Loading...
1992 04 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 1, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Tim Erhart STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl, Planner I; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Senior Engineering Technician PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF RND PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 141 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 8.2 ACRES OF PARK AREA LOCATED NORTH OF LYNAN AND EAST OF 6ALPIN BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF TIMB[RWOOD ESTATES, STONE CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Mark Foster Patrick Mingen Bruce Senske Jim & Colleen Dockendorf Tahir Khan Jerry & Bonnie Mar kowski 8ob & Nancy Krocak Dave Maenke Jim Andrews Dave Koubsky Stan Rud Bob Lawson A1 Klingelhutz Earl Holasek Jeff G. Heinz Dennis Rollins 8rian Klingelhutz Mi ke Meyer Roger Schmidt Mary Harrington 8020 Acorn Lane 8221Galpin Blvd. 19057 Lotus View Drive, Eden Prairie' 20610akwood Ridge 2040 Renaissance Court 2051 Renaissance Court 2051Timberwood Drive 2041Timberwo~d Drive 131 Fox Hollow Drive 1311 Lake Susan Hills Drive 2030 Renaissance Court 2041 Renaissance court 8600 Great Plains Blvd. 8610 Galpin Blvd. 2071Timberwood Drive 2081Timberwood Drive 2031Timberwood Drive 3474 Lake Shore Drive, Chaska 8301Galpin 81vd. Timberwood Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: I'd like to ask you one question before I ask the applicant if they'd like to speak and that is, stated in your report that the Planning Commission may want to consider continuing this item. IM your opinion, what would be the benefit of continuing it? Aanenson: Only if you wanted to consider the PUD option. Krauss: Also, when we wrote the report and got it to the applicant we were not certain how they would receive the changes that were being requested. The redesigned to move the park is a fairly significant one. We've since Planning Commission Meeting April 1, ~992 - Page 2 heard from the applicant's engineer who's here tonight that they believe that that can be accommodated apparently. If they're comfortable with- those changes and if you're comfortable with the recommendations, we have given you the conditions that are required to carry it forward. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant, I'assume the applicant's here somewhere. Would he like to make a presentation at this time? Ernie Rud: ...owner's not in town tonight. My name is Ernie Rud. We're the surveyors and the designers of this plat and with me I have Chuck Plowe who's the consulting engineer. I'd like to take a moment to pass out booklets and I've got to apologize for not getting them in your packets but we just got them back from the printers at 3:00 this afternoon. It's some of the house plans we're planning on building in there. We have read the staff's report. I guess when we first looked at this piece of land, we had some of the same concerns that the staff has got. May I use your overhead there please? Aanenson: Yes. Ernie Rud: As staff has pointed out, this whole easterly side here is all mature woodland including the part that...to Bluff Creek. Ne were very sensitive to this easterly area and planned our...grading on the westerly side which is all agricultural at this time. Ne dO agree with the staff's recommendation that serious consideration be given to the Park Commission's recommendation. Ne looked at that northerly part as a passive park. The part that we have designed to be a park and that's kind of unique. I mean there isn't too many places you can walk along a brook like that and have those mature trees. I was just in there this afternoon and that kind of a park is something you can't build with bulldozers. I mean you could put a ballfield out in the open there and stuff but to have amenities like that that can be enjoyed by the whole neighborhood I think is something that you don't come by too often. And therefore we do not want to change our park dedication. Ne want to leave it where it's at. I don't know what part the Planning Commission plays in that. If they just forward on the Park Commission's recommendation or if they make one themselves. As far as that cul-de-sacing that Stone Creek, I think that can be achieved. I think this is something we'd have to work with staff on. Ne haven't had sufficient time to respond to it. We've done a couple of sketches on it but have not had a chance to meet with them and we'd be. happy to work.with them before that Council meeting and try and resolve that issue. The homes that Mr. Hagen will build in here will probably range from $125,000.00 to, I don't know. He's built some up to $300,000.00 so I guess I would expect the easterly half to have more expensive houses than the westerly half. The land just dictates that. In your packet you'll see some of the landscaping that we've done in the city of Woodbury. That would be very similar to what we would propose along Salpin Blvd. there. All that landscaping and plantings would be done by the developer and be maintained with the homeowners association so the city wouldn't' be obligated to maintain those islands or the landscaping on that berm. We further cover that with a' landscape easement so the homeowners are aware that all that landscaping on the outer side of that berm will be done by the association and not by the homeowners themselves or the City. As far as realigning those ponds and stuff, we don't have any problem with that. That can be done, taken off Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 3 the right-of-way. There's ample storage in both those ponds for the runoff so we can move those to accommodate a trail-should that be needed along 17 or 18. Batzli: I'm sorry, I may be jumping ahead of what you were going to say here but did you comment on the conservation easements? Were those troublesome at all? Ernie Rud: No. We might like to get that extended to 100 feet back and the reason being that some of our houses are 45 feet deep rather than 40 and should we want to set a house at 25 feet or 30 feet rather than 20, then we could run into a little trouble with that. So we would like the flexibility of probably having 100 feet of area .in ther. e. Not necessarily to clear but to have the flexibility t'o put a home in there should we have to have a deeper house on one of those lots. And we're in complete agreement with staff. We want to save as many of those trees as we can too because, I don't know if you people have walked through'that woods but it's one of the few woods where you don't see a lot of underbrush. I mean the crowns in the trees are so thick that they just haven't allowed the underbrush to grow so it's nice and open and we want to preserve that as much as staff does. I don't think I have any other comments on the plat. I would be open to try and answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have. Batzli: I think we will probably direct some questions your way a little bit later, unless somebody has a question that they'd like answered right now. Thank you. What I'd like to do next is, I know that we have a couple of people here from the Park and Recreation Commission and I would like to ask them to come up, if they want to talk to us now before the rest of the people here if you're here for this meeting. So guys if you'd like to. 3im Andrews: Thank you. I'm Jim Andrews from the Park Commission and we looked at this proposal on the 24th I believe was the date. We did recognize the unique value of the wooded area up on the upper corner. It has some steep grades wooded area...One of our biggest concerns was that a development of this size has consistently come back to us looking for active play spaces and a good example of that is Pheasant Hills. Pheasant Hills was a development of approximately 130 houses, if I remember correctly. They demanded quite strongly a ballfield, a play area, soccer fields and hockey rinks and tennis courts. Our concern was that if this development were to go in without an active Play area, that we would be faced with an irrate developed neighborhood demanding space that we could no longer provide them. I was also encouraged to see that the alternate plan that Todd drew up for us would accommodate the'wetland that's on the property and some of the forested area so I guess I feel, and I think our Commission felt that a good compromise was preserve both the forest area and part of the wetland and provide adequate active play spaces. Dave Koubsky: Chairman, Commissioners. Dave Koubsky, Park and Rec ' Commission. Like Jim had indicated, we had wrestled .with this issue of preservation of a nice wetland or a creek area and a lot of green space versus a more open area where we could provide more active amenities for softball, baseball, open field areas. Todd had-indicated in his-memo, and I think he highlighted some good points, that this area is in a park Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 4 deficient area. It's a development going into the new MUSA area that we don't have a lot of amenities that we're requesting out of this development. This was a large tract development. Currently there's no park systems within the radius required to service this neighborhood. Sunset Ridge would the closest one. They have a proposed hockey rink and proposed ballfield and some open space. That's on the other side of Audubon. For people to access that park their kids would have to cross the streets. There's another development proposed south of this that would be in the same scenario. They're on the west side of Audubon so to gO to a park that could provide them open space and those types of amenities, they would have to cross a road. So we did wrestle with it. We 'felt that a flat land, bigger area, something we could provide 140 houses ill t}l[~'~-~'~a, additional houses to the south, Timberwood to the north with some sort of open space, ballfield place to play. Again'we wrestled with this for a long time. We did reach an unanimous'decision to go this route and I guess we're just here to support our decision. Batzli: Thanks Dave. This is a public hearing. .If anyone would like to come and voice their concerns, pro or con to this matter. I'd like to invite you to do so right now. I'd like to ask that you step up to the podium and give your name a-nd address before you start your remarks though. Mary Harrington: My name is Mary Hatting'ton. I live in Timberwood and I'm pleased that we are getting some residential houses. Not too pleased about the lot sizes but pleased for some residential houses. My concern would fall in the line of the preservation of the trees, the wetlands and also I was wondering about the intelligence of renaming maybe Timberwood down there to some other street. Having Timberwood pop out on CR 117 labeled Timberwood in two places I know can cause nothing but utter confusion to people. The other thing that I would question is whether Timberwood, in it's existing state could be left as a cul-de-sac and turn their road into a cul-de-sac also dead ending there where they do not join or meet and leaving, instead of $tonewood cul-de-sacing that, have that be a second exit for that particular subdivision. Right now Timberwood Drive has a lot of occupants on it doing 40 and 45 mph down Timberwood and I could see it turning into a raceway if it was going through. That would be a concern of basically my major concern between the wetlands. That that be, the trees be kept and somebody addressed the issue of Timberwood as stated, for the road renaming and also for the raceway that it would start to create. I am overjoyed to see the houses. Bonnie Markowski: My name is Bonnie Markowski. Currently I live at 510 Timberland Drive in Burnsville but my husband and I currently own the lot that's at 2051 Renaissance. It is directly north of the proposed subdivision. It's within the Timberwood Estates. We're planning to move there this summer hopefully. I have to agree with Mary Harrington about aIi of her points. I do not like to see Timberwood Drive go through. I-- . could see that remain as a cul-de-sac and the opposite end, the Stone Creek subdivision also be a cul-de-sac. I'm concerned about the traffic flow as she is. I'm also concerned about the mature treed area that's on the east of the deveIopment. I think it's a very, I really think we shouId try to maintain that area as much as possible and perhaps if possible leave that as agricultural or perhaps like Timberwood Estates have the lot sizes there as 2 172 acres or greater in order to keep the trees. I also am concerned' Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 5 that the wetlands be protected in the area too. Jeff Heinz: Jeff Heinz. I'm at 2071 Timberwood. -I'm on the west side, one of the houses that borders where the park was planned to be, or just north of where that was planned to be.' I have a couple of problems. One, that is a beautiful area back in there with the creek running through it and to get rid of that and not preserve that I think would be a shame. Secondly i~ the fact that the-road, just like other people have said, coming through there. These are all large lots. Our lot, our home is on a hill. There's a significant drop on the hill. Small kids going down that hill on bikes, I mean right now it's a very low traffic area and the cars that do come back there, they do not go 30 mph. I mean it's just not an area where there's a lot of turn offs and not.a lot of incentive for people to drive back there slowly and I have a real problem with that going all the way through. Thanks.. Colleen Dockendorf: Colleen Dockendorf. I live on Oakwood Ridge which is in Timberwood Estates. I can only reiterate the concerns that my neighbors have stated. Particularly I guess the one thing I do want to get across is I moved to Chanhassen, moved to a small town. I didn't want to move to a pseudo Eden Prairie and I'm concerned about the density of homes. Batzli: Anyone else like to speak at this time? Okay. Jerry Markowski: Jerry Markowski. I'm also in Timberwood Estates and I didn't hear anyone talk about the ability or the impact on the services to the area like police and fire department and how.that would be serviced. And also if people have talked about the additional students that would be coming into our school system, whether our school system could handle that influx of people and would there be any tax increases that would be necessary to service that area? I didn't hear that being discussed as part of this hearing and I feel it should be. I also feel it should be taken into consideration before the rezoning would be made final. Batzli: Okay, thank you for your comments. Stan Rud: My name is Stan Rud from 2030 Renaissance Court in Timberwood. I just have several concerns I'd like the Planning Commission to consider before they make a decision on this. One of them is that with approximately 141 new lots down there, that calculates out to be something over 280 cars or 300 cars and as several other people have mentioned,' that could make a pretty good sized increase in traffic on Timberwood Drive. It also calculates out to be probably 200 or 300 children in that area. About over 20 of the lots back up right against the railroad tracks. That's sort of a dangerous area to have the houses right up against the railroad tracks in their backyards. I'd propose having one of the roads run more like a service road right along the railroad tracks and not' have the backyards backed up against the tracks. It could be potentially dangerous too if there's any derailments or any cars going off or spills right on the railroad tracks right on somebody's backyard so it might be good to have a buffer against the railroad tracks. It might be possible to ex~end the service road all the way from CR 18 over to Lyman Blvd.. More like a service road all along the railroad tracks. Another concern is the impact of 141 lots in that fairly lowland area there. Fertilizing and draining into the wetlands and stuff like that and a lot of those lots, if you walk Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 6 around them in the summer after a heavy rain, it's very wet and some of the puddle up and stuff so I don't know if some of those lots, if they're buildable or not. You probably have to. do something as far as the drainage goes. Also by looking at that drawing that Kate put up, the one that shows where the t,'ees are cut around all the roads. It looks to me like ' that's about a 200 foot wide swath, maybe 1,600 feet long for each road and that calculates out to be something in the neighborhood or 15 or 20 acres of cutting down trees so that's a significant impact. The roads and the front yards and all those houses in the woodland. It's not just a minor thing. It's probably cutting down 50~ of all trees in that area. On another related, totally unrelated thing. 'In Timberwood we have. a lot of covenants that were put in place and I don't know what's expected in this new development as far as storing boats in front yards and putting up sheds and IV antennaes on the roof and stuff like that. I just want to make sure we don't change the whole character of the neighborhood if we don't ' consider those things too. Thank you. Dave Maenke: My name is Dave Maenke and I live at 2041 Timberwood Drive. First of all I'd like to say that I'm real pleased to see that this is residential as opposed to all of the industrial or commercial that was on the comprehensive plan. I do like the alternate park site as opposed to the park site up along the wetlands. One thing I would like to suggest is the Forest Road and Forest Trail and what is now drawn on this maP. anyway as Timberwood Drive. I wonder if that couldn't be drawn as kind of a loop and not connected to Timberwood Drive...everybody else has made as far as' amount of traffic and the confusion on Galpin having two Timberwood Drives; That might be one solution. I know you need to get access... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Tahir Kahn: I'm also a homeowner on Timberwood. The house under construction. I want to point out that the amouQt of trees in that whole area are a great asset to everyone and the possibility of a compromise the northeast portion of this development should be kept at a larger lot size with minimal removal of trees. I also favor what other people have said is the option of not allowing Timberwood to go straight on through but to make both the south and the north end of the area be a cul-de-sac so that it can be passable for the using of park areas but-not passable by car traffic. I'm glad that the development is homes rather than commercial so but I am concerned about lot size and the density. The way this was drawn up, there's an awful lot of homes with only 2 entrances, the road entrances into the area. It would seem to me to make more sense to not make the Stone Creek a cul-de-sac but let it go all the way through the highway. Thanks. Batzli: C'ould we have your name for the record sir? Tahir Kahn: Tahir'Kahn and I have a house under construction on 2040 Timberwood. Batzli: Thaqk you. Brian Klingelhutz: Hi. I'm Brian Klingelhutz and I live on 2031 Timberwood. I feel for all the neighbors here. That they all have Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 7 concerns about what's going to happen next door but I sell real estate as a living and I've been in all of Hans Hagen developments and as a developer we couldn't ask for a guy that I've seen do a better job with all of his . developments and how they turn out so I'm just real happy that it's Hans Hagen that's trying to develop this piece of property. Thanks. Farmakes: Excuse me. Where did you say you lived? Brian Klingelhutz: 2031. Right along... Dennis Rollins: My name is Dennis Rollins and I live at 2081Timberwood Drive. My concern is the same as a lot of other people. The traffic oD Timberwood. The residents of Timberwood, that is our neighborhood street. If our kids want to ride bikes or-go for a walk, that's their only choice and I think we would like the Council to consider alternatives or certainly look at a number of options before making a decision regarding'the new development. Take into account the residents in Timberwood Estates and do whatever is possible to minimize the effects on the traffic on that street. Batzli: Thank you. Jim Dockendorf: I'm Jim Dockendorf. I live at 20610akwood Ridge and I also share the concerns about the high amount of traffic that would be generated on Timberwood Drive. Something T guess if the residents of Timberwood had their way we'd have no-development-going in all around us but realize that the people own land want to make a buck and want to develop those land sites. I have a suggestion to the develope? that might be a crazy idea but since the lots on the eastern side of Timberwood are going to be higher buck houses anyway, to have two somewhat separate developments similar to the 3oe Miller development where you have higher priced homes on the eastern side. Keep the developments separate. Have larger lot sizes so you could still have your access from Timberwood Drive to that part of the development and the other part of the development on the west side could be accessed from Galpin. So I just think if they put that development in there, the traffic on Timberwood's going to be tremendous and I think our home values will suffer quite a bit and I don't think that's what the people who moved to this part of Chanhassen really wanted to see w'hen they moved into. Timberwood. Mark Foster: My name is Mark Foster and I live at 8028 Acorn Lane in Timberwood. I just have the same concerns that my neighbors have expressed and that is I don't like to see the connection of Timberwood going through there. I think the traffic flow would be detrimental to our neighborhood. Robert Lawson: My name is Robert Lawson. I live at 2041 Renaissance Court. We are in the, what would be the northeast end of this development. I guess our primary concern is the saving of wetlands. Some have deemed them as swamps. We consider them wetlands. We find that they are very important for any biodiversity in the area. We have a large number of woodpeckers, owls, deer, fox, pheasant, all in that area that thrive in that woods. The lot sizes, I think the density is way too great for this area. I know that I'll be looking out my.back window at approximately 4 1/2 or 5 houses directly adjoining to our lot. I would like to see larger lot sizes or some sort of buffer between Timberwood and the Stone Creek Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 8 Addition. Also one thing that I have noticed on Ka%ie's diagram of the wetlands. If you could put those up again. To the east of that large wetland that she has pictured where that proposed park is, there is also a much larger wetland that that same creek runs through. I do not believe that those lots are probably buildable. Aanenson: ...marginal lots in the report. Batzli: Can you point to which ones 'you're talking about Kate? Okay. Robert Lawson: There is a larger wetland to the east of that on the other side of Timberwood. Aanenson: We walked the site. It's not a wetland on the, Fish and Wildlife or the inventory that we used. We walked the site. Based on the topography, it's holding water at certain times of the year but it's not a wetland. Robert Lawson: I would invite you to come out there now and take another walk. Aanenson: I've walked it twice within the last 2 weeks. Robert Lawson: Now that a lot of the snow is gone and you can actually see where the water is in that area where the creek does run through there. The creek does run approximately 45 feet into the development area. It is buffered by the trees that they have saved right now. I worry a little bit about the setbacks from the road and how far and how close into that treed area and into that creek area it goes. Also we are very concerned about the traffic that will be coming down Timberwood. It's a very large development with a lot of homes with a lot of cars. That will be a lot of trips. I think you all know about the problems with the intersection of TH 5 and CR 117. We have had school bus accidents up in that intersection. Last fall there was a woman killed up on TH 5 and CR 117. This just is not designed for the amount of traffic that this road will be carrying out of." this area. Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Paul or, what is the plans for TH 5 at CR 1177 Can you refresh our memories there? Krauss: Right now the current improvement plans for TH 5 end at the west- side of downtown Chanhassen. We've been working with MnDot for many years to get the rest of it, the rest of it being out to TH 41 scheduled and built. A lot of progress has been made with that. It"s now in the MnDot 5 year plan. In fact we have held regular meetings over the last 2 months with MnOot's engineer on designing that segment of road. It's scheduled now for construction in 1996. From time to time as well before then we've asked that safety improvements be made. In fact at the present time, this summer they're making safety improvements out at TH 41. At Audubon we're looking to put in a temporary signal to service the development that's occurring there. If the same kind of need develops on Galpin, we would respond in the same way. Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Commission at this Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 9 time? Bruce Senske: My name is Bruce Senske. I'm an Eden Prairie resident. I'm presently negotiating on purchasing a lot at Timberwood Estates and the density factor of the new development proposed has an effect on my decision. The fact that Timberwood Drive would go through into that heavily density area would also affect my decision. That's all I have to say. Roger Schmidt: Roger Schmidt, 8301Galpin Blvd.. Somebody, probably the first one from outside of Timberwood Estates. 'I guess many of their concerns are some of mine too. I've lived in that area fo~ many years and walked those woods many times back there and I guess I'm a little bit concerned about what it might do to the wildlife. I think too that the lot sizes are a little bit too small for, you know it's too much of a - development for that area and I also think that the concern about the traffic problems on CR 117 so I would like to, I didn't get here early enough for the first part of the presentation so I don't know everything about it but just the lot size and the traffic and the wetland area is what I'm concerned about. Thank you. Resident: Just one more question. What is the future for Salpin Road? The way I see it, these many homes, even if Timberwood goes through, so many homes have got to require a lot better roadway into this. What is the future for CR 1177 Aanenson: It's supposed to be 100 foot right-of-way. He'll be required to dedicate additional 17 feet along his segment of that Street and improve it. Krauss: If I could add to that. This was looked at with the Eastern Carver county Transportation Study done a few years ago which anticipated what the flow of traffic...development of not only Chanhassen but also Chaska, Waconia, Victoria and all...Carver County. Galpin is supposed to remain a 2 lane road. Undoubtedly at some point in the future it's going to have to be improved. Some of the sight distances aren't very good. The curves aren't great and the intersection of TH 5 is certainly nothing to write home about. But it's anticipated that it will remain a 2 lane facility. Resident: What is the nearest experience the City of Chanhassen has with a development this size in a neighboring area? Is there an example that you can give? Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills. Resident: Okay, about the same number of homes? Aanenson: Probably more. Krauss: Lundgren's is I think 300 homes up in the northeast corner of the city. Pheasant Hills is approximately 140. The same. Batzli: Anyone else like to address the commission? Can I have. a motion to close the public hearing? Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 10 Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing Nas closed. Batzli: 3oan, we're going to start at your end. Ahrens: The density...by a lot of people that the wetlands are not being protected properly. Do you want to speak to that? Aanenson: Yeah. There's a couple of issues I'd like to speak on. What' we have done is we've gone kind of beyond what we normally do with the wetlands. Normally what we've just said is the 75 foot setback and we've allowed people in the past to go up and mow right up to the edge. What we're doing under this is they already fall into a conservation easement that we've established so now we've given a buffer protection to try to reduce the amount of sediment or fertilizer, whatever that' would go into it. We also have the setback in addition so we feel like we've gone beyond what we normally do in protecting thos'e wetlands. And even the one, the small one on Lot 5 in that Block 5 is very, very marginal. I mean it's 2,000 square feet. We're still, because it's a forested wetland, are preserving it with a buffer strip. Ahrens: with the buffer behind that Lot 5, is that a buildable lot? Aanenson: No. We raised that as an issue. It may not be buildable. Yep. Ahrens: In seems in going through your staff report that there were a lot of unbuildable lots... Aanenson: Well we figured that they just need to be redrawn. There's . enough the lots are oversized enough that it's just a matter of sitting down and carefully redrawing a few of those. What they were is on the inside curve you have to have a 90 foot frontage when you're on the inside of the curve and some of those didn't meet it. There's only one that was undersized as far as 15,000. Ahrens: Those lots in Block 5, those are all buildable...? Aanenson: Yes. They've got what we've shown is 90 foot. As I explained before, it'd be a 20 foot setback. A 40 foot home depth and 30 foot behind that so if someone wanted to put a patio or a deck or a swingset, whatever and then the rest of it we want to preserve that so they couldn't Use that area. Ahrens: How do you monitor that? Aanenson: Well what we're going to do is require home placement plans and put in the chain of title, a legal description describing exactly what to draw and each lot would have a legal description saying this would be the conservation easement so when someone came in with a home placement plan, we would check ~hose and see to make sure that there's no homes. What we're hoping too when they come in with the home placement plan, that some of the trees, even though we haven't shown them, some of the trees along the side, depending on how they dig out the foundation can be preserved. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 11 But at a minimum we want all the. trees in the rear to be preserved. Batzli: Who does the easement run in favor of? Aanenson: You mean the homeowner or the City? Batzli: The City? Aanenson: Oh yeah. I misunderstood the question. Batzli: So it's up to the city to enforce it? Aanenson: Correct. It would be on, recorded so when you buy the property you realize that you couldn't put a swimming pool back there or that sort of thing. '- Ahrens: How many people...backyards? Aanenson: What we did with the Lundgren subdivision, we talked about putting in the pins. Maybe you need something visible like that so people realize that's the area that you can't go beyond or something like that. Krauss: Are you asking is there a penalty if you? Ahrens: I'm not asking about a penalty. It's just that it happens over and over again...do that kind of thing. I mean they have wetlands in their backyards and they pull up the vegetation because they're not satisfied with the size of the backyard. Krauss: Well in a number of those instances they've been made to re-establish the wetlands at some cost. Ahrens: Some of them have. Krauss: Yeah. And some of the problems that we've had are traced more to lack of understanding and knowledge and hopefully over the years we've learned and gotten a little better at putting people on notice and better defining what those areas are. Ahrens: I guess my point is people buy houses even with an easement, they don't understand what an easement is. And unless you're going to have... where people are told in...and of course that would only deal with the first time home buyers and then there would be... It's a real tough issue and I don't know how to monitor that. - Aanenson: Well we're hoping too that the'developer will market those as forest and wooded lots, premiere lots and that's what You're kind of buying into that amenity. Ahrens: Well...the park issue. It sounds to me like a lot of people are presenting this as an either or situation. Either you have the ultimate park site and if you have the ultimate park site and give up the wooded stream area where that's going to be built upon .... why can.'t the city build a little walkway through that by the creek and then maintain that as a little park area plus have the ultimate concept? Planning Commission Meeting April J_, 1992 - Page 12 Aanenson: As far as dedication we would require from him based on the number of lots, it'd be like 5., I can't remember the exact number. It was like 5.6 acres is what he would be required to dedicate in land so anything beyond that I guess the City would have to purchase which I guess would be an option. Ahrens: That's not buildable anyway right? Aanenson: Well it could be. We've platted it out how we've got a. cul-de-sac going up in that area. It will be tough but we've shown how it could be lotted out so yeah it could be. Ahrens: But my impression... Aanenson: It would be but it could be. Hempel: It would take some site preparation. They would not be encroaching the stream bed. That would still be preserved and I would envision that we'd also have a conservation easement along the entire stream bed through there. In fact'it's similar to what we did down in Shadowmere. Ahrens: So this area would be platted as part of the lots that end in a cul-de-sac or would it be an outlot? Aanenson: No, it would be lotted and sold off individual lots, yeah. We didn't show the lots going all the way to the stream bed you know. I mean technically they go all the way to the edge of the property but you couldn't build. Whoever owns those lots would have to maintain the setback from the stream bed but yes, it could become private property. Hempel: I was just going to point out, the buildable area is up on top next to the cul-de-sac. It drops off down to a ravine. Heavily wooded and then the ravine goes back up the other side. But they couldn't put a driveway across the stream bed and so forth. Ahrens: Is this part of 8luff Creek? Hempel: It's a tributary of the Bluff Creek. Ahrens: The City isn't...? Krauss: No. Well yes we are. What you're referring to Commissioner Ahrens is the Bluff Creek corridor itself that's designated on the land use plan as a recreational corridor where we're going to use dedication of purchase to require. This is not the main channel of Bluff Creek. That's down the hill in the valley. Ahrens: We've not interested in protecting tributaries? Krauss: We .don't have the ability to. I mean State law allows you to take a dedication of a certain amount of land. It's a question of where are you going to take it? Beyond that you can acquire it but you're going to have Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 13 to buy it. Now we're not saying the creek's going to disappear. Those trees in the creek will all vanish but a significant portion of that area will be occupied by homes and all the rest of it's going to be their backyard. Ahrens: But the City could preserve... Krauss: You could preserve it. You couldn't get access to it, yes. You can preserve a portion of it. Ahrens: Is there anyway to make that, the ultimate park plan smaller and still maintain a park there and that area? The creek area? Krauss: I honestly don't know the answer to that. I think, and maybe the Park board members here tonight can explore that a little bit but there's a minimum size to accommodate the kinds of facilities that are being desired. The ballfield, tennis court, hard surface area and I'm not sure how small an area you can fit all that into. Ahrens: It just seems to me that if you're trying to balance two balls in the air here and maybe the Park Commission can give up the tennis court and make it a smaller park and still maintain the creek area as a park... I mean you're interested in preserving...provide enough space for a ball park. I don't think all communities need tennis courts. We don't have any...where I live. It may be possible to have both is my guess. Krauss: If I could also editorialize this just a little bit. We don't normally raise issues or take exception to Park Board recommendations. Typically we do everything within our power to bring them to be. This one we honestly had a difference of opinion and we wanted to air it a little bit and discuss it. Kate and I were walking this si'tm Monday I think, and we found that there, while it all looks wooded on the aerial photograph, a lot of the trees in the southern bluff area are actually pretty poor quality and you can actually probably fit in a significant number of facilities in that area, keeping the creek and the rest of the bluff area public. We'll do as much as State law allows.us to do and then we'll do some more until the developer cries foul but there are limits to how much we can take. Ahrens: I could tell that by reading...that you didn't like this development as a straight subdivision. You wanted it as a PUD. Aanenson: We tried. Ahrens: Would lot size and number of lots, would number of lots be affected by doing this as a PUD? Krauss: Well, the developer originally b~ought in a concept, and I think I showed that to you at a meeting a month or two ago. Two concepts. One was a PUD that had 20,000 square foot plus lots in the trees with 10,000 square foot lots out in the cornfield. The other was a straight plat. It was a wash basically in the number of lots that you were going to get out of it. It was just a matter of where you were going to put them. That seemed to offer some advantages. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page i4 Batzli: In what way? Trees? Krauss: You were able to do much less grading. The streets were further apart in the treed area. I've never been a particularly strong proponent of buffering less densely develope~ residential'areas but it did offer the potential of kind of a staging effect and density from Timberwood. Existing Timberwood on down. Plus it just seemed to make a whole lot of sense also from the developer's standpoint in the ability to offer two distinct values of lots with the more attractive homesttes which mar. ket a bigger'dollar figure up in the trees. Ahrens: But that's going to be accomplished anyway. I mean it's going to be more... Krauss: No doubt. I still feel that had we had the flexibility of the PUD, we could do a better job than we can do under these circumstances. Batzli: It seems to be without a complete ordinance on the book you have a lot of flexibility with the PUD. Krauss: That's true but I couldn't in good conscience ask a developer to spend a good bit of money preparing plans under the expectation that a PUD could go through given OUT recent discussions. Ahrens: I don't have any more comments. Batzli: Thank you 3oan. Jeff. Farmakes: I'd like to start out by asking a question of the developer, or the representative of the developer. Did you do a market study 'in regards to this issue on the park? Ernie Rud: The issue of the park? Farmakes: Yes. Do you feel a passive park experience is just as sellable to your clients as a recreation type park? Ernie Rud: The one that we're proposing? Farmakes: Yes. Ernie Rud: Yes. We didn't do a market study as far as the park itself goes. Farmakes: Does your experience lead you to believe that? Ernie Rud: Yes. In most cases when we have an amenity like that, people pay premium dollars to back their lot up to' it. To answer 3oan's question here. I did take some pictures of park today and as you can see...staff~s report is that there are some small open areas there. I'd like to expand on that park thing a little bit if I could. Batzli: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 15 Ernie Rud: These people in Timberwood are concerned about the traffic issue on Timberwood Drive and I guess if I lived there I would be too. The thing is if we put a park in here that's got a ball diamond and other high level activities in, it's going to do nothing but drag traffic in there I think and compound that problem. The other thing is that alternate, park site they showed there constitutes 7 acres. We were required to give 5.6' and anybody knows that a ball diamond takes roughly 3 acres to build so that leaves you 2 1/2 acres left. Maybe this fits into the woods, maybe it doesn't. But the park we are proposing to giv. e is 8 acres and that's, what 30~ more than we're required to give but we would do that. And I just feel so strong about that park area along the creek there that I just think it's such a nice passive park for that area. I think if you're going to be looking for ballfields, they should be put in a complex. Maybe where the school site is up on TH 5 and CR 117. People take kids to ball diamonds. You know they're different ages and there's going to be more than one age bracket playing at that time. Maybe a small little sand lot or something but you don't want to put a high level activity park there. Farmakes: My question was really, when you're selling to a customer, is it an amenity of a recreational lot versus a passive lot where you walk through the trees, you go for a walk along the creek? Ernie Rud: That depends on buyers. If you've got 2 teenage kids, you'd like to have a ball diamond within a few blocks of you. If you have smaller kids or if you're an empty nester, you want a more passive park. I think looking at the trend, people are more into walking, 3ogging and things like that. Farmakes: Who do you feel you're target customer is here for this develoment? What's the age group? Ernie Rud: I can't fairly answer that question. Hans Hagen will have to answe¥ that. I'm not into the marketing end of it. Farmakes: Thank you. Batzli: I lost my place where I wrote down your name. Your name was? Ernie Rud: Ernie Rud. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: I have another question I'd like tO address in general for the residents of Timberwood. I'm looking at the road here and we're looking at the connection from Timberwood. You're talking about the ~raffic that it generates. People are going 45 mph. I'm looking at a schematic of the road here. It would seem to me any of that traffic's coming out of your development. Aanenson: 3elf, can I make a clarification on that? I scaled that off and I meant to give you this information but coming out to go north as you mentioned, it's about 3/4 of a mile. It'-s significantly shorter just to go back out through this subdivision. Like a third of a mile. Just the longest stretch which would be this. The same in here. It's like a thiKd Planning Commission Meeting April l, 1992 - Page 16 of a mile. To go all the way back up here is 3/4 of a-mile so it's significantly shorter to go back out onto Galpin as opposed to cut through. That isn't that people aren't going to. do it but. Farmakes: That was the point I was going to make. Just from a...traffic. Sometimes they think of it in generic terms. There's going to be more people out here, therefore we're going to get more traffic. That isn't always how traffic flows. Aanenson: Can I add to that too Jeff. Ne do have a stub street. Farmakes: There are several business parks to the south. If you've ever driven to any of them, they get quite busy. Resident: ...where 212's coming in, will that be south of that? Farmakes: That will be significantly south of that, yeah. Resident: And when is that scheduled to go through? ...yeah, I realize that. The only logical place, is my point, is they're going to-go north to TH 5. Farmakes: I don't see where they would be incurring a lot greater distance to drive through your area to get out. Resident: ...going north though. If you're going, yeah it's shorter from the...Timberwood Drive. From there we're going south, left out to Galpin is shorter than going the other way. If I'm going north, I have to back track to get up to Galpin. Farmakes: I'll go onto the next one. I feel that there's some valid arguments against what you're saying. Resident: ...we're saying is nobody needs to go north... Farmakes: The point I'm trying to make here is that there are some valid arguments against what you're saying based on this plan. You could have a point but I don't think it's a very strong point. I don'-t think there's any statistical evidence that shows someone would do that. Batzli: Jeff, I'd like to let Paul address this question. Krauss: There's a couple things. I've been doing this for 15 years and it's become kind of a litany for me. I know you've heard it.a bunch of times but if we become a community of cul-de-sacs, which I think is the preference for a lot of people and I acknowledge that they're attractive places to live. There's no question. You have a lot of things that result. I heard people tonight question the impact of development on taxes. Well, there's ample evidence that says if you have 3/4 mile dead end streets in both directions you're running snowplows up and back. 6arbage trucks run up and back which is a private expense. School-buses can't go through. It adds to their time and expence in servicing areas. Possibly more importantly is from an emergency access standpoint. We always site what happens if a tornado, watermain breaks. You all have Planning Commission Meeting April l, 1992 - Page l? watermains in the area. I know you don't now. Comes and severs your only access. It happens. It happens all the time. Then the next item that's on tonight we have a letter from the Fire Marshall indicating a similar concern with a situation in another part of the community where they had a fire call and were on one side of the dead end street. Found the fire was on the other side and they couldn't get there. It turned out to be a false alarm but they got very frustrated by the fact that they would have had to driven out and around a distance of a mile or mile and a half to get to the fire. So there's a large number Of reasons for making reasonable connections where you're not going to run inordinate amounts of traffic through. And we're very sensitive to that. On top of that is the fact that there is a potential, and we're designing this project for this, for a road connection to. run out to the northeast. I don't know if you recall, we don't have an area map here but there is an area guided for residential use that's between Timberwood and Bluff Creek. We're looking at an east/ west collector street north of Timberwood. We've got some sketches that show the connection leaving from there, spreading up to serve those homes that might be east of Timberwood and connecting with that collector. If anything's going to be absorbing a lot of traffic for the predominant trip into town, which is to the northeast, that's going to be it. There's really going to be little or no reason to turn around and go backwards and a longer way out to north through Timberwood. Batz 1 i: T ha n k you. Jeff. Farmakes: He stole everything I was going to say now. Krauss: Sorry. Farmakes: Let's see. The next issue I wanted to address here, getting back to the PUD that we had talked about.- Was there any calculation of the difference in tree loss? I'm just curious because that was an additional thing that we had discussed earlier in regards to the positive issues of the PUD and I was wondering in this area, since it is heavily-forested, or at least a portion of it is, did you do any calculation of the benefit? Krauss: No, Commissioner Farmakes we didn't because we would have to have a very well defined alternative plan to do it. I might add too that was also one of our concerns relative to the park. We fully expect the developer to get his due. I mean they're going to get ~he number of lots that they can get out of this thing consistent with our ordinance and that's what you would expect a business person to do. If we're taking 5 acres of the prime flat ground, which right now have a lot of lots on them, the developer is going to shift things around to get those lots elsewhere which means again we're squeezing those trees. I can't give you specific numbers in either scenario but it seems to be very, very likely that that's going to occur. Farmakes: The next question I had in regards to some comments made about the residential development along the railroad tracks. Would you respond to that at all? Aanenson: There is a conservation easement abutting that. We showed all those homes along the track would have at least 100 foot conservation... Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 18 along the rear of those lots so the homes would be, I think the average depth of those was almost 200 feet. Farmakes: Is there any statistical evidence for the safety commission or anything that shows thai that is a, I know it's not a heavily used rail run. Well, there aren't 4 or 5 trains going through a day I don't believe. Residents: Yes...and they're going 60 mph.' Krauss: That's the one that comes right through downtown. Farmakes: Yes I know but that rail line I was told, at least since I've lived here is not, there's a significant amount of traffic going by on a daily basis. Resident: Every 'night it wakes you up. Krauss: The ownership of the thing has changed more than a number ~f times. I think now it's owned by one of the short lihe companies that's come along .... along that track there's also a height differential. It's very difficult, in fact it's almost impossible to walk up to the tracks along most of those rear lot lines because of the grade Change. We've walked it several times and when you get up towards Lyman and Salpin, it's more at grade and that's easier. But I don't know how to answer that except for the fact that it's not owned by the railroad. It's legitimately platted and got extensive trees between the homes and the railroad. Farmakes: Getting back to the issue of useage. I used to work on the railroad and a heavily used rail line, this is not it. If it wakes you up in the middle of the night, it's heavily used I guess but I don't think it's classified as a heavily used rail line. The last comment I want to make in regards to the park. I dealt with this before and I would be relunctant to disagree with the Park Commission but in this case I went to the property and I looked at it and there are very few areas like that that make for a passive park experience. That are situated I think with that potential in Chanhassen. I know that if I was in that development I would prefer that even though I have kids.. I would prefer that to a ballfield because there are other places that have ballfields. There are other areas, property that are probably more useable as a ballfield. I don't disagree with what you're saying. I just am not sure that given the choice between one or the other, that perhaps another development in that area would be better used with an open area and an area without forest used as a ballfield. I would support staff in their recommendation. Batzli: Thanks Jeff. Steve. Emmings: If there's no potential for sewer being out there before fall, and if this builder wants to get going and put. up houses for the Parade of Homes, it sounds like there's going to be houses built before there's sewer out there or not? Aanenson: I'll let Dave comment on that. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 19 Hempel: It's going to be, depending on what the Council's decision is on the 13th, it could be built in conjunction with this project. In fact the developer, as a part of this would actually be building a portion or a phase of the trunk utilities. Emmings: I guess my only question is this. Are we going to let someone start building houses out there before there's actually sewer there? Hempel: He actually would not be able to build a house until the utilities have been tested and accepted by the City. Emmings: Okay. That's what. Hempel: Except for, let me clarify. Except for maybe a model home on the corner of Galpin Blvd. but there would be no utility hook-up of cour'se. Batzli: Would they have sanitary sewer? A holding tank? What then? Hempel: Well it would just be a modeI home. It would not be occupied. Similar to what 3ce Miller has done or Lundgren's has done in the past. Just so we have the capability of getting a fire truck to it if there is-a fire emergency. A worker fell off the roof or something like that.' The lot was abutting a hard surface drive, we would allow a permit for a house prior to the utilities being accepted. However, we would not allow the house to be occupied or hooked up to those utilities until they were accepted. Emmings: Okay. As far as the, I think traffic is a real serious concern but I would hook Timberwood together. We've been doing that, it's been our policy. I think it's a good policy to hook these new neighborhoods together as they come in wherever we're able. I remember that' we tried to make provisions to hook some of the cul-de-sacs that go to the east of Timberwood. Tried to make provisions to be able to hook.Timberwood to the land to the east at the time that'we were looking at Timberwood. In fact some of us had thought we had done that and it turned out we didn't. But it certainly was our intention to do it. I-think we actually screwed up but I think it should definitely be hooked up to the south. And that's doesn't mean the traffic isn't a problem. I think it's a big problem. We had the same problem in fact on other areas in other parts of the city. On Frontier Trail I think haven't we? Or some of the other streets that go through where you wind up with a lot of people going fast but I think it's a real legitimate concern but I don't think that would stop them from supporting the staff's position that it should be hooked up. As far as the park is concerned. I'm always uncomfortable commenting on the work of another commission just because they look at it in more detail than we do and they consider different factors than we do. It seems to me that the desire to have a passive park and a desire to have an active park really are two different things. One is you're trying to preserve something that's very, very nice. But it also seems to me that when you pack in this many folks on a piece of ground like this, it's real impor%ant to have an active play area. My only concern with the alternative park site is that. it's not really suitable to get enough activity on it. I don't know what it looks like but I hope they're able to get enough things so they can really be used by the people who are living in this area. It sounds, I Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 20 think I support the Park Commission on this because it sounds like the stream is going to be preserved anyway. I think we're going to wind up getting both. The trouble will be access to it and I just don't know what to do about that so I support the alternative park thing. I agree with the comments that there are too many small lots in here but they all meet our ordinance and when someone comes in with a plan that meets our ordinance, we really don't have any choice. Our subdivision ordinance says. you can't have lots smaller than 15,000 and except for one lot they don't. But it really comes out along the border with the Lawson property.. Mr Lawson spoke here. Where he's now backed up to 5 lots. .He'll have 5 houses behind him and we've talked about this issue a number of times. About having what we've been calling a blending ordinance where when a new division comes in next to an old one, they can't put so many lots up against a larger lot. This again points out the need for that. We've tried to put one together a number of times and we failed every time. It's just hard to come up with a general scheme to deal with that problem. But I think Mr. Lawson's got a legitimate complaint here. I'm comfortable with the level of protection for the wetlands. I think that's really a good, they've really done a good 3ob with that here. On the compliance chart, I wonder what are you suggesting we do with the lots that don't comply? Krauss: They're going to redraw the plat to make them comply. Emmings: Yeahi I don't think there should be, because they're putting in as many lots as they are, I wouldn't give them an inch I guess.. Krauss: No, there was no question of giving them variances. That was not recommended. Emmings: On page 3 of the report it talked about some questionable lots. In Block 4 it was Lot 8. In Block 1, Lots 12 and 13. On Block 3, Lot 8. What will happen on those? .What are you recommending? Aanenson: They have to be redrawn to. Emmings: Oh okay, those too. Aanenson: That's up in this area up in here. Emmings: Well, they're all over. Aanenson: Yeah that one is in Block 4, yeah. That's a big'significant grade change. That might be a real wet loss. Emmings: Okay, so is there a condition that deals with those lots? Aanenson: Yeah, he has to replat them and make... Emmings: Alright. And then on page 19. Condition number 5. Aanenson: That needs to be changed to 92-1 and 92-2. Emmings: Yeah. Somebody got carried away with the numbers. And then the next line under the rezoning. In the opening part it says the Planning' Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 21 Commission recommends approval of Rezoning, that should be 92-2. And then there should be a condition under the Subdivision, a condition 27 I suppose that the conditions of the Rezoning 92-2'and Wetland Alteration Permit 92-3 is another condition in compliance with all of the conditions. And I guess my feeling is that there's no reason to look at this again. I think we ought to just move it along to the City Council. Batzli: Okay, thanks Steve. Matt? Ledvina: You talked about the accesses to CR 19, two accesses and the concern is with the traffic. Is it possible to make Timberwood Drive a cul-de-sac on it's west end there and have Stone Creek Road actually be the outlet there? You'd still have the capability for access out to 19. I don't know if that would mess up the traffic flow within the subdivision too much. Krauss: 3ust to make it a little more round around? Ledvina: Right. To make it, to slow down the t~affic essentially. Krauss: Well, I think theoretically it is. The concern is'the spacing more than anything else but there are other ways to make it somewhat round about in terms of how you design intersections and where you pu{ stop signs internally. For example we haven't decided this but it's quite possible that if you change the orientation here, and brought that in as a T and put a stop sign and make it a 3 way stop, that would also discourage people from going up that way. And if we have that option to go out to the east, it would kind of induce people to want to keep traveling that way. Ledvina: Okay. So those controls are available at a later date then? Krauss: Well we could do that, that particular change we could incorporate. No? I think we have an engineering concern. Hempel: Yes. Placement of stop signs are not for patrolling'speed. They are for thru movement of traffic to avoid accidents and so forth. We do have specific warrants we do follow for placement of stop signs. 3ust looking at that particular intersection, I would find it hard to say it would meet warrants. Maybe further down in the subdivision where Stone Creek intersects Timberwood may be more of an appropriate area where you have a larger number of vehicles traveling but .that's something that we'd have to prepare an engineering study on to determine where the'stop signs would be appropriate. Batzli: You're not a big proponent of speed bumps then either I'll bet - you? Hempel: Snowplow drivers don't like them. They can't see them. Batzli: Okay. Steve, you' wanted to? Emmings: Yeah, I've got a proposal to make. Why couldn't we have the alternate park site for active park area and then, let's see. I' wonder if it shows up on that. There's a little narrow marsh area that goes down Planning Commission Meeting April l, 1992 - Page 22 here. I take it that's basically...? Aanenson: Right and... Emmings: Okay. Why couldn't there be a little skinny access like that say between Lots 11 and 12 and would just be a foot path that would take people back to this area. Go ahead and develop it like this but let people have access to the stream bed area and still have a nice big active park? It seems to me that would satisfy both sides of this argument anyway. Krauss: If the developer, out of the goodness of his heart is willing to do that, that's great. Otherwise we'd be inviting people to trespass on private property. Emmings: What would it take to get just a little skinny you know, a 6 or foot wide trail? Krauss: Steve, I think the bigger issue is who's land are they walking around on when they get back there. And if we do invite the public back there, do we put trails back there and if so, who maintains it? Emmings: Well let's ask the developer to do it. Krauss: I don't want to beat a dead horse but again under a PUD we'd have a lil. I;le bit more flexibility. Emmings: Yeah. We can't do a PUD because it's clear that the City Council wouldn't accept 10,000 square foot lots so you know, talk about beating a - dead horse. That's a waste of time. Ahrens: Why can't we require it? Krauss: You can only mandate what the State Enabling legislation allows you to. Emmings: Yeah. It's a taking. Ahrens: Oh. Batzli: Maybe he'll do it out of the goodness of his heart. Emmings: Maybe he hasn't been heard. Let's find out. Krauss: Well you never know. Dave Koubsky: Our intention isn't to keep you here all night but part of Todd's recommendation to in his letter to Kate was, the Commission hasn't had an opportunity as a commission to review the alternate park site. I think I need to make that clear. We had made our recommendations based on the proposed park site and we decided that-we would prefer an active park versus a passive park in part because of'the number of kids which is pointed out from a gentleman of Timberwood. 141 lots. Possibly 230 kids. You have a development to thc :~,~;:~ ..,[tl'~ .l~fl~>ther 80 .l~t~l. !J-",~ ~">!~,,u at many 400 or 500 kids. We feel a ~ice, open field is a safer place to Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 23 pacify play versus a passive area that's away from traffic. There might be littering. There might be public safety issues. We prefer something open. Something big that's safe and can handle a lot of kids. Now we haven't reviewed this proposed area. Jim and I have had the opportunity to look at this because we were asked to come and p~esent our views. I just wanted to bring that to your attention that we haven't approved this. I'm not saying we wouldn't approve it but we've made recommendations to staff to allow us to look at it before your decision goes to the City Council.,. Thank you. Batzli: We really didn't address one concern that Mr. Rud brought up and that was, he asked something about setback from the conservation easement as I recall. Is that? Aanenson: He wanted an additional 10 foot. What we're looking at is 90. As I said before, it will be a"20 foot front yard. Then we gave a'40 foot home depth and then a 30 foot rear yard which would accommodate a deck or a patio. So what he wanted to do is add an additional 10 foot so have 100 foot. Our total would be 90. He was saying 100. He wanted maybe a 50 foot home and deck. Batzli: So that would take 10 feet further back into the trees? Aanenson: Right. Batzli: Okay. How comfortable do we feel with the 20 foot setback in the front? Do we like that? Is that enough? Krauss: We proposed it. Aanenson: Yeah. I feel good about it. I think the intent is to save as much of the trees as possible. If we go with the 30 foot and then a 40 foot depth and you still need to give some people some rear yard to put a swingset in and a patio. I think by pushing it forward, we're trying to preserve those trees. Krauss: Apart from the visual effect of tree lined streets in front yards and manicured lawns. Front yards are pretty commonly accepted to be wasted space. If you're going to recreate, bar-be-que, whatever, let the kids play, you're going to do it in the rear. If something's got to give instead of trees, that seems to be the best place to do it. Also it's internal. It's really only going to look that way inside this project. Batzli: Kate, on condition 5 which I assume is handling this matter. On page 20. We say that they have a 20 foot front yard variance. I assume that means you have a 10 foot variance to a 20 foot setback. Aanenson: Correct. Batzli: Whoever makes the motion may want to clarify that. Aanenson: Okay. Let me just clarify that a little bit further. In the compliance we went through and those lots that we designated would fall into this, we specifically identified. In addition there were some that had just a small border of trees so we kind of tapered that down so it Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 24 would give, basically that would be along Block 5 with the forested. This area here as it tapers down. What we did is we went to 20-25-30 so it just kind of made a nice, and we put that in the compliance table so when they would come in and we did the plot plan check on those lots, we would follow the compliance table. Batzli: If I understood what'you just said, there's a blending of that in those lots? Aanenson: Right. Batzli: So that condition 5 isn't entirely accurate? Aanenson: We may want to reference that back to the compliance table. You're correct. That probably would make more sense. Batzli: Okay. Which lots are the ones that are blended'there? Aanenson: On Lot 5 and then there may be some on, I'd have to look back to the compliance table, on Block 11 up here. It varies a littl, e bit. Batzli: So Lot 20, Block 5. Okay. As far as connecting the street goes, I understand the resident's concern. I live in a neighborhood where I thought I was moving onto a cul-de-sac and it turned out to be a thru street. The amazing thing is, I was converted when we had our 13 inch rain and the front entrance to our development was flooded and nobody could get in or out. So I do understand the need to connect-these things through. I unfortunately kind of learned it the hard way. My car wouldn't go through the flooded entrance to the development so I think it has been intended that we connect that up and I think as a Planning Commission, our policy has been to do that. I think we need to.do it for our consistency and public safety sake but I understand your concerns. It c~oes, I think promote some people to go a little bit faster on the roads and I encourage you to take your concerns to t-he City Council. But I think we as a Commission at least right now are leaning towards recommending to the Council that it be connected. I also would have liked to have seen a little bit of blending. Maybe some larger lots in the northeast corner of the development. As Steve pointed out, .they do meet our ordinance and it's difficult to tell them that they have to put in.larger lots. Especially when they're treed like that. I was hoping that they might do that on their own. I agree it seems very confusing to me. At least one resident noted that Timberwood Drive coming out twice on CR 19/ll7/Galpin may be a little confusing. Is there a thought process as to why it can't be called, well what might be called. Forest Trail, although that name will be changed, and having it stop when it intersects Forest Trail back up in the northeast corner? Hempel: We have similar street configurations with Lake Susan Hills Drive off of Powers Blvd.. In situations like that, we can put an address range on the street sign or Timberwood Drive South or Timberwood Drive North and kind of give an indication. It is a confusing situation. It could be resolved also by reconfiguring one of the intersections, as Paul mentioned and possibly just changing the name. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 25 Batzli: I guess I think we should look into'that. I agree that it's confusing. 3ust for my dumb question of the night. Is this road, is the official name actually County Road number 19 and not 1177 Aanenson: That's actually Lyman as it comes off. Batzli: Yeah, okay. Aanenson: I think that's how it, it kind of takes that funny intersection right there. Originally they had an access on it to that street but meeting with the County we eliminated that. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion'.) Batzli: Wetlands I think, that's nice. I would, as far.as 'the park goes. I think it's a shame if we can't somehow save the passive park. I would really like to do that. I like Steve's idea. The developer hasn't come charging forward and said we'll do it. I was kind of hoping for that but of course that hasn't happened. But I guess I would like staff at least to, since that area back up in there isn't going to be buildable anyway, and if we basically end up, there's going to be some additional lots up there if they build out the alternative way. I'd like us to at least explore that with the developer and talk about it. I do like the open space with the ballfields and things. I live next to a park. I think it's a nice amenity and I think they're right. There's'a lot of kids in this area. I don't know if the school's going to go in there north of Timberwood or not. I don't know if we can count on that so I would like to see a neighborhood park somewhere in this area as well. But ~t sounds like this needs to go back to the Park and Rec Commission after what we talked about here tonight? Are they going to have a meeting between now and the City Council if we approve this? Dave Koubsky: That was Todd's recommendation... Krauss: Todd told me this evening that he was looking at the possibility of a special Park Board meeting sometime. Batzli: One other question. Two other questions. As far as erosion control and things like that. I didn't see that we had a lot of or any erosion control kind of condition thing here, do we? I mean do we normally put something in there? Hempel: The developer I believe has supplied some erosion control and I feel the areas we have looked at and we'll recommend additional where appropriate. Batzli: Is that normally done at the grading permit process kind of thing? Hempel: It's normally done with the preliminary plat and also.finalization of the actual construction plans. We'll get detailed construction plans on where everything's going. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 26 Batzli: Okay, so you feel comfortable at that time you can put in the necessary controls and enforce them? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: And Kate, on condition 25. There's. a word drainage after the period there at the end of a sentence. 22. Is there supposed to be something else there or is that just, can we cross that word off? Aanenson: Cross it off. Batzli: Okay. And Dave, if I could have you give me the 10 second synopsis of what's going to happen at this upcoming Council meeting with the improvement? Hempel: Okay. Council, at the last Council meeting tabled for further discussion and review of the propose,.! ,,;,i..%~r' :31.,.trF creek trunk sewer and water facilities out to this area. Some of the concerns was the assessable area being included and the scope of the work for the project. Bringing it back on the 13th to continue the public hearing I believe and hopefully make a decision with this project. This project again is very contingent and relies on extension of the trunk sewer and water improvements to make it happen. We envision it with the anticipated development out here along with other parcels that expressed a desire to develop. We see it being approved on the 13th. Batzli: As part of that approval at the City Council, are any of the residents or other people out there going to be affected by the improvements as far as assessments and things like that? Hempel: Not the Timberwood Estates neighborhood. That's been exempt or omitted from the MUSA area. The remaining parcels, I do' have a map showing the assessable area that we propose to assess with these improvements. If you like, I can put it on the overhead. Batzli: Well at least one gentleman had a concern that somehow this development was going to increase taxes or impact fire, police, things like that. Why don't you throw that up just for a second. Where are we? Okay, I see the railroad track I think.. Aanenson: This is Timberwood... Hempel: That's the old street layout. Aanenson: This is when he originally came in with that PUD. Krauss: The areas that were exempted from potential assessments have that diagonal slash across it. It includes Timberwood and it includes some of the lots west of Timberwood along Galpin. It includes Sunridge Court and if you, that goes back to discussions we had with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Batzli: Okay. I guess the, in kind of addressing the ~entleman~s concernj we've had a running debate as to whether residential single family is an Planning Commission Meeting April l, 1992 - Page 27 impact on the City or not. As far as tax wise. And I don't know that we've had two different answers. One that says yes and one that says not really and so I don't know that we can give you an answer other than to say we have looked at it and we have different conclusions. We don't think that it would have a large negative impact. Krauss: This has been a long debate in many communities. It's clear that commercial/industrial development or multi-family housing which is commercial, non-homestead, pays a huge amount of taxes in Minnesota. Far in excess of what it takes to afford the services. The question was typically do single family homes carry their own weight? You know I always beg to issue, if you don't build single family homes, where are you going to live anyway but there's been evidence on both sides of the issue. Now Plymouth last year had a very interesting scenario. They had 3 or 4 major developments pending. I think it was about 1,100 acres of development. And their City Council was going through a little bit of difficult time but going through some changeovers but there was a big package of potential assessments projects coming down and there was a general concern amongst residents outside these areas that they not be burdened with the cost. And what they did is they hired one of the big 10 accounting firms. I forget which one, to do an analysis of it and they developed an 80 page report that was really kind of interesting. I heard it presented in a couple of seminars. It basically concluded that if you. build homes in excess of $100,000.00, there's no doubt about it. You're over the hill. It's a positive cashflow. I've never seen it done as conclusively as that was. Batzli: That's all the comments I had. Unless the Commission has other comments, I'd entertain a motion. Emmings: With regard to the Wetland Alteration Permit, I'd move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-3 with the conditions contained in the staff report with the modifications in number 5 to get the numbers right. Batzli: Can I have a second? Farmakes: Second. Batzli: Any discussion? I'd like to discuss by calling on the gentleman with his hand up here. Do you have a concern about this particular motion? Earl Holasek: I'm Earl Holasek. I've got the piece right across, right in the southwest corner there. I'm right across from the development and I would like to know where all the storm sewer's going to go? Am I going to be taking all of that water from all this blacktop and 141 roofs and garages and driveways? Am I going to be taking on all that water? Batzli: The report does address that and I'll let our City Engineer address your concern. This doesn't really have to do with the wetland alteration permit but we'll address it now. Hempel: Part of the City ordinance for development, the developer's responsible for ponding on site the storm water and releasing it at the pre-developed runoff rate. So the water that he is; the excess water that Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 28 will be produced with the impervious surface and rooftops out there will be stored on site and released at the pre-developed runoff rate. So in a sense you will not be flooded out downstream. Earl Holasek: You do have a creek going right on through that now. Hempel: That's correct. Earl Holasek: Why can't some of that be funneled into that? Hempel: Ultimately it will be channelized to that area from the smaller pond. There will be two different drainageways.-. 'One following the pond along CR 18 and discharges into the existing ditch on the east side of 18. The other portion, or the easterly portion of the development will drain easterly towards Bluff Creek. That's where we're' hoping to develop a, redo a ponding area for the other areas as they also develop. Have one larger pond instead of 10 small ones. Earl Holasek: Some of these rains you get 4, 5, 6 inches and when you do them on that blacktop and all them .roofs, that's lots and lots water-' Hempel: Ne take into consideration for a 100 year flood which is a 6 inch storm in a 24 hour duration. Batzli: I would encourage you, if you have a specific 'concern, to meet with our City Engineering group. Earl Holasek: I want to meet the next time, in fact A1Klingelhutz asked last time, to meet with the engineers the next time they meet about this water and sewer. I plan to stay there and I don't care for water and sewer on my place. Batzli: I think it would be best if you addressed your Specific concerns with the city staff after this meeting or set up a meeting with them. It sounds like you have specific concerns. Earl Holasek: It was in the Minutes of the last meeting.- Batzli: The Planning Commission? Krauss: If I could. Mr. Holasek and Mr. A1Klingelhutz testified at the last City Council meeting on the assessment pro3ect of Bluff Creek. Mr. Holasek's property is in the assessment.area as it's currently drawn. The Council I believe, asked the City Engineer to meet with Mr. Holasek and several other parties before it gets back to the City Council which is in 2 weeks? Aanenson: The 13th. Krauss: So yes. If Charles hasn't called, we can make sure that he does. Earl Holasek: Well let me know for sure. Batzli: Okay thank you. Is there any other discussion? Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 29 Emmings moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #92-3 with the following conditions: 1. Ail wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. 2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development Contract. The buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement. 3. Alteration to the wetlands must Occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland and not during breeding season. 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers. 5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92-1 and Rezoning #92-2. All voted in favor and the motion'carried. . Batzli: Can I have another motion for the rezoning. .4hrens: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning ~92-2 for property A-2 to RSF. Farmakes: I'll second. Batzli: Any discussion? Ahrens moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning #92-2 property A-2 to RSF with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance T-able. The applicant shall meet all conditions of Subdivision ~92-1 and Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Last, is-there a motion on the preliminary plat? Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision ~92-1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 with the conditions that are contained in the staff report with condition number 5 Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 30 altered to read that variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes that fall into the tree conservation area. In no event shall the front yard setback be less than 20 feet. Adding a condition'27 that makes the · approval conditioned upon compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning 492-2 and Wetland Alteration Permit Ahrens: Second. Batzli: Any discussion? I guess I would like to just make i't clear. on the record that I would like staff to ·discuss some element of a passive park between now and the City Council meeting. Is there any other discussion? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-1 as shown on the plans dated March 2, 1992 and subject to the following conditions:. 1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the plat. All building sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall be shown on the building permit. 2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations 18-61 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation. 3. The name "Forest" shall not be used for any of the streets. 4. Parkland shall be dedicated, 5.62 acres of property, as recommended by the Park Commission. 5. Variances shall be granted as necessary to all homes that fall into the tree conservation area. In no event shall the front yard setback be less than 20 feet. 6. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Forest Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades 'stating that the street (Forest Road) will be extended, in the future. 7. The final plat shall be amended to include the revised street alignment of Stone Creek by eliminating access onto Galpin Boulevard and provide a cul-de-sac with an interconnecting street between Stone Creek and Timberwood Drive. .. 8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final plat over all utilities located outside of the public right-of-ways, along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet Wide gutter to gutter. 9. The appl-icant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA. 10. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with pond storage calculations for storage of a 100 year storm event, 24-hour Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 31 intensity, should be submitted to-the City Engineer for review and approval. 11. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to improve turning movements into the development. 12. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in. diameter on Forest Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail. 13. The storm sewer inlets and outlets should be located'at opposite ends of the ponds to promote water quality. The emergency overflow between Lots 13 and 14, Block 6 out to Forest Drive. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or- construction activity within the railroad right-of-way. 14. Eliminate the ditch section and relocate or reduce the pond size adjacent to Salpin Boulevard so it is completely outside of the future right-of-way and roadway improvements along County Roads 18 and 19. 15. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's .recommendations. 16. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated easterly to provide adequate'room for future trail considerations. 17. Ail areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 14, 1992 except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood-fiber blanket. 18. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes to the proposed retention ponds. 19. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the 1992 edition bf the City's standard specifications and detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit for City approval. 20. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and Minnesota Department of-Health and street access permits from Carver County Public Works. 21. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site. 22. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 32 construction of the improvements and payment of any pending assessments. 23. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvement they may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will be determined as the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8-inch diameter) an~] ~I~o i)roposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter'. 24. The applicant/builder shall provide at-the time of building.permit application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots, specifically Lots 1 through 15, Block 3, Lots 1 through 8,-Block 4, Lots 1 through 20, Block-5, and Lots 1 through 12 and 15 through 24, Block 6. 25. The applicant shall explore the possibility of conveying backyard drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system. 26. The outlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd. needs to be replatted with another lot. 27. Compliance with all conditions of the Rezoning.#92-2 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: When will this go in front of the City Council? Aanenson: April 27th. Batzli: April 27th. Thank you all for coming'in once again. I encourage you to follow the issue up to' the City Council. A1Klingelhutz: I heard some discussion on Highway 212. The Federal Government has allotted $8.7 million towards that construction. The bids are supposed to be let up to Lyman Blvd., that's the last phase of the first 4 phases of construction in 1995.' I heard somebody say it will be 20 years before it comes in and I've been on the committee now for about 38 years. I think it's finally going to 'happen. The State has in their 5 year capital improvement program has got the money to complete Highway 212 up to Lyman Blvd.. Coming from Eden Prairie to Lyman Blvd. so I heard some discussion that possibly some of that traffic could go to the south and have a freeway to go into the city. It probably will generate more traffic going to Lyman Blvd. and down onto 212. Batzli: Thanks Al. I'd like to take about a 3 minute recess here. Planning Commission Meeting Apr il 1, 1992 - Page 33 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 9 ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR ALTERATION. RELOCATION AND MITIGATION OF A CLASS B WETLAND ON pROPERTY ZONED RSF iAN~ LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF LILAC LANE AND TETON LANE m )THILIEN ADDITION, HILLOWAY CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Addr ess David Peters F. & F. Natoli Joey Johnson Jan Wi ng Jon Guy Mi ke Hot n Eric & Jane Danser John Breckheimer Glenn Geissinger Richard Bloom 6421 8retton Way 6251 Teton Lane. 1275 Lilac Lane 1321Ashton Court 6341 Teton Lane 6330 Teton Lane 21640 Lilac Lane, Shorewood 21710 Lilac Lane, Shorewood 6140 Mill Street, Shorewood 14600 Woodruff Road, Wayzata, MN 55391 Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman 8atzli called the public hearing to order. Richard Bloom: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Richard Bloom. I'm an independent planning consultant. Have been really since 1983. 1976 to 1983 I was the Director of Planning for the city of Minnetonka so I obviously have some planning background and some sensitivity to some of the issues that are'before us this evening. The developer of the property is Hilloway Corporation. Mr. Fenning is here in the audience. Mr. Fenning has developed numerous subdivisions primarily in the city of Minnetonka. More recent projects, he did a project in the city of Medina last year and that's where, if you've heard of the Street of Dreams, that was in the...Farm, a project that Mr. Fenning did in Medina last year. He's also done the Shadowmere Subdivision in your community on Lotus Lake. My previous'experience with your community was back actually in the early 80's. I worked on the Fox Chase Subdivision, also on Lotus Lake. Maybe if I could just kind of review some of the things that we've done to kind of bring this before you this evening. We held a neighborhood meeting Thursday night of last week. Invited all of the folks that were on that mailing list. I think we had approximately 15 to 20 residents there from'the area that were there that evening. Frankly I thought that all things considered the neighborhood meeting went fairly well. We spent a lot of time talking about Teton Lane. The barricade. Whether the barricade should be there or not be there. We talked quite a bit about the upcoming feasibility study that...is preparing. Obviously what the ramifications may or may not be to the residents on that. Obviously they have some concern there as well. I just might add parenthetically what we tried to do on all our developments. We tried to design our subdivision to really minimize the area impacts to the did receive a specific request from Mr. Natoli, across the street from us. He lives right down in this area here. Mr. Natoli is planning to plant a number of pine trees right along Teton Lane here and is concern he Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 34 expressed to me, which I also conveyed to Mr. Engelhardt was that if the roadway's widened or improved, he would like to see it done in a manner. that would not disturb those trees and quite frankly we would entirely concur with him. In talking to Mr. Engelhardt about that incidentally, I think that the additional right-of-way that was granted off this property, the additional road widening, should be able to occur hopefully entirely on the west side. The existing pavement 16oks like it's only a foot or two off the east side of the right-of-way so the road widening.as I would see it would predominantly have to be done on the west side. So hopefully that issue could be resolved. We've also very carefully gone over your staff report. I might add it's a very thorough report. There's 18 stipulations placed on the approval. All those are acceptable to us. I guess there's one comment I would make specifically about stipulation number 8 which reads that final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility update...for Teton Lane ate known. A public hearing is held and improvement projects...including removal of the barricade. Frankly we're anxious to get started on the project as quickly as possible. We would intend to file our final plat as early as practical. Ne support the feasibility study update. Ne were the ones that put up the money basically that Todd, a cash deposit that your staff required in order to get that study updated and said we were very willing to cooperate with you in that regard. We're doing everything we can. Ne feel a little bit though we're kind of caught between an issue here that really didn't affect us. I mean the issue was really kind of there before we came along. We're doing what we can to assist in the resolution of the problem but ultimately I'm sure as you're well aware, it's going to take a political decision on the part of the City Council. And in effect what was being told to us and we really can't do our final plat until you guys, or the political process winds it's way through and there's an action taken. $o I guess I would express that as a concern that we do have. Obviously we're willing to cooperate and work...to resolve this matter. I assume the~e will be some additional neighborhood meetings held specifically with the engineers relative to those improvements hopefully in the near future and we'll certainly do what we can to assist in that process. With that I thank you and I'll answer any questions that you may have. Batzli: How do you pronounce the name of the development? Richard Bloom: Oh, Ithilien. Emmings: Tell us about the name. That's what I was wondering about too. Where does the name come from? Richard Bloom: Well actually if you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings, that is...character in the Lord of the 'Rings. Ail of Mr. Fenning's subdivisions, Shadowmere, Loft Lorien, Ithigard, all of those names came from the Lord of the Rings. He uses that for a name, for a subdivision name. Emmings: Alright. Batzli: Alright. I think that we will probably have questions as they arise and until that time thank you very much.. Paul, before I ask for public comments, what is the rationale on number 8? Condition number 8. Planning Commission Meeting Apr il 1, 1992 - Page 35 Waiting for that. Is it a question of we don't want the development to go in until we're sure the roads are adequate and everything's designed? Krauss: Well fundamentally, yes. For example the Hans Hagen plat, we would not allow that plat to be filed until the project is ordered in and we had some certainty that we weren't going to be creating lots with no means of serving them. Most of that, this condition addresses that. Now arguably we go a little bit further than that here dealing with the barricade which isn't specifically an issue that the developer 'has any control over. But we are looking to have the improvements ordered in in whatever way, shape or form the Council so wishes concurrently'with this plat. Batzli: This is a normal condition isn't it? Or is it a timing issue developer? I mean he can't get, like for example, if he could file the final plat or the final plat be granted approval before the development... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Batzli: I'm going to ask the developer or the representative. The question was asked and I was kind of hoping Steve would ask. this. I thought he was going to, on the value of the homes. Proposed value of the homes that are going in. Can you respond to that? Richard Bloom: Yeah, we discussed that at the neighborhood meeting and I'm sorry I failed to mention that 'earlier. We would expect in the range of probably $140,000.00 to $200,000.00. Fairly comparable with the newer homes that were built in the Curry Farms subdivision. Also the question on covenants. That also came up in the neighborhood meeting as well. Our intention is to take a look at the Curry Farms covenants that they have and we haven't looked at them yet so I can't say we'll do exactly what those are without seeing them but our intent is to take a.look at those. If those appear reasonable, we'll probably do basically the same'thing. Batzli: As far as you mentioned the development of the road would occur mostly to the west. Have you talked about that with our staff or is that just kind of your feeling that it could be done that way? Richard Bloom: Nell that was through my discussions with Mr. Engelhardt's staff over there. Basically the existing pavement is there. The right-of-way, you've only got about a foot of right-of-way between the east edge of the existing pavement and the right-of-way. Batzli: So the trees aren't in the right-of-way at all? Richard Bloom: Right. They're on Mr. Natoli's property so all the roadway, plus the earlier action you took back in 1990 was that corner parcel was to bite off, you took 17 feet along there so there's probably actually, probably well in excess of 20 feet of available right-of-way west of the existing pavement where that widening's going to occur. I suggested that to the engineers and they seemed to think that widening would occur on the west side. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 36 Batzli: Thank you. 3elf? Farmakes: I have a couple of questions, and I'll start off I guess with the barricade since that seems to be popular. I'm not sure whether or not this was thrown in along with this as an issue. Having read some of, I d~d not get a chance to read all of the previous City Council meetings in 1990 but I read some of it. It seems to me that the barrier issue is a Separate issue and it seems punitive to the developer to throw this in with that based on the amount of homes that are going in there. If there is a problem, I'm not sure whether that's a critical mass that's going to tip it either way. I agree with staff and I think that if we just dealt with this again when we were talking about Timberwood. This is an age old problem that comes along with cul-de-sacs and people wanting to have, be the only ones driving to their house and the only ones leaving. That just isn't safe. There are cases where people are going to need, at the very least a break away barrier that they're going to be able to access in cases of emergency. We live in one of the most active weather pattern areas in the world. A tornado around Chanhassen is not an uncommon site. There are people who have to access for emergency vehicles. There are police vehicles. You don't always know what's going to happen and you can't build or empty out or take away a barrier while your house is burning down, There are a lot of unexpected things that happen and the city tries to provide services to everyone that are reasonable. And one of the reasonable things to ask is that you have a multiple access to an area of-high concentrated homes. It may be that it adds to your traffic level but you have to ask yourself if the common good does not supersede that and that's what the city's making that argument. It's not a stupid argument and it's not one that's based on other occurrences. There are existing statistical eveidence and I would hope that you can look at that unemotionally. I realize when there's traffic in front of your house and you're being irritated by it, or there's somebody gunning their engine, that you think about that. And not for me. I don't want it. I don't care, I'll take my chances and we've had people come in here and say that. I don't know whether that's the prudent thing to do for the city. That they should take that attitude. I think a lot of that has. to do..with how many homes you're talking about on a cul-de-sac. But I'm rambling on here. I'll get back to this development. I think it should be a separate issue. I think the development should be looked on the basis of what it is. That development. And I think things reasonable to me, actually 3/4 of an acre is quite a large lot size comparatively. It"s not for your property but where it's zoned you're simply not, the economics are simply not going to get a 2 acre lot. It's not out there. And particular for this price of a house. There's simply not a market for it. And I'm struck I guess by the comment previously, the meeting that took place back 2 years ago. The person who's selling this property now claimed that he would not be developing his property. And we also see that here by people who are coming in who are' complaining about these types of developments. I' wish that we were'talking about a buffer type situation. If we could come up with something like that, it would help these types of situations because they happen over and over and over again. Unfortunately, one person's castle is not always the same. Your vision of a utopia out in the suburbs is not necessarily shared by your neighbor. I hope we have some common sense to this whole thing. That's my comments. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 37 Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: Well first of all I...Street of Dreams...straight forward. I don't have any questions. I understand the neighbors' concerns. They don't want more people. They don't want development but we can't prevent somebody from selling their land to a developer. If they have land, they can subdivide it...We have no say in that. Resident: He didn't sell the land... Ahrens: At any rate. The barrier issue strikes me so odd anyway that you would have two improved roads that the city maintains with a barrier across them so people can't drive. The concept of that is very odd to me. That the City would even engage in that kind of isolation... I read through the notes in the City Council meeting and to tell you the truth, I still don't understand the reasoning behind that decision. The cul-de-sac that ends up with Curry Farms at the top of that hill...end of a cul-de-sac .... goes on and on and on and ends up, I dbn't know...To me it just makes sense that the barrier should be removed...Teton Lane. Batzli: But do you agree with Steve's position that we should just eliminate it from the conditions or would you like to see it remain in the conditions? Ahrens: I think it's...that we put it in as a condition of this development. Batzli: But philosophically you'd like to see it removed? Ahrens: Absolutely. I think it should be removed. I don't think that's going to bring anymore traffic into Curry Farms. CertaiD1y the people in this Ithilien development, they're not going to drive through Curry Farms to get to CR 17... It's too long a route to take. Actually the benefits to the Curry Farms residents will be able to get to CR 17 faster. Mrs. Natoli: That's the idea. That's why. You made the statement exactly why we wanted it 3 years ago. Ahrens: Well at any rate, that's my Opinion. Mr. Natoli: That was supposed to be a break away put in there but they didn't come along with a break away. They put those big pillars in. Now I maintain there still should be break away for more than one reason. We've had a number of small tornadoes go through that area and if a big one went through there once, you'd need ambulances and fire engines and everything else coming from both sides. So break aways would be the clear thing because then your fire trucks and your ambulances can go through it. I don't want to, I'd hate to see anybody get hampered where-they can't get an ambulance or fire truck in. But that fell through. I don't know what happened. Batzli: Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 38 Ahrens: Well I just don't think the developer should have to get involved in this. Batzli: Is that it? Okay. I guess Joan kind of covered it .as did Jeff and there's a lot of concern and rightly-so as the development moves into an established neighborhood with different sized lots. In this instance the development meets our standards so that we can't stop them. We can make them conform to our ordinances, which they're doing and in a market capitalist society, unfortunately they took advantage of the sale to the bank or however they got the property and we don't get involved with that so I mean it is too bad for the neighborhood. If they would have had you know an inkling and would have been able to purchase it and had the money to do so and to maintain it, that would have been very nice. 8ut unfortunately the City isn't involved in that part of the process so. We are at least trying to make them conform to our ordinance and make it a safe development for the residents surrounding. Paul, several Of these lots are listed at exactly 15,000 square feet. Is there some sort of opinion by the Planning Department that these things actually measure up correctly? Krauss: We took the information that was provided by the surveyor who prepared this said it was accurate. We asked for clarification of that with signed documentation under the final plat. Ahrens: ...plus or minus. Krauss: Yeah. They've got to make sure they're all plus. Batzli: Okay. For the purposes of Lots 12, 13, 15, 16, 17. When we're calculating lots as far as the minimum lot size, refresh my memory. Are 'we taking out those areas that are wetland? Are we using a gross or net or are those people given credit for the 39,000 square feet? Krauss: Under current ordinances we do not subtract wetland areas. This is what we've talked about on several occasions that we may want to look at an ordinance change that does that. Emmings: For density calculations we do. Krauss: For density, yes. -Right. Batzli: But not for minimum lot? Krauss: No. But what we have done here and what we've done in the recent years is we've made sure that they lay out as buildable lots and I think in the packet you'll .see that there is a fair amount of information provided. There's in fact a detail of one of the lots that we interpretted the setbacks and there's information provided on how those lots around the wetland work. Batzli: And what was the net density of this development? It was well within our allowed density as I recall. Planning Commission Meeting Apr il 1, 1992 - Page 39 Krauss: Yeah. It was, the net is 2.7 units an acre and gross is 1.9. The Comp Plan allows anything .less than 4. We seem to average about 2 in single family neighborhoods. Batzli: I would like to, as a general rule of thumb I would say that the barricade shouldn't be in there. However, there's a lot of history with the barricade and it was a political decision and the neighbors fought long and hard and they got that and I don't know whether the City Council wants to relook at that but I don't want to relook at it unless the City Council tells me to relook at it. From a policy standpoint of the Planning Commission, I would say it shouldn't be in there but they've already made that decision. So I would like to remove that from the conditions and if the Council wants to revisit it, they may. I don't think it's up to this developer though. So I'm on record anyway. I'd like to see the tr~es saved and the only thing that we haven't talked about I guess is the drainage. That didn't seem to be a concern except for one resident so I guess I would encourage that resident ko talk off line with our people if that is a large concern. And I'm sorry sir, did you have a? Resident: Yes, I have a quick...related question. On that wetland, is the city responsible for maintenance of that or is that the... Just to make sure that it's upgraded and kept... Hempel: That will be maintained by the city and there will-be a'drainage easement over it. I should point out, the city as far as mowing these areas, obviously it's a wetland. We're not going to be mowing it and so forth. By maintenance we mean by cleaning out sediment that accumulates at these storm sewer inlets and so forth. Resident: How about...? Hempel: I'll defer that one to Planning I guess. We typically have not done that to any of our wetlands yet. Krauss: Just because he punted doesn't mean we have the answer. Frankly, I mean we have had these problems crop up. There are city weed inspector, if I can punt again is, yes. We do have a city weed inspector. He was nominally, no, it was the City Manager but he passed it down to the Public Safety Director. He is the officially designated, I mean by State law, he's the weed inspector. And purple loosestrife is one of those noxious weeds that he's responsible for and I know they do, they had operated in some wetlands in conjunction with the DNR but I don't know how extensive that program is. We can ask him. Farmakes: We did it at Lake Lucy. The DNR provides you with equipment. You walk through your wetlands and for each individual plant, if you want to spend a great Saturday sometime in the middle Of July, I would highly recommend it. Batzli: I thought they were supposed to pull it. Farmakes: They give you Rodeo and you spray it. Ahrens: You can't pull it out. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 40 Farmakes: But it's just a maintenance type thing. Apparently this plant lays down it's seed supply that will last 10,000 years from now so it's pretty much cosmetic. Batzli: Okay. That's all the comments'I had. If someone would like to make a motion. Ahrens: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat ~92-4 as shown on the plans dated March %4, 1992 and... Emmings: The date on the plans is March 16t'h. I think. Batzli: Yes. Ahrens: March 16, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit ~92-2 a~ shown on the plans submitted by Bart Engineering dated, is it March. 9, %992, subject to the following conditions. As the Commission stated, condition number 8 shall remove the words, including the removal of the barricade. Emmings: I'll second that motion. Batzli: Paul, are we covered, or Dave. Whoever can answer this question. far as where the road is located to save the trees. Is that something? Emmings: Are the trees threatened? Krauss: I don't think they will be. I mean we have not seen the final construction proposal. There could theoretically be something we're not sure of but there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why we can't save those. Batz 1 i: 0 kay. Emmings: Are we discussing? Batzli: Ns're discussing. Emmings: As far as the discussion goes, I want to be on record also, if it isn't already clear that I would be for removing the barricade and connecting those roads up. For all o¢ the same reasons that. we just did it on the last one. And Jeff went through the litany. Ahrens: One quick question. Condition numb.er...more outlots? Krauss: Well theoretically though those lots could access Lilac. They have a double frontage situation so we just wanted to make sure we're clear and that would not occur. Batzli: Is there any more discussion? Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #92-4 as shown on the plans dated March 16, 1992 and Wetland Alteration Permit #92-2 as shown on the plans submitted by Bart Engineering dated MaTch 9, 1992, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 41 The following easements shall be added to the plat: a. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 2 and 3. b. A 20 foot drainage and utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 14 and 15. c. A 20 foot drainage and'utility easement along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 to provide vehicle access to manhole. d. A drainage easement along the rear lot line of Lot 14. e. A 20 foot utility easement along the rear lot lines of Lots 14 through 17 and the side lot line of Lot 13 for sanitary sewer. f. A drainage eaesment for the wetland pond for the boundary at the 1004' contour. conservation easement for the wetland over the 1001' contour. h. The existing drainage easement over the wetland must be vacated. 2. A 12 inch RCP storm sewer with a 4 inch orifice plate shall be constructed as the outlet structure for the wetland pond. The wetland pond bottom shall be lined with clay and top dressed with 4 to 6 inches of topsoil. 3. Storm drainage contributing area map, storm sewer pipe calculations and an erosion control plan shall be submitted with the final plat. Slopes shall not exceed 3:1. . 4. The internal watermain system shall be installed within the proposed new street right-of-way and shall be looped to Lilac Lane or to Ashton Court. 5. An additional sanitary sewer manhole shall be located along the common lot line of Lots 15 and 16 and vehicle access shall be provided from the new street along the common property line of Lots 15 and 16; 6. A 60 foot wide street right-of-way shall be provided for the new'street proposed within the subdivision. 17 feet of right-of-way shall be granted along the east plat line to provide a 50 foot wide road right-of-way for Teton Lane as consistent with right-of-way dedications along Teton Lane north and south of this area. 7. Lots 1 through 5 shall take driveway access from the proposed new street. 8. Final plat approval shall not be granted until the findings of the feasibility study update for improvements to Teton Lane are known, a public hearing is held and the improvement project is formally ordered. Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 42 9. The developer shall enter into a development control with the City and provide the necessary securities associated with the development. 10. The preliminary plat should be adjusted to provide the required 90 foot frontage at the 30 foot setback for Lots 4 and 6, 8lock 1. Lot 10 be adjusted to provide a more suitable building pad area. 11. The applicant shall receive all required permits. 12. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land dedication. 13. The applicant shall retain a qualified soils engineer to evaluate the sub-surface soil conditions on the proposed subdivision and recommend corrections at proposed house pads, if necessary. 14. The location of the proposed house pads, the type of dwelling and the lowest floor and garage floor elevations should be indicated on the grading plan. Dwelling type designations should be: R Rambler TU Tuck Under NO Walk out SE Split Entry SEWO Split Entry Waik out 15. The wetland alteration shall be completed exactly' as proposed in the Bart Engineering memo dated March 9, 1992, ihcluding the two pond system, interspersed with open water and submerg'ent plant species, and landscaping of a mixture of emergent plant species and wetland shurbs. 16. Disposal of dredged material is prohibited within the wetland area. 17. The applicant shall notify .staff within 48 hours prior to commencing the alteration to the wetland and shall again notify staff within 4'8 hours after completion of the wetland alteration for staff review and approval. 18. The letter of credit, as part of the development contract, Shall include financial sureties to guarantee proper mitigation of the wetland, inclhding landscaping and as-built plans. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Paul, when will this go in front of the City Council? Krauss: 27th of April. The feasibility study though, like on the other one, the feasibility study is going on the 13th. Hempel: I believe it's on the 13th, yes. Batzli: Okay thank you. Planning Commission Meeting April l, 1992 - Page 43 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE RURAL SERVICE AREA. Batzli: Seeing as how our resident minimum lot size expert in the rural district is not here tonight, would we like to carry this over? Krauss: Okay. Aanenson: Yeah, that's fine. We'll just leave it in the packet. I know Tim did have some concerns. He tried to get a copy of it before he went out of town. Batzli: I guess, I mean Tim is the one-that I think is the largest proponent of this and seeing as how the meeting is running late, I would prefer to defer this. Do we need a motion to do that? To table it? Krauss: Yes. Ahrens moved, Farmakes seconded to table the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding minimum Iot size in the ruraI service area untiI the next PIanning Commission meeting. AII voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS. Batzli: Under new business, apparently the item was postponed. That was our spa center out at the Assumption Seminary. Is that due to problems or is that just a full meeting this time? Krauss: No. They had some conflicts in their schedule and asked to be bumped one meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission dated March 4, 1992 as presented~ CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Krauss: Well, I don't know that, I mean everything was done pretty much the way you wanted to do it. There was one item that you expressed some interest in concerning the water surface useage ordinance. I know Commissioner Emmings commented on.that. It had to do with a change the Council made at the last minute relative to boat ownership. The Council, the old ordinance restricted boat dockage on the lake to the owner of the lot and immediate family. They basically eliminated that restriction so that anybody could use it with the owner's permission. The ordinance was published that way. It's recorded that way and then there was some reconsideration of that thinking that that opened the door too far to allow people to rent out space and I believe that they are looking to shut that door back down again and a change is going to come back to the City Council. It's not in the zoning ordinance. It's in the watercraft, boats and moorage. Whatever we have that-section entitled. So the public hearing and ordinance change will be at the City Council. Highway 5 corridor study. There's things moving with that now. Now did you all get the copy of the newsletter from Bill Morrish's staff? That big book? Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 44 Ahrens: Yeah. Ledvina: I did not. 8atzli: I don't know if I did. Krauss: We just ordered 500 more. Ledvina: Should it have been mailed to my house? Krauss: We mailed it out when we cancelled the last meeting. We sent it out with that. We'll get you one. We've been working to try and bring this thing around. Firm it up. Had a series of meetings with MnDot and some of them have been good. Some of them have been bureaucratic. Bill Crawford, significantly Bill Crawford is the number two guy at MnDot, told Don that he was real excited about this innovative approach to the project and as far as he was concerned, the State's already approved TH 5 so why don't we just go do it. Well, then we talked to the functionaries in MnDot and they kept on going well, the design book says you do it this.way and we only pay for culverts and on and on and on. So we're trying to work that out. We still think that there's a lot of hope here that we can work something out with MnDot. We're also trying to keep on track with doing the rest of the work. That we basically have a concept but the concept has no...and it's never been made public. And-Friday in fact I'm meetihg with Barry Warner from Barton-Aschman who's done the urban design improvements on the current stretch of TH 5 and another party from Camerous which is a planning firm that is doing urban design work in Minneapolis-St Paul, Sioux City and a few other places, to kind of put together a proposal that I hopefully can bring back to the Council, hopefully get them to act on it so we can get to work on this pretty quickly. So we are moving forward. Ledvina: What is the level of development pressure that the City is experiencing within the corridor? I mean are people really clamping down on you saying we need to know and we want to do this? Krauss: Yeah. We've had a series of meetings with Opus Corporation on the 190 acres out at TH 5 and TH 41. They want to get through their planning process this summer. Ryan Development already submitted a plan in the area in front of Timberwood. I mean if you think you saw Timberwood tonight, you're really going to... Ledvina: Are things happening that we don't want them to happen? Krauss: No, not yet but there's always a potential for that. The Timberwood, the area north of Timberwood is being hung up by a number of factors and I think we were very fortunate the way we worded the Comprehensive Plan in that area. Basically it's either-residential or you give us a very high end office development and a school site and we work it out. Well, the school site's still up in the air. We've had a series of meetings with the school. Their initial reaction, and I showed you this stuff a'couple of months ago, was that the site wasn't big enough and they have a huge amount of recreational facilities. I mean like 6 ballfields, football fields, 8 tennis courts, big parking lot. Well yeah, you could basically hold the Olympic Festivals here when you're done. But they're' Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 45 still trying to iron out their needs and they're supposed· to make a report to the School Board and this is the committee that Don Ashworth and I sit on. They're supposed to make a report to the School Board end of April, early May. So that's moving along as well. Until all of these things are · clarified, we keep putting off Ryan's development. In fact Kate and I and Todd Serhardt had lunch today with Kent Carlson who you saw for Ryan and they keep asking us when are we going to be allowed to do something and we keep moving it down the pipe. $o yeah, the lono answer to your question i~ yes. There's a lot of interest and things are really starting to happen. Farmakes: Did you receive any comments from Opus at all in regards to the plan itself or any of these larger developers? Krauss: Opus, ~on't get me wrong, Opus is a good developer but there's a give and take when we have these early meetings- Kind of fun actually. Opus' initial position, which Kate and I were cracking up about was the collector, southern collector road which we have going through there. Normally you hear of things like the Timberwood folks saying I don't want any outside traffic coming through my residential, pristine neighborhood. Opus was saying the same thing. We don't want your non-industrial traffic coming through our neighborhood so, we build very exclusive industrial parks and we want all the roads to dead end. Emmings: Even with the connections of the Arboretum and everything? Aanenson: Yeah, very exclusive. Emmings: Unbelieveable. Krauss: So we've got a ways to go with'them but the'fortunate thing with Opus too is they're at the end of the sewer line and I think we've got a nice long time to work things out with them. Ahrens= At the end of the sewer line. Krauss: The end of the sewer line. We're likely to get it to. Ahrens: 2 years? Krauss: Well we're not sure. Probably 2 at least. We're likely to get the sewer up to Hans Hagen's property this fall but then it's got to go past Timberwood, up 6alpin and hook a left and go across an 84 acre site and then get to the Opus site. Batzli: Can't they petition to join Ch'aska?' Krauss: They could if Chaska had an ounce of capacity but they don't. You know they can't be annexed to Chaska. The reason we lost that site a number of years ago is that there was no clear presumption that we would be able to service that Volk property at ar~y reasonable time. We've 9or Metro ' ' ,, : : '.'1 ' II~-~ ..... " . ...... ' ' '~ ~' ~ I'. ]~f,,. .... :~'. .I. I;~ ~. ~ . Emmings: Does that stop them from? Planning Commission Meeting April 1, 1992 - Page 46 Batzli: Does that say you'll get served in time~ Krauss: It stops them. I think it gives a very good case not to have anything annexed to another community. Now we have talked to Chaska for several years about where it's reasonable to do it. Maybe we should join our water system so we don't have to build water towers. Maybe we should serve each other's sewer where it makes sense to do it. Chaska right now has severe limitations on the sewer plan and it's because Metro Waste Control Commission believed the Metro Council's population projection. they theoretically had a lO year plant expansion that's lasted a year and a half. Batzli: They're not going to, they don't have a problem... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Ledvina: ...The reason I asked about the development was, I'm just wondering there was. '.wondering of the appropriateness of a moratorium on development within that corridor. Something similar to...we're doing a corridor study... Krauss: Well the Council did look at a moratorium... I think it was October/November and decided for a number of reasons that they were uncomfortable with it. At the same time there was a court ruling that was handed down in Woodbury where they used a moratorium on construction...do it for 6 months I think it was and... I was in Minnetonka when'that was done and the 6 months turned out to be 18 or 24 months. They got away with it but in Woodbury they didn't and they got sued... Now I hope to bring something to you for discussion at the next meeting. The next meeting we don't have the volume of new development. We should have the seminary but I took a crack at drafting up an overlay district for the corridor which gets our foot in the door hopefully. Then when we have a formal corridor study, we just adopt it by reference. Kate's taking a look at it and giving me some feedback. I've had several discussions with Roger Knutson. He initially told me I couldn't get away with it and now he's come around to saying maybe you can. I need to work out some details. Ledvina: I heard the situation in Woodbury was like...when you have a corridor study that you're conducting... Krauss: I've always been led to believe you do and there are often case law that evolve from communities that screw up. I don't think that that's necessarily representative of what you can and can't do but the Council did talk about it and was not very favorable. Ledvina: Maybe with this...corridor study they'd be more comfortable. I don't know. I think that if we don't want to keep saying no to the developers just on an individual basis. We want to be able to let them know what our game plan is... Farmakes: From a practical standpoint though for a developer...amount of property, you're going to want to know... Planning Commission Meeting ~pr il 1, 1992 - Page 47 Aanenson: That's exactly it. Right now there's too many unknowns as far as where those frontage roads are going to go. What the width of TH 5... If those come in we're just going to recommend question marks. Farmakes: You're talking 6 months here. I would think a good developer would sit back and wait... I don't know... (The quality of the tape during this discussion was very poor and wasn't picking up voices clearly.) Farmakes: First of all I can't take credit for this. I'll give credit where credit's due. But it is extremely pertinent to some of the stuff that we're talking about. PUD. The issue on the corridor. 5yen some of the issues that we're arguing about here and this is counter to a lot of stuff that we're doing. Or have done let me say. The level of criticism on anything but basically since the war has been over, World War II, and where development has gone both commercial and for the city, this addresses a lot of that and I don't know that it's the Bible but it certainly brings up some interesting arguments for those who like to talk about-that kind of stuff. $o I suggest you read it if you can. Batzli: Paul, I know this was inadvertent but could you, well I did not read it yet so I'm going to read it. Can we put in a new number 16 for other items for looking or coming back and telling us what is involved in looking at lot sizes in Chanhassen? I went backwards because other people jumped down to open discussion. Krauss: So in the context of increasing lot size? Batzli: You were going to come back and tell us what would be involved'in re-evaluating it. Not doing a study on it. Just telling us what would be involved. Minimum lot size in the subdivision ordinance. Something that you and Ladd said you would die before you did it. We have no administrative approvals I'll assume. Open discussion we've already done.- Ahrens moved, Emmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim