Krauss: Even during while it's happening. I mean fight now TIF is paying, when you see somebody mowing thc lawn down medians of downWwn, that's being paid through TIF. When you see the signals going up, that's being paid through TIN. When the lrees are being planted, that's throu~ TIN. So it's not an easy issue to digest but it's being used solely m benefit Chanhassen. It's keeping dollars in Chanhassen that would otherwise be disui~ outside the city. Dan Beckman: Okay. And just for the record, I don't have any ties with Brad Johnson. Okay. We're in Rotary Wgether. That's how I know Brad. We don't have any business ties. Batzli: Anything else7 Dan Beckman: I guess that's about all I have. I did have one other issue though. They talk~ about the slope. The grade of this massive 500 and some car parking lol: Did I hear that right, like 24 foot drop from the building to the slreet? John Meyers: It's 2 1/'2%. It's less than what Target's lot is. Dan Beckman: Okay. I'm just wondering what a parking lot of that size, at that angle, will do...it might be something to check inw. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Tim Menning: Good evening. My name is Tim Menning. I'm one of the partners in Mafl~ Square Associates. I've always consider the city a parmer with us in that project. Both due to their large investment in it. Of which we owe the city upwards of $800,000.00 and depending on what happens with Lots 2 and 3, it's going to be closer to a million dollars. I also consider them a partner from the standpoint that they partim~ in any profits that that center turns as long as there's debt outstanding on it. We pay not only a 10% interest on that debt for the city or the HRA, whatever the case may be. But we also pay 25% of the cashflow of that project. They are a partner with us. I. reslize that in the lequest for developments such as mis, particularly is TIF monies are looked for, and other...it does put the city in a precarious position. It would be as if Brad decided tomorrow to build another store and not bring us other panners along for example. Kind of equivalent to that. It is an awkward position for the city but I think that before the city can move forward on this project at all, it's got to request an economic study and if that study would not show that the Marketplace would support, not only the existing businesse~ Not just Festival Foods. The liquor store. The center. The other co~ businesses in town. Not just in ou~ center. That if it can't support the existing businesses, plus what's proposed here, the city has definitely got to rethink this issue. Maybe it may be in a position where if it meets all these requirements, and no TIF money or assistance is asked for in some manner, they may not be able to mm it down. We may have to accept that ourselves. But if an economic study shows that it's going to be detdmen~ to the existing businesses in town, that the market can't support both, the old and the new, the city's going to have to be very catefifl in moving forward in this project at any point. Even on siznply the Planning Comrnission approvals. I don't think it's possible for that to be done before this economic study is done. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Let's see if anyone else would like to first. Anyone else? Okay, go ahead. Charlie lames: I didn't know if now was the time, that it'd be appropriate for me maybe to respond to some of these concerns. Or would you like7 Ba~li: No. Why don't you hold off a little bit. Harber~: I think Brian, excuse me, that we need to ensure that we are keepinE in mind what our scope here is tonight, given the lateness in the hour. Batzli: Okay. Yeah. I think most of your response is going to be to economic issues, which is something that is with, it's not in our jurisdiction. It really isn't and I think that's what's going to be what you're going to respond to, I would ima~ne. Charlie 1ames: Yeah, there were some other things but I'lL Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: Okay, yeah. Let's wait for us to have questions on that. -On those things. The TIF money and things like that, that will be handled by Council and thc HRA. We can espouse personal views but as a Planning Commission, you know we really can't do anything on that If there's no one elge that would like to addre~ the commission, ii there a motion to close the public hearing7 Conrad moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion caFFie(L The public hearing was close~L Batzli: Yes it is. Conrad: And I think I have, I think there are going to be a lot of questions. We have a choice, and I have another problem and that problem was that we really didn't get the material for reviewing. It's just like I've only done part of the job and I really don't know that I want to discuss this until we get the plans in fix)nt of ua And maybe all the information was in the planning packet but for some reason when you have the real blueprints in front of you, it triggers a lot of stuff. And I guess my preference Mr. Chairman is to table this issue so that we can really look at the. plans. And thc other thing is that we probably have an hour, hour's worth of discussion ff I were to guess, and I'm, I'd prefer not to stay here until 12:30. Batzli: Okay. Took the words right out of my mouth.' Mancino: I'd like to second that. Batzli: You wanmt to be focused Diane. Did you want to talk about ~ issues? Did you want to raise. Harberts: I just wanted to raise one comment, and that is with regard to, you know I'm excited about developments in Chanhassen but given the particu'pation that I had in that 2002 _thing. Planning scope or whatever that was. When we talk about a downtown area that's more pedestrian cnim~, and this particular piece is right across from this concept of a central park, community park that everyone was talking about that it should be more pedestrian orienl~d. Is there an opportunity, was there some opportunity to look at this project where this would be more pedestrian friendly? Less tm/ftc friendly and it's just a question I want to throw out. I don't know if I'm looking for an answer right now but I'm just looking that when we're looking at this global picture and the amount of time that was spent and the amount of input that was provided by a diverse group of people from residents 67 Plaoning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 from Chanhassen, I need to understa~. $o I guess I don't know if I'm looking for the answer but maybe it's something if this is going to be tabled that staff can address at the next meeting. Or next review, if that's what happens. Krauss: If that's what it takes. I ~less asain we have to apolosizc for the materials not going ouc We had a short wcck and my secretary was ~ but nobody told us that you didn't get it either so. Wc don't know where they arc. They're not upstair~ They're mi~ing. Batzli: Thc Sheriff's got them in his trunk. Krauss: That might be. Along with whatever else they pick~ up. In terms of your question Diane. We heard through Fred Hoisington, some of you were concerned why wasn't this brought up to thc street frontage and that was something that we looked at very early on. We didn't think it worked then and we played around with the design and we still don't think it works very good. And we could show you why. Basically you've got a site that should be buried on one or two sides and when you stick it out on a corner, there's no way to bury any of it except for false walls and having a berm there and a lot of landing. So instead of looking at a landscape parking lot from City Center Park, you'd be looking at a landscaped blank wall from City Center Par~ So there are pros and cons to it and we've got some illustrations of how that might work. There really aren't that many options. Harberts: Well and I just wanted to have at least the comfort that it was looked at, because I certainly look to staff for that type of review so, it's just maybe I'm the one that voiced the question. But thnt was kind of my undcrl~g concern with this project. And the fact that we look at Kerber, and I drive down there and on Monday thru Thursday night there's all these cars in the community, for the community park there and then if we have semi's corning in and out, how does this work? But I can certainly defer those questions if this project is going to be tabled tonight. Batzli: Okay. I know we have a couple other quick comments here before we talk about the motion. I want to ask Paul about that. Farmakes: A couple of things. One is on the site plan. I would like to see a more detailed signage, at least a comparison to what we're seeing rather than these blocked squares and so on. And I don't think it's the correct forum for us to be deciding whether or not we're going to take half an ordinance and discard the other half when we're talking on these square footage issues. We have a signage ordinance in place. We have another one that's fairly inclusive that we're talking about the corridor. This is in the con'Mor and some of these issues pertain to what we're discussing hcre~ I do think however, I was a bit smprised by the quality of the building that I saw. Very nice. Now if we're talking anything about style, 68 Planning Commission Meeting - ~ber 1, 1993 talking about the elements that you had in the building. It's not something thnt you normally see in a retail development and my corr~.liments to that. Utilizing li~ne in a building for retail level is I think terrific. Very nice. Anyway, I agree that this issue of competition that seems to, trying to rear itself here is to me a bit disturbing and that seems in the realm of politics and not in the area of planning and what we're doing here. Planning and developrnent I guess we should say. Although it maybe sounds ~ a contradiction in t~ms. It seems that the issue, if we're going to get into, we already have one liquor store. Therefore we can't have another liquor store. Business is inhe~ntly a risk and the question is, who risks? Three years ago Super Valu decided not to risk when they came in here. Cra~way decided through whatever incentives the city put forward, to take a risk The city had a risk. And the question with this stuff always becomes egg and chicken. Who's going to take the first risk to build something that people are going to come_ to and the issue is draw. And no mau~ what market or business you're in, if you're looking nt a retail area, you've got a draw situntion from either the existing area or the surrounding community. Some people take a risk that they're going to draw from the surronnding communities. Target did nnd the question is, with these stop lights and so on. They may seem like a lot of stop lights now but when there's 30,000 people here, it may not seem so many. And the question again becomes, ns you look into your crystal ball where these bu~ are going to draw from and I believe that, particulnrly with Target here now, that we're going to have people drawing here from miles and miles away, outside of Chanha~en. When you look to the west and where some of these opportnnities tO buy are, it really is a changing picture and it's not even the place it was 3 years ago so I'll leave it at that. Batzli: Did you want to say something? Mancino: Yeah, I just wanted to add. I'd also like to have included in the packet a perspective of the homes on the north, what they're going to see. Exactly what it w/il be. Whether it's going to be the equipment on top, etc. And I'd also like to hear a little bit more of what...~'s que~on about the 2002, that we all participated in for the city because when we were all asked what are the center's most significant weaknesses, it's major problems. The first one was access, traffic, parking problems, traffic lights and number two was lack of pedestrian mutes ncce~sibility. So I'd really like to hear a little bit more on, because that's what we aH as a group decided. Or felt...busine, ss district Farmakes: There's an inherent problem though with ~ shopping. You don't grocery shop by foot, particularly in the suburbs. Chanhassen, we've had that discussion for pedestrians here for a long time and it seems like the city's committed to the car. Mancino: Well we have individual shopping centers now all in the city. 69 Planning Commisdon Meeting - December 1, 1993 Fannakes: But I mcan venus the old, say Excelsior where you can walk down. Batzli: There's really two issues, it's kind of interesting because, not to pick on Market Square but the biggest complaint I hear ~om people as I'm wandering aronnd in those stores and nreas, is the parking lot and thc nccess between, even the stores. You almost have to get in your car to go from the hardware store over to the grocery store. That's their thought and so we didn't mnke it, it seems to me very user friendly if people are getting in their cars to go from the liquor store over to the grocery store. They're not wnlking. And they don't like the way it's laid out and so it doesn't seem to me, something wnsn't quite fight there. Paul, we cleared our December 15th meeting and we're going to interview people for at least an hour or so. We have to look at this next time. I mean we can't sit on it. The only reason we're not going to tnlk about it tonight is because we don't have the D sized plans here. I think we need to talk about it. And what does that do to our schedule of looking at the Highway 5 corridor that you've been ordered to clear everything out of the way. Krauss: Well, more importantly what does it do to your schedule. I mean you were ordered to get it to the Council by February 1st. We've only got three dates to do it on. Harberts: Brian doesn't care. Krauss: I know that Target has. Batzli: I do too. Faauss: I know that Byerly's hits some very stringent time deadliness that they are working Scott: What are those d~dlines? Batzli: They want their store to be open by August of next fall, or something. IG-auss: I'll let them deal with that but the first open meeting you have is January 5th. Now I suppose it's possible if you say you wanted to meet, I mean if we started at 6:00. Bav,.li: He leaves. He leaves. We're talking about trying to cram it into our schedule and he leaves. Unbelievable. Krauss: If we wanted to get it on the 15th and devote the first 2-2 1/2 hours of the meeting to Highway 5 and the second you know, an hour to interview and then you had this on. I think most of the questions you're raising in terms of the site plan, can easily be addressed. 7O Planning Commission Meeting- December 1, 1993 They already have been addressed to a large extent, or can be provided in that time. We're willing to stay. Otherwise this slips a month. Actually more than a mo_nth. It goes to the 5th. Mancino: What time are we starting on the 15th? Krauss: Nancy, I don't remember but I think it's 6:00. It's 6:00 and you get your bite to eat and then we want to put in a good 2 hours on the Highway 5 plan. And so that makes it like 8:30 and you have until 9:30 for the interviews. So you're looking at tackling it at 9:30, which I suppose is possibly better than doing it tonight... Batzli: Yeah but that always, the inlmwiews always seem to slip a little and then we have to talk about it while it's still fresh. Decem~'s just a lm'rible month for a special meeting. I was _thinking more for the Highway 5 thing rather than this. Harberts: What's the magic date with that February, first or 15th? Is there some Irriority from the Council in terms of why that's such a magic date? Krauss: Because I swore on a stuck of Bibles that you'd do it. Mancino: They're hot to trot for it. Batzli: What do you guys want to do? Do you guys want to have, try and put a special meeting somewhere in on, an additional special meeting or a special meeting on the Highway 5 corridor? Mancino: We're doing a special meeting on Saturday. Batzli: Yeah I know. Well I'm a lame duck so I don't want to speak for the group. If you guys don't want to put in a special meeting after the 15th or the 1st or whenever, whenever I'm gone, I ~ just say so. Harberts: I would prefer to put in special Wednesday when you're gone. Batzli: I think we're going to have to anyway. Mancino: I do too. Harberts: But we didn't swear on that stack of Bibles either. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Krauss: Well the Council basically said, either you're done with it ar they get it anyway. So you've got to convene a public hearing...their guidance and whether you're done with it ar not, they're going to get it at their meeting in February. Fannnkes: See, that's what I find un¢ormnate about that is that we've spent an inherent amount of time with 12 acre developments in the interim and these type of things, these are really, there's a couple of crucial issues here in front of us and those are the ones that we should be dealing with and if you've got the authority to put whatever you need to on your schedule, go ahead and do it. If you need, I'll come in if you have a special meeting. But I'm not, it seems to me we're not doing our job if we let these things go by whether, are we supposed to robber stamp it? In part/cular the Highway/5 _things. That's going to be a long, long deal. With a lot of information- Batzli: Is everyone willing to tackle this at a special meeting? Okay, we'll do it then? Charlie James: Mr. Chirman-..I guess with all due respect, I have to express a bit of frustration here. Ladd, I've been working ~ the scenes on this since last January. There's been two market surveys that have been done. One by Retail Systems Inc. and one by Super Valu's own admission- We have been frantically trying to pull this thing together over the past couple months. What you see tonight is a...of many, many, many attempts to arrive at what we think is probably going to be one of the best projects in the city of Chanhassen. And I guess I'm frusuated because we have just been working so hard and given a time schedule that we're on and we've been turning all the stuff into the city. We've been meeting with staff. Fve been going to the 2000 meetings. There was some suggestion that I thought was highly ironic. It almost made me laugh. I didn't know whether to laugh ar cry. That I was in the pocket ar the city was in my pocket on the senior housing. I don't want senior housing on my property. That wasa't my idea. I mean I was asked by the city, would you do this as something. I don't do senior housing. I don't know, I have commercial land and I had to roll over and play dead on the Target thing out there and let them run a street. I waited out there for 4 years and the city defaulted on a contract they had with me to put a strip center and build a street so I could finish a strip center that was s~proved by the Planning Commission and City CounciL Legally I could not sell a lot out there because I did not have frontage on a public street and then to have the oity come in and run me, the s~e, et through my ~ out there because essentially Target didn't want any buildings out in front of them. Or didn't want their view obstructed. And at every step of the way here I think I have ¢ooperaled with the city. There wouldn't be a Market Square if I hadn't cooperated. I originally had a ~ of intent with Festival Foods. They came to me when Brad was trying to put Cooper in there and I knew that Super Valu wouldn't sign a corporate lease and give ~ corporate guarantee and I just finished building ~ store with Ed Heiser. I know Amie Privie well, Amie Pfivie and my family have had a relationship going back 72 Planning Commission Meeting - Decembe~ 1, 1993 many years, and at the time they were trying to do Market Square with Super Valu, Amie Privie's predece~or, Ed Heiser came to me. I just ~inisb~ doing a stare for them and they wanted me to build a store out here where we're proposing a Byerly's for them and I said, hey wait a minute. I'm going to start at the west end of my property with my little slrip center with a little PI)Q, with Edina Realty. All these little offices. I said because I can't afford to be in competition with downtown. I've got the city's been trying for so long to pull this thing together downtown that I don't want to do anything to screw up their deal They're finally getting the downtown as you know and Ed said fine. We'll wait. John Kranke came to see me with Jay Cooper. We met over at the Prairie Restaurant. They said we don't want to be part of that project Charlie. We want to go on your land. Your land surveyed out better. We've got a higher thing. What are you going to do? I said I'm not doing anything for 3 years John. I said I'm not going to get in competition with the city on this project. So I was, there was forbemance on my part on that. It was because of a phone call I got from Brad. I mean Brad called me at one point and wanted to move the project onto my land. That's when I told Brad that Festival was already interested in my ~ and that's ail it took for Brad to put Festival into his project. And I guess I'm frustrated tonight because I've cooperated with the senior housing thing. I have been waddng diligently. Having almost, I won't say daily but I think Paul's getting sick of seeing me out here at City Hall. We've tried to pull together a project here that has been anticipated for this piece of propaxy. This property is zoned. It's a permitted use. We're not req~g any vaxiances. It's a first class building. It's something that everybody can be proud of. The sta~ had Hoisington come_ in. Look at our landscaping and said, Hoisington said, if you read your report, we'd do this, this, this and of course as I said earlier this evening, our landscaping plan was merely intended to be schematic. Ordinarily what you do is just hire a landscape firm and they Irln~l of buff up the final plan. But we were showing quantities and what was required. But when staff hired Hoisington to look at the landscaping. Hoisington made the recommendation. I looked at staff and I call~ I said I'll do whatever Hoisington wants. Whatever the city, they came to that Vision 2000 and said that that fellow there, $chroeder or whatever his name was, was the best landscape architect. I don't know if you were there when Mr. Hoisington said that. And he looked at this and he said, this is what I recommend. We said, we'll do it. Now I'm standing here tonight. It's taken us, from my perspective, I've Ixea, it's taken me 9 years to get here. I was also the person who brought Target to town. I wadced for 2 years. I was the one that contacted Target. Ed Bkaxnan who is Dick Brooks' boss. He used to work at Wal- Mart. I've done 22 Wal-Marts and knew Ed Biennan from there. I was the one who went down to Target's offices. Sat down with Ed Bierman and said you should look at Chanhassen. Here's my 'site and then they got out here and decided, well we think we'd rather be closer to Highway 5 and all the time they were stroking me, because they knew I was...and they could go there but they wanted to be next to Highway 5. The City did a PUD. Brad was part of that. They claimed in their PUD that they had the consent of all the property owners, written consent. They did not. They did not have my consent but I 73 Pl~nirig Commission Meeting - ~ 1, 1993 acquiesce. Allowed that to happen. Allowed a road to get rel~ through my strip center. Allowed the city to come in and say Charlie. We need senior housing. I don't do senior housing. We need a place for it. We like your site. So I draw it on there. I mean it seems like the more I cooperate, the more obstacles I run into. I am frustrated ladies and gentlemen. Now we have got a beautiful project here and you're telling me the hour's late and we've got an hour's worth of questions. I mean I've been working on this from my ~five for 9 years, Is it too much to ask of you to spend another hour with me? Batzli: No. I think you're missing the point. We found out tonight that we don't have, we dido't have the materials for our review prior to the meeting and that's why we're going to delay it. It's not that we don't like the project. It's not that we're going to vote it up or down. It's not any of that. It's the fact that we get in here and suddenly in the middle of your presentation we're looking around and saying, well where's nil this stuff coming from. We didn't have the mare/ah to review it prior to the meeting. And I don't think it would be prudent for us to, you know without a little bit of study and, you know that may be fine for n working session to be going over the plans and seeing thi~ stuff for the first time but thnt's not how we're going to operate. And I understand your frustrafiom Unformnntely, from our standpoint we've seen it for 3 days. I understand that it's taken you n long time and if I would have had the material and had an opportunity to look at it, we'd stay. We do 1:00. I ~ we've been here before but I don't even know where to start bemause everything you've shown me is new. I don't even know how to react I don't know how to tie it together. You know. I don't know what we, as a commission can do tonight. We could slay here until 6:00 in the morning going over your plan by the time we thought it all out, and I don't think that will get us where we want to be. So I think the only thing we can do, and what everybody has comrnitt~ to doing is staying as late as it will take next time and go through it. Krauss: May I make a suggestion. We have not notified the planning commim~on candidates yet of when they might be on. In fact I told one or two of them it'd probably be the first meeting in January before that occmred. If we did delay the interviews, you'd have to serve another couple meetings. But if we did that, we'd spend the early part of the meeting on Highway 5, from like 6:00 to 9:00 and then convene, the regular Planning Commission meeting but that would at least give us a 3 week jutnp on bumping this to January which is. No, we can't bump this to January. Charlie James: The reason that I'm, I ~ I'm sony that I'm getting out of joint here tonight and kind of foaming at the mouth but I mean, it's been a long road. Mancino: Paul, what you just came up with sounds fine to me. 74 Planning ~ommission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Charlic lames: But I want you all to be aware of, w~'re woriring on a co~on schedul~ here. Here's the issue is that you either open a grocery story before Thanksgiving and in the fall. I ~ thcre are certain times of the year you don't open it and if you can't get a certain amount of business and you don't stock the special items for Christmas and the holidays, then you don't open it until spring. I've got a situation here where Byerly's has another, they're builtli,~g...their program to build a store in '95 in Chicago. We've got a window of oppommity here for them to, what we're working against here and what we've been straggling against all year is a very real conslmction schedule and outside date and that's why I guess I'm babbling. Batzli: By doing this at our next meeting, this will go to City Council thcir first meeling in January? Krauss: Yeah, on the 10th. Batzli: Would it have gone any quicker if we acted on it tonight? Krauss: Yeah conceivably. We talked to Charlie about trying to get...we talked about trying to roll it over to the 13th. Now there is grading activity that's already been approv~ out there. I don't know, I'm going to leave it up to... Batzli: I can't see us approving it tonight. I can't approve it tonight. Okay. Harberts: So the option that we discussed about the 15th, is that the ~ood? Scott: Yeah. I _think what we're going to do is have the w_orking session from 6:00 until 9:00. Blow off the interviews until January and get on this item at 9:00 on the l~Sth. Farmakes: I'd make a couple of con'anents if we're going to see this again to make them useful in the presentation if it comes back. I would like to see the north elevation where that grading is done, that we see a side cut. How that's being proposed. I'm having trouble translating that from verbal into visual. And the sign issue. I'd like to see some more, I'd like to sce a worst case scenario as to what we're looking at and how that's going to be coordinated with the building. Batzli: From my stand~in~ discussion on the architectural styles. SCleXming stuff on the roof and/or in back. If they have trash enclosures. Whcrevcr they're going to put it. The issue of parking, crosswalks, cars, sidewali~ I don't think Bycrly's does the patidng lot but the view from the north. We normally ask, and I don't think Bycrly's does it but we normally put conditions regarding outdoor storage for these types of things. Those are some 75 Planning Commission Me~ting - December 1, 1993 of the things that I found missing. Scott: Interaction with semi u'affic with the park u'ai~. Little League, etc, etc. People that are parking up and down the street. I suppose that's a signage problem more than anything Harberts: I'd like to also see an element of how maybe a presence of a bus shelter and public transit facility in this area. Krauss: ...something in the order of what we have at Target? Harberts: Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Farmakes: And speaking of Target, their signage package also present~l a monument design. Krauss: I'm sure...Can we get a skegh of the monument... Batzli: Is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we table site plan approval for a commercial development coz~sisting of a 64,132 square foot Byerly's, a 35,700 square foot ~ center, and a separate 7,000 square foot commerc~ office building and conditional use permit approval pursuant to Section 20-902 to permit the grouping of buildings on a single building lot until our next meeting which is December 15th. Ba~zli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Charlic James: Would the Planning Commission consider, ff they're going to have...to have a special meeting liim next week or something that would allow us to. Mancino: We can't turn it around. John Meyers: If I could just clarify something. My name is John Meyers. I'm the Vice Presklent...Byerly's. The schedule, so you know, we came into the hall and the City Manager and everybody back in, on November roughly, and here's the schedule that we have. We need to try to meet this schedule...I'm just going to be real frank...ff we delay it past me 76 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 going to the City Council on the 13th, we'll have to sit down and...ff you want to schedule it for the meeting that you have the 15th, I unders~a~ tha~ but I'm not sum...to the project. We're trying to go to the Council on the 13th. The HRA on the 16th. That could possibly be delayed to the first of January. That maybe we can deal with but we'll be done at that point and we can start construction. We want to do this with Paul and the City Manager. Unfortunately it's a reality. I'm not trying to get you to come in on an extra day. We'll do it anytime you want. We'll try to deal with all the issues that you've got inbetween now and then. Maybe get with Paul to make sure we do address the issues c~y... Batzli: I won't be able to do it next wee2. If everyone else wants to come in next week. If they want to try and do it. Krauss: Unfortunately I think the reality of it is, even if you did it next Wednesday, the Ci~ Council packet will have gone out 3 hours before you would have met. John Meyers: Meet Monday. Or Tuesday. I mean we'll crank it out in a day. Batzli: Why don't you have someone from the city call people tomorrow when they have their calendars in front of them. See if it's even a possibility to do it next week. Krauss: I suspect thc legality of it is that. Batzli: We'd have to notice everybody several? Krauss: Well, I'm not sure flint that's the case. I mean City Coundl can technically call a special meetings but they have to calL_while the floor is open. Harberts: Well, point of order here. ff we are to look at a meeting before the 15th. Rather than table it, ff we were just to, help me with this. Postpone or continue the meeting a~ a later time, don't we get away from the notices7 Krauss: Yeah but. Batzli: We closed the public hearing. Harberts: But we haven't closed our discussion. That's what I'm saying. Couldn't we just continue the meeting rather than adjourn the meeting tonight? Krauss: You can do that but again, I'm not au expert on Robert's Rules of Order...but the way the Council has to work is, the Council has to-designate a special meeting dale during 77 Pltmning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 thc Council meeting. They can't just say... Farmakes: Well, I'm open to meeting whenever on this issue. I think it's a major issue downtown. Perhaps the Council can also consider a special session or thc HRA. But I'm pcrf~y open to whatrvcr's being suggestr& We probably, you know we probably do have an obligation not only this but the fact that we, thee was a slip up h~e within the scheduling and I'm not, being that it's the holidays, probably going to be quite ~t but I'm opea to suggestions. Mancino: I'd rather do 2 hours on Saturday. Farmakes: Suggestions. 2 hours on Saturday or something... Scott: How many of us are going on Saturday? Farmakes: Do we have a quorum going on Saturday? Krauss: We're not sure about Matt but othcrwisc. Scott: So we have four. That's a quorum so. Harberts: I can do it Sattuday. Monday or Tuesday night. Farmakes: I would prefer actually, if we can do it Satuxday, I mean it's already a dead spot because of the other issue. I don't know if that works into the legality of notice. ~: Well there's the options. If we can mak~ it legal or otherwise show up here on the 15th. Sc, om Well how is this meeting, this meeting on Saturday is a work session. There's going to be a quorum of the Planning Commission in one place and from what I unda~tand, an open meeting rules and so forth, that carries some legal responsibility. Krauss: Well you have a work session designat~l... Scott: Well bearing the fact that we don't have legal counsel, I think we need to, because of the nature of the issue, I think we need to continue it and deal with it on Saturday. Krauss: But ke~ in mind, I mean hopefidly we can find our plans but you're still only going to have a day to look at those. And we're really not going to have the opportunity to wrim 78 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 anything new. Fmnak~: I don't have a problem with that. I mean a'day with plans is fine... ~: is the consensus here Saunday? I need to do a little resch~uling on Saturday. Scott: Drive fast. Tell your bus driver to be lead footed for this thing. Krauss: So we're looking at? Harberts: Saturday at 11.'00. Krauss: That's when we're supposed to be back here fight? Balzli: I'm sorry, Saturday what day? This 4th? Scott: Yeah. This coming weekend. Batzli: Okay well, I don't know. I don't know the legality of continuing versus tabling. Harberts: I believe we can do it. I just don't know if we can do it as a Planning Comrnis~on. I know from a Robert's Rules of Order, I'm ~ confident that as long as you continue the meeting you're alright. Batzli: Well we have a motion on thc floor right now to table. Are you withdrawing your motion? Who made it? Mandno: I made it. I'll move that we continue discussion. Harbem: $o are you withdrawing? Mancino: I'm withdrawing my motion. Batzli: Who seconded the motion? Scott:. No one did. Batzli: Yeah we did. We were discu~g it. Harbens: I think ~ one did. 79 Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 Batzli: I think so. Farwske. s: Are we going to get a review whether or not this is legal? Krauss: Well yeah. I ~ we'lL.. Farmakes: Just so the time that we do spend on Saturday goes. Batzli: Okay, since we're not sure who seconded the motion, we're going to call the question on the motion to table. Mancino moved, Scott seconded to table Conditional Use Permit #93-1 and Site Plan ~3-7 until December 15, 1993. AH voted to deny and the motion failed. Batzli: Motion fails. Is there another motion? Hnrberts: I'll move that we continue discu~o~ for Sntmxlay the 4tic Let's begin the meeting nt 11:15. Ba~li: How about pending clarification that that is proper. Harberts: Works for me. Batzli: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Harberts: Oh, and the only item would be this issue right here. Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? Harberts moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commi_~d_ on continue discussion on Conditional Use Permit ~a~3.1 and Site Plan tsJr3.7 until Saturday, Decem~ 4, 1993 at 11:15 a.m. pending clarification by legal counsel. AH voted in Ihvor and the motion Batzll: Motion carries. This item will be continued on' Satmday pending Roger Knutson's review. Thank you all for coming in. We have new business but we'll put off our goals again because we have no goals. We actually do have goals but let me put that off. Open discussion? 8O Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 199~ Harberts moved, Scott seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prep~ by Nann Ophcirn 81