The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 08 19CH~H~SSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGUL~J~ MEETING ~UGUST 19, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEHBER5 PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Ladd Conrad, Steve Emmings, Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Hart Ledvina - STAFF PRESENT= Paul Krauss, Planning Director; 3oAnn Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician; and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Hanager PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION OF A 5 ACRE PARCEL FRO~ A 19+ ~CRE SITE'ON PROPER~ ZO~ A2. AGRICULTURAL ESTATE ~ LOCATED'AT 10151 GREAT PLAINS BOULEV/~RD. TEZCH. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. David Teich: I'm David Teich and I'll be subdividing the property that I'm- selling. I'm selling 5 acres off of the 19. It's as simple as that. I'll be moving off the property and the home on the 5 acres. One question about the easement. Now the map is in error. To my knowledge, the survey [ provided does allow for a 66 1/2, at least that access right off of TH 101 to the north portion. That would be the access to the 14 acres that I think you need. The line, tf I could use the map for Just a moment does not go where it meets TH 101 on the northwest corner there. There is 66. Aanenson: Right here? David Teich: That's right. The line will fall 66 1/2 feet, at least that to the south of that pointI. I'm sorry Kate but I.didn't see that until on the way up here this evening, on your staff report. The easement you're requiring I think is already there. Aanenson: We can verify that. It's a lengthy legal description...but we'd also still be concerned because that would only serve possibly this portion. It is in the bluff overlay zone and these lots would still meet. They wouldn't want anything to cross over that ravine there so Ne still may want to secure, make sure there's access to that northern portion because of the bluff overlay zone. Emmings: I thought you were requiring an easement on the north portion. Aanenson: Exactly. He's saying he's got access through here. Emmings: Oh. Is that what you're saying? Aanenson: The land itself is not landlocked. It wouldn't be because I do have access onto TH 101. Emmings: From the 5 acre parcel? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 2 David Teich: From the 14 acre parcel. With an established access there. Aanenson: He's saying it would follow along right through here. This is what we're showing'as the property line. He's saying it's right in here. Emmings: I thought that was a deep ravine there? Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, .yeah. David Teich: In the middle there, yeah. That's right. Emmings: How do you do that? I'm not understanding this. You're saying there's an easement that goes across the ravine? David Teich: No. I have an access onto TH 101 from tha.14 acres that.will be left. Emmings: Where is it? Would you-go up there and point to it. David Teich: This line here will actually go, there is 66 1/2 feet here with an access already established there. That would be the access to the 14 acres. . Aanenson: But you'd still have to cross a ravine to get to that northern portion which I'm saying you still would need an easement. David Teich: Okay. This 30 foot road,'this down here and this is part of the 14 acres. It is a mess and I was handed that by my father... I do own this 30 feet and this here is an easement, not recorded, with Mr. Graffunder and I have access there. I've talked to Paul about that. My understanding is that we were just going to leave it as it is. I could use it as my own. That road because anything else ever happens, as you well know, the road will angle up so we discussed that it may not be worth getting an easement for that road because if anything else did happen back there, the road would then go public anyway. And as far as the question of the land becoming landlocked, it's not. There is access with the exception of having to build a bridge across that ravine. Emmings: Well I think that's obviously what they're concerned about. They want access to the part on the other side of it. David Teich: There is access. I have access to that.part. Ahrens: Through an unrecorded easement. David Teich: That's right. Batzlt: Okay, thank you. This is a public haaring~ Is there anyone else would like to comment on this? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to clo~e the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was clo~ed. Batzli: 3Dan, do you have comments? Questions. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 3 Ahrens: Kate, you said that, eventually there's going to be a trail easement on either side of this road? Aanenson: Correct. Ahrene: Of TH Aanenson: Yes. Would they only need to secure a trail easement now? Aaneneon: That was a recommendation from the Parks Commission and I guess. Krauss: If I could. There were some decisions that we made in house about that. The future of TH 101 is completely unknown to us. It clearly needs to be upgraded. It clearly is a State highway and the State clearly 'won't do anything about it. They want to give it to the County. The County doesn't, or the City, nobody wants to take it until it's fixed. The alignment that Kate has up on the board there is one that we developed in conjunction with Mr. Halla's plat 2 or 3 years ago because it's very clear that we have that very tight curve'through Mr. Halla's property that even a minor upgrading of the road is goin~ to want to make that change. But long term, we don't know what alignment this road's going to take and it pretty significantly impacts Mr. Teich's property. ! mea~ it basically almost takes it if you go with this alignment, and this alignment has no legal standing. It's just again, it's an inner office design that we came up with and we didn't feel that that was strong enough basis to require dedication which may in fact be a taking of the property. When MnDot or the County actually figure out the proper alignment in the future, that's when they'll have to get the right-of-way. Ahrens: Now when you say that this property is going to be unbuildable, are you implying that once the MUSA line moves out, it will be buildable? Aanenson: Well yeah, it's the 1 unit per 10 because you're outside the Urban Service Area. So once sewer's available. Ahrens: You're not implying to the applicant that this is buildable-land right? Aanenson: No.. It's in the bluff overlay zone and that's been zoned., correct. Rs far as what he can get for densitY, we have no idea at this point. What we're saying is that be couldn't pull, even though he couldn't pull another building permit for the rest of the remaining portion even though he's got 14 acres because he has less than 20 at this time. He"s got one home so he'd need exactly 20 to get two lots. Ahrens: You might want to say it's not, instead of saying or identifying it as unbuildable land, just say it can't be developed. Just so they don't think that when the line goes out there, it's going to automatically be buildable property and it may not. I mean this may not be, right? Krauss: We were looking to put a deed restriction there that saWS it can't be developed until municipal services are provided. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 4 Ahrens: I'm just questioning the wording of buildable. Have you seen this easement he's talking about that he has with Graffunder? Aanenson: No. The unrecorded easement. Aa nenson: No. Ahrens: Any idea if that would be, this is the first you've heard of it? Aanenson: Yes. I guess I would Just check with the Attorney's office and see if they were comfortable with accepting it that way. Olsen: We've got a copy of that easement. We went through that when Gerrish went through with the subdivision so we do have that in the file and it has been verified and we can get a copy of that for you. Ahrens: I suggest that, to record it too. Aanenson: Well, that's what we're stating. That's what we want to make sure that that's a recorded easement. Ahrens: I have no other questions on this. Farmakes: I'll just echo the comments there for staff recommendations. I guess I'd have the same question about the buildable language in 1. And on 2, the issue of the access . . .That 's it. Emmings: I don't have anything additional. I support the staff recommendations. Conrad: Nothing more. Erhart: Yeah, I don't mean to, the easement lines to Dave's house but I'm not quite ready to give up our easement yet and since a lot of us use. this TH 101 and hope someday it will be upgraded, so I want to work that issue a little bit more. Every other thing that's come in here along TH lOi we've taken the other argument that gee whiz you know, what is-it. Minor arterial, we want 120 feet and therefore, how it came in with their- subdivision, we got the extra 27 feet or so from them when we did this. And while I want to pursue how close this house is, we're saying two things. I don't think we want to lightly give up an opportunity to get a wider road here. This isn't going to move. I mean TH lOl's going to, I don't care who owns it or who argues about who owns it, it's going to be where approximately it is for a hundred years. And forever' So with that, in the first place I would say, if Dave says that there's 66 feet on the parcel that he's keeping, certainly we ought to get the extra 27 feet on that and then deal with ho~ close his house is, which is, what is that? Like 25 feet from the edge of the road Dave? David Teich: 33 and an inch. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page $ Erhart: So you kno~, to come up, I don't know. I'.don't know what the answer is but I think we've got to be a little more consistent. Even if we just take 3 feet or something. Maybe there's some reasonable solution but just to say we're not going to take any, try to expand the right-of-way here when we have an opportunity because we don't know where TH lOl just doesn't sit right with me. And I don't know what the solution is. Other than that, you know everything else is pretty straight forward. Batzli: So are you proposing that we amend the conditions to take that footage? Erhart: Well certainly on the, if there's 66 feet of frontage on the property that doesn't have a house, certainly we should amend it to take the same width that we took in the Halls subdivision. I mean that's 66 feet. And to give some consideration of where you would get the full width in the future. Maybe if we leave out some portion around the house or maybe some wisdom says that we take some of it further to the north or further to the south. I mean obviously we have to give consideration to the existing house. I don't know if I' have an answer. Any ideas? Krauss: No, we got to this point because we had the same dilemma. We do, most of the time, recommend that you take the right-of-way. You take it when the getting's good and you can take it during a subdivision process. On Mr. Halla's property, it's clear that any kind of-improvement is going to take that kink out of the road. What is left there is as you move to the south, how do you traverse the bluff? Is it going to maintain that existing alignment down there or is it going to swing wide? When we looked at where the easement fell out on Mr. Teich's property, it was virtually into his front door. Erhart: But we took 27 feet all the way up to Pioneer Trail. just a matter of dealing with that lot. It-wasn't Krauss: Right. Or the major subdivision. Erhart: Consistent approach we've taken. Krauss: And we improve the intersection at Pioneer. And it was a part of, I forget how many acre subdivision Mr.. Halls was coming through with and platting his property. It also traversed vacant land and I get somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of us being in the position of risking- a taking of property for a project that MnDot won't confess that they will ever do. I'd rather they took the hit on that one. Emmings: Why is it a taking here and not in any other case? Krauss: Well Mr. Halls clearly is getting benefit from a major subdivision that he's ultimately going to have on his property. It cuts across vacant, I mean it's a tree lot. In this. case it cuts into or virtually into a single family residence. Conrad: So the future is dependent on MnDot and what are we prohibited from doing then? Will we never have a trail? Planning Commission Heeting August 19, 1992 - Page 6 Krauss: I'd have to look back to what we are doing. What the City is doing on TH lO1 north of 212 where you've seen the official mapping for that. The City actually is taking a proactive role in that and saying that we're not going to wait for HnOot or the County. We're going to be building it and we've already begun to build it in steps and it does have a trail corridor in it. And it also involves some major condemnation hearings to get it to so far, to get the road down to whets it is now. Erhart: Let me ask you this. Let's say the purchaser of this land in $ years decided to tear down the house and build a new one. If we left the right-of-way the way it is today, then he could build it within 30 feet of the existing right-of-way even though it's t. he old design. Whereas if we decided to take an additional let's say 15 feet, then you'd have to'cut it back 15 more feet. So the effect of taking an additional easement today really has no effect as long as that house is occupied. There really is no taking. Krauss= That's a possibility. If your recommendation would be to include a condition to that effect, I don't have a'problem with that but I'd like, before we get to the Council, have the City Attorney review it. There's been a lot of rulings in the State and...would know better than I about that issue. Erhart: Can we ask the applicant if he had any reaction to that. Batzli= Yeah, go ahead and ask. Erhart: What do you think of the discussion regarding this? You're selling it so...you've driven TH 101 all your life. David Teich= Born and raised. Erhart: Yeah. What's your reaction to whether or not we ought to take the opportunity to try to get easements to get it ultimately improved or not? David Teich: I think it's futile. Erhart: Pardon. David Teich: I think it'd be futile to take easements... Erhart: I'm generally looking for your reaction being a long time resident. David Teich: I don't foresee the road really widening... A1Klingelhutz: I know the public hearing's over with but, I think I'm going to have to disagree with Tim. I don't disagree very often with Tim. The house is very close to the road. It's an old Chaska brick house and our company happens to be the one that sold the property for Dave. People that are buying it bought a similar house in the city of Shakopee and they've completely redone it and it's a beautiful place. This is probably one of the oldest Chaska brick houses in Chanhassen and to Put-an easement through the house I think is something'that if you Want to have any Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 7 historical preservation in Chanhaseen, it would be against my grain. The house is structurally sound. It is that bad of home. It. needs a lot of work inside and I'm sure these people are going to do it. If I could take you over to Shakopee and show the house that they've redone, you'd say they've just did one beautiful job. We've got about three Chaska brick homes in Chanhassen. Carver County Historical. Society has taken a hard look at them and they really would like to see those Chaska brick homes preserved. And if you took another 20 feet on Dave's side of the road, it would cut about 15 feet off the house. Thank you. Emmings: Is it likely that, if the road, I know we don't know what the path of the road will be or what would be done if it were to be upgraded but is it less likely that any widening would occur in that direction because of the way that the ravine comes up to the road? That it will more likely be to the other side. Krauss: Well yeah, Dave and I talked ab~>ut that. Dave Hempel and I. Dave I believe was the originator of this alignment and when we looked at it, we thought that simply from an engineering standpoint there'd be some desire to push it to the west. But the critical factor here and one that we never looked at is how does that merge with whatever route is selected to go down the bluff. I mean if you're going to make safety related improvements, and the one through. Don Halle's property Nas frankly regarded as one that we may be able to persuade MnDot to do just as a safety related improvement, the same way Ne got the 4 way intersection at Pioneer and TH lOl. We're not sure which way you've got to skew the road up here to match with the route going down underneath the railway tracks do~n the hill. Emmings: But are you really likely to move it to the east? Are you really likely to move this portion to the east? Krauss: From an environmental standpoint, no but we don't know if you pushed ail the way to the west you windlup taking out 4 or 5 homes. We honestly don't know. Emmings: It seems to me going east appears to'be an unreasonable alternative. It isn't a reasonable possibility. That's why ! wouldn't be in favor of doing anything with an easement on this property now. And ! think the preservation, if that home is going to be restored and preserved, ! think that's a worthwhile thing to do, especially on that isolated piece of land that fits on it. Batzli: Do you have anything else Tim? Erhart: Nope. Batzli: I don't have any additional comments other than, I have two quick ones. One, the driveway easement. I echo Joan. I think I'd like to see that recorded. Make that a condition. And do we not have an obligation to preserve historical buidings and site within the city, Paul? Krauss= There's no statutory obligation to do that. 8atzli: But as part of our plan. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 8 Krauss: We have spoken about it in the comprehensive'plan. Batzli: That's one of our guiding beacons so I would prefer not to put an easement through the house or within an inch of it personally. Is' there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #92-9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a 19 acre parcel subject to the conditions in the staff report but I'm going to modify number 2.so it will read as follows: A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the remaining 14 acre parcel. More particularly, to that portion which lies north and east of the ravine. Batzli: Is there a second? Ahrens: Second. '- Batzli: Is there any discussion? Conrad: Yeah, just real quickly. We're not precluded from carrying out the trail. Does it still validate the easement that we put on the Halla property? By doing what this is, does that invalidate that easement? Krauss: No. Conrad: It's still something that could be done? Krauss: Well yeah. I mean the easement'that we took on the Halla property is a recorded easement and we have that. .. Conrad: And why do we need it? Krauss: Long term they have a goal of getting a trail down to the bottom of the river. Conrad: And the Haila easement is on the east side? Krauss: I don't, JoAnn, would you recall which side the trail easement is on on the Halla property? Olsen: I don't think we have one...I think that was on the east side I believe. Conrad: So, we took that because we wanted t. hat. We want to get a trail down there but now we're saying maybe we can't. Emmings: Already, they have to cross the road. Because of the ravine you may be in a situation where you have to cross the road with the trail, right? Conrad: Yeah. Emmings: Which wouldn't be good but it might be necessary. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 9 Conrad: I guess my only Point is, if we're not really going to have a trail, we really should take the easement off of Halls. Krauss: But there's also possibilities too, and the city has talked from time to time about investigating Bluff Creek Golf Course and securing the ravine system that comes through there. It may well prove to be a better option to bring the trail over.through the golf course and down that way than try to snake it down with a very restricted highway that's very difficult and expensive to go down that bluff. Ahrens: I have one more comment. Steve, on number one. Emmings: On unbuildable? Ahrens: Right. Emmings: What do you want to say? Ahrens: May not be developed. Cross out. Emmings: That'd be fine. Why don't you propose an amendment. Erhart: Can I comment? I think you ought to be a little bit careful here. It's possible that somebody else with another, what do you have, 14 acres? Somebody with 6 acres could buy that and combine the two, have 20 acres and it could be developable as a replatting. So in the use of your words, consider that. Ahrens: What do you mean? Out that I thought it can't be developed until the MUSA line was done. . Erhart: No, if somebody bought. Let's say somebody, somebody adjacent had 6 acres. They combine the two and then you'd have 20 acres. Ahrens: Oh, I see what you're saying. Erhart: Now you can split that again into two ho'mm sites so really, it's not unbuildable. .. Ahrens: Well you could say, until such time that this stem's inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available or upon city approval. Krauss: Well yeah, you might want to put in, or addition of sufficient land to meet the lO acre rule. Aaneneson: You could keep saying or, or, or you know. Krauss: cut city approval's kind of an open ended thing. It would imply that anybody could come back at any time and Just ask the Council to change their mind. Ahrens: Well, what do you feel comfortable with? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 10 Krauss: I'd prefer to have, if you want to allow that option, to say that unless additional acreage is acquired to meet the 1 per lO acre density. Batzli: Do you want to propose an amendment Joan? Ahrens: I'd propose that number i read as follows: The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract statin~ that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the lO acre density as required by ordinance. Do you want that? Krauss: Yeah. Ahrens: As required by City ordinance. Batzli: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Ahrens moved, Conrad seconded to approve an amendment to the motion to modify condition number I to read as follows= I · The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not. be' developed until such time that this area' is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as required by ordinance· All voted in favor of the amendment and the motion carried. Batzli: Is there any other discussion on the other motion? Conrad: Well, just one other point. We're convinced that they're going to restore? Ahrens: If they don't, we'tl send them to jail. Conrad: Al, they are going to do that? A1Klingelhutz: The main reason they bought the house is this is what they do. They buy these brick houses. Fix them up and plan on living there. They've lived in Shakopee for about 5 years now. They get the value out of it. They probably will sell it after they fix it up but it will be completely restored. Conrad: And it is structurally sound? A1Klingelhutz: It is structurally sound... Batzli: Kate, was there a...? Aanenson: ...map showing the 5.acre split with a legal description and- then the original lot, metes and bounds legal description. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 11 Batzli: You're comfortable with that? That that's included? Aanenson: Yes. And I've checked with the Carver County RecoTder's Office and they are willing to accept it this way. Ahrens: Did you read throqgh this legal description? Aanenson: Yes. Batzli: If there's no more discussion, I'll call the question. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commtuion recommend approval of Subdivision ~92-9 to create one 5 acre parcel from a'19 acre parcel, subject to the following conditions: ,. 1. The City Attorney's Office shall prepare a development contract stating that the remaining 14 acre parcel may not be developed until such time that this area is inside the Urban Service Area and water and sewer are available, or until such time additional land is acquired to meet the 10 acre density as requited by ordinance. · A driveway easement is secured and recorded allowing for access to the remaining 14 acts parcel. MoTe'particularly, to that portion which lies north and east of the ravine. All voted in favor and the motion carried. pUBLiC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD ON 10+ ACRES FOR A C~IAL/RETAXL CENTER LOCATED-AT THE SOUTHEAST CQRI~R OF NEST 78TH STREET ~ POWERS BOULEVARD. T~:~'GET DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Hame 3udy Landkammer . B.C. "3im" Burdick Bill McHale Rick Whitaker Margaret D. Fleck Fran Hagen, II John Dietrich Tom 'Leoterski, James Co. ChaTlie James Doug Kuni n Brad Johnson 6901 Utica Lane Excelsior 12237 Chadwick Lane 9225 Rhode Island 4426 Haven Avenue 8683 Shayview CouTt 2721Colfax Avenue So. 6640 Shady Oak. Road 6640 Shady Oak Road EckankaT 7425 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item· Batzli: Thanks Kate. Anyone 'on the Commission, would anyone like to ask Kate any questions before we ask the applicant to make the presentation? Okay, would the applicant like to give their presentation. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 12 Bill McHale: Good evening. I'm Bill McHate with Ryan Construction. I will mostly be addressing our concept, as we're talking about it Outlot S. I've got with me Margaret Fleck who is the architect for Target and I think it's probably most appropriate that she go through that site, the building, etc. which is obviously the driving force behind the development and once any questions have been answered there, then I'd just like to make some comments about the concept on the outlots. Margaret. Margaret Fleck: I'm going to begin by Just showing you what our standard new P193 prototype is and this.is the new prototype. It's slightly different than what you've been seeing. Earlier renditions where we had a red truss system and it was also exposed. It's a fairly simple building. Two tone and it has an asymmetrical. Batzli: Excuse me, can you maybe move the stand a little bit forward so it's larger on the monitors and we can see it. Margaret Fleck: This is just for YOu to get an overview of what our prototype was. Or is. This is what we are proposing to put on the site. It's varied quite a bit. We're putting a pier element in that projects out from the wall surface and breaks up the wall surface. We've added what we call our Greatland colors. The blue and the green. It's normally in only our Greatlands but we feel that it's appropriate here to break up the surface of the wall again. We've put the gateNay that's very similar to our Greatland stores in here and have stayed with our prototypical colors. It is a masonry building. It's what we call rockface. I believe the term that was used in the staff proposal or narrative was, weathered. And that is very similar to this element right here. It looks like a piece of rock rather than just a flat surface element and I will Just set that down if somebody wants to grab it and feel it. The'colors are very specifically chosen by our people to try to keep a certain image, It is a coated' surface which is a sealant that coats the block or the masonry. The lower portion of the masonry is an 8 x 16 block. The upper colors, the lighter color is an 8 x 8 block. The massing changes.along in here also so that we have some variation. We've completed and followed this through on all the other sides. The line here that I'm sho~ing, we had a conceptual difficulty here. When I was first having this developed by my architect, he misinterpretted the grades and this is the-true grade here. This area here will be changing to look a little, a bit more like this massing rather than the piers. There is a standing seam roof on the front entry area that does return and go back and show it's face, just a side face on 78th Street. Does anybody have any particular questions on this? In general, that's the basic building. We are 375 feet in front and approximately 400 feet front to back. Aanenson: If I could make just one comment. One suggestion we had to was that they put tree wells between those columns so we put-that in the staff report to soften the building. Ahrens: Put what? Aanenson: co lumns. Trees in wells or something along that sidewalk between the Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 13 Margaret Fleck: In the sidewalk area we could leave, put leave outs a~d add. We would like to stay with an oranmental tree. A smaller, maybe blossoming tree and. keep it away from the actual building foundation that we could place then right along in here. And it already begins to be a' landscape area up here so you already see them being reflected. I could even bring them to this distance. I would prefer not to bring anything within the gateway area. Emmings: ...is the south facing, west side of the building? And the side that faces 78th Street is which one? Margaret Fleck: This one. Emmings: Okay. Margaret Fleck: the one going to. This is, again the rear of the building. This would be Batzli: The loading dock area is the lower corner on the right? Margaret Fleck: Yeah, this would be the high~ay side and that would be the direction they're running into and this is actually, 'excuse me. Along here would also be the dock area. Batzli: Okay. Margaret Fleck: There was also another comment in the staff report about rooftop units not showing and we did go ahead and do a sight line study which I have copies of. I apologize for not getting these'here earlier. The study was done from two points on TH $. A high point that would be looking from up here across and none of the rooftop, well the rooftop units shows by .O1 foot which is about a 1/16 of an inch. And that's with a 4 foot additional parapet from what we do on prototypes. There is one element that does show currently. It's a satellite dish which would .be positioned right here. It's mounted from the rooftop, it mounts and goes to 9 feet above the rooftop. You would see 3 feet of it. It's approximately an 8 foot round satellite dish. You're going to be seeing that the upper half of the sphere of it for 3 feet. So your top element would be 3 feet and you're only going to see about 6 feet across and that would hit right about here. And that would be seen from really TH 5 only. It's for communication to our district offices of our sales data, etc. and it's a very important element to our operation of our buildings. And part of it is also transmitting o~ders.' That type of thing. Farmakes: Is it necessary that it be placed on the roof? Margaret Fleck: Our normal effort is to do it up on the rooftop. I don't know where we'd put it down on the ground and really have transmissions that we need. Farmakes: The total height there is? Margaret Fleck: The total height of the building here is 28 foot 8. And that's at the high point here. It does go... You're seeing, that's the 28 Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 14 foot 8. 26 foot 8 is right here. Batzli: Does anyone else have any questions on the Commission? Erhart: The pitched part of the roof is only over the opening? Over the entranceway. Margaret Fleck: Yes it is. That's, we worked a great deal on that and that is one thing that I went back to my people and we Just feel very strongly that it's an entrance element that really is, reads entrance to it. Especially on a commercial building of this type. Rnd I made an effort, I can honestly say, for some depth. Aanenson: We aisc asked that the element be carried, instead of jdst the front facing Powers Boulevard but that element be wrap,ed around West 78th. Margaret Fleck: When I came in to the staff, it was actually narrower than this and I have widened it to 12 feet from the 8 feet I previously did, which isn't a great deal but I went back and tried to get more than that. In fact, when I first originally designed this', I had a larger pitch. I can honestly say that it's going to be.a big question. I c~ld go back and tell them that it's being asked for. It's a cost. It's a great deal of cost · Ahrens: It's a cost and not a...destgn. to Target. ...people won't find the entrance Margaret Fleck: No. They're not really concerned about that but it is architecturally an element that should be read for an entrance. If.we bring it along this side, it reads that something should be there that is not truly there. Ahrens: According to them. Margaret Fleck: According to all of us, yeah'for a pier· And then there's the cost of it. It doesn't do anything for our building whereas using it for an entrance identification, it does do something for our building and I can rationalize that cost. You're talking another $100,000.00 when.you start turning around the corner. And a maintenance problem. Krauss: If I could touch on that for a bit. Well first Of ali we're not asking you to look at cost projections and decide what's reasonable. Our concern here, as Kate indicated earlier, we took the very unusual step of laying out a proposed or potential site pla~ since we knew Target was in the market for the site ahead of receiving their ideas on this property. And we factored in a list of items that we felt were important for the City. We being members of the planning staff, engineering staff, the HRA, Planning Commission, and City Council had a meeting. One of the things that came across very clearly is that a Target store or anything else on that block should not turn it's back on downtown. Therefore we' felt it was important that since we knew that the primary entrance would be oriented to the west, but visually, architecturally the importance of the 78th Street frontage needs to be expressed and needs to be carried around on that side and that was our concern with that. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 15 Margaret Fleck: And if ! can interject on that. We really felt like we did that without having to add a rooftop element where anybody that's-in a car or. even walking in the area is going to have to look up 30 feet to see in comparison to piers that we put in and massing that we put in as it's brought down into a human scale. A walking and residential scale and that's really where we felt the money was appropriate. Not up at the 30 foot height level. One of the things ! possibly could look into is going on the 78th Street side with an element on the piers that gave you a little bit of a, very similar to what you have. Just a framework like you have at your, I believe it's the fire station across the street. That type of thing. Aanenson: This all will be...during the site plan review too. 'These are some of the issues that we've raised and we're moving in that direction. Batzli: Kate, let me ask one question about the report. You have staff recommends the pitch element be carried around the West 78th Street side of the building. You have in-the next sentence, you're recommending that the design be further refined to-offer roofline elements consistent with downtown Chanhassen. Are these two separate issues or are we talking about the same thing? Aanenson: Are you on the last page of the recommendations? Batzli: Page 3. New page 3. First full paragraph. Is this one and the same issue or are there two different issues here on our roofline? Aanenson: Same issue. Carrying that pitch around and trying to reflect the other elements we've got with Market Square and the visibility from West 78th. They've oriented toward Powers but we're also saying that that's a long segment of wall too on West 78th that should also have a front door look. Batzli: Yeah, okay· Go ahead. Margaret Fleck= Do you have any more questions for me? Batzli: I don't think we do right now. Farmakes= I have one further question. You show trees on the bottom two views and then as you work your way up to the.top the trees become much more scarce. Is there a line of thinking that it was important to see the building and that that interferes with the sight line for identification or, even when there's no signage on the one side? Margaret Fleck: At this point in the development of the site plan,l this is a landscaped area behind. We do not have a roadway back there so there is landscaping shown.. That's the same along the sides and along the sides here and all the way around the far side. This is quite a large area of trees. That's that lot that's being saved· It was just one, we don't normally care for maintenance reasons for leaves being on Our sidewalk where our customers roll their carts and that type of thing. To put trees in if we can help it. We do do it and we will be happy to do it in this condition. It's just something that we don't normally do automatically. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 16 And then there is, the main concern is to have some vlsual clearance for the sign at the building because it is.another ident[fy£ng element. Farmakes: So it's not tbs building itself. It'.s just the logo and the entrance? Margaret Fleck: Yeah, that ! would need to maintain the clearance for. That and just a general area in here and sidewalk area. Our sidewalks are meant for our customers to be able to traverse into our building and not have to walk a great deal in the driveway. Erhart: Jeff, you're talking about trees adjacent to the building? Farmakes: I'm talking about there's four views there and...if you look. at the bottom two, there's several trees running along the plane of the building. On the upper two, there are very feN. I'm Just wondering, marketing wise, the intent. Erhart: Yeah, and your suggestions ts...you're suggesting that you might want to have trees next to the building to further screen, is that correct? Farmakes: I guess that would be somewhat consistent with what we've been requiring on other things. However, I wanted to know what their thinking' was as far as marketing the site. Margaret Fleck: On the West 78th Street, I'm not sure we're showing all the trees that would be there. Next to the building, exactly next to the building there's only a 3 foot sidewalk which has an overhang of 2 feet for your... Bill McHale: The landscape plan will. The depiction is, there's actually trees along the boulevard but they're not right next to the building so from the roadway you don't have any problems. That's all-trees and the elevations she's showing you doesn't step back to the street to see the trees. One of the reasons that we don't have much ro~ in there is because the building, pursuant to staff, was ~shed further north to save the big grouping of trees adjacent to the freeway and that limited the area. That elevation, it really isn't representative... Margaret Fleck: ...the architecture, not the trees. Aanenson: If I could make a. ciarification on that too. point... Actually at this Erhart: trees. We're ultimately waiting for the developer to do some drawings of Margaret Fleck: We'll be happy to. Farmakes: No, but if you're talking about adding elements to the side of the building to improve the look of the building.. If we cover it up by trees, there are ornamental trees, tt is kind of dubious, whether or not we're gaining anything. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 17 Margaret Fleck: They could be shurbs, if you want some greenery or they could be flowered plants. You know I mean we can work with that. Batzli: Thank you. Bill McHale: ! don't have any pictures to look at so this is going to be dry. Ail I'd like to do is give you I guess out reasons for why we're going through kind of an awkward process with one site that"s so refined and one that we're getting arms around everybody getting comfortable with. Obviously Target is what's leading the direction and the outlots and the compatibility to develop them Z think is something that's desired by the City and Target a~d that's what we're tTyin~ to'effect right now. One of the things that I feel strongly about is we need the flexibility to develop this site and that's why we're looking for something. If we're to commit going here, we need to know what our possibilities ate. A couple comments. We're real comfortable with the materials that the staff has recommended and that the buildings on Outlot B ate compatible. We don't want them to look the same but we do think similar materials and the materials you use in downtown would be certainly acceptable. That's no problem for us at all. There's questions in the staff report regarding setbacks. One of the problems we're having and we feel that the PUD should allow us a flexibility to some of those setbacks is, in addition to setting back from the roadway, there are some utility lines that exist in the existing 7$th that can't be moved. That we can't build'on top of. Target has concerns about sight lines and we're trying to preserve ones to the main intersections which should be to everybody's advantage. If you take all that into consideration and then you set back everything, the .projected 50 feet, in some cases there aren't building pads available. If we can't build on it, we can't buy it and then we're left with the question with, who's going to pay for the open space. -$o we think that if you look at the entire Outlot B and have some flexibility, we think we can work that out. We are not sure where the two fast food restrictions came from. In talking to Kate earlier, I'm not sure that she knows for sure. I sent a letter to Don Ashworth after several of our meetings a long time ago and told him that we felt that that was somewhat 'problematic. We would' like the market to determine the appropriate uses. We think we can work within the landscape requirements. The City's parking requirements but we feel strongly that anything that's zoned for that area should be allowed. We have no problem working with staff and approving one building at a time. In fact, that's the way we'd prefer, to do it. That's why we agreed with staff to come up with just Outlot B rather than plattteg it into separate lots which would give you less control. I. thtnk we understand where staff is coming with with pitched roofs. We would like at least the flexibility, depending on the exact building sign when we come in. In some cases, maybe an increased parapet another element would be satisfactory-. I think one of our major concerns here and yours are architectural and screening the rooftop units. We think we can accomplish that. One other thing that came up is the seeding of Outlot S. I.don't put grass where I don't irrigate because it doesn't grow. The only thing that grows is the weeds. ~e also will probably be, we're not positive at th~s moint because of title. Title issues and ownership issues, we're not positive we can grade the Target site and Outlot B at the same time. So that may cause some problems. think what we are comfortable with is where we've graded it, I think we can take erosion precautions a~d we normally would throw down Someting that Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 18 would prohibit growth until we brought in sod and irrigation. We have not had good luck at ail with seeding areas, hydro seeding. Doubling the seed load. If we're not going to irrigate, we don't seem to get grass. I think those are my only concerns with the staff report. I think otherwise we think it was fairly, very well represented and we think we're on the same page. And I'd be glad to answer any questions if you've got any. Batzli: Does anyone have any questions of the applicant before we open it up to the public? Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Due to the probably number of comments and people commenting and offering their testimony if you will today, I'd like to ask that you approach the microphone and give your and addre~ for the record. Try to be brief. If you can keep your comments to a couple of minutes, that· would be much appreciated. Would anyone like to address the Commission? Okay, I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing unless anyone would like to address the Commission at this time. Conrad moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing .as closed. 8atzli: Tim, I'm going to start at your end. Erhart: Well let's start out where Jeff left off there and maybe add some good ideas. What's the use for that vehicle? That parking there north of the building along West 78th. Bill McHale: Employee parking. Erhart: Oh, that's employee parking. Other than trees along West 78th, is there a berm there or anything else? Aanenson: Right in here? Erhart: Yeah. Aanenson: They're showing a...adding to the PUD zone because we think these are the only two lots that are left between Harket Square that are unbuildable and it makes sense to tie those in architecturally in what we're trying to do with the PUD zone. We're not sure that this'connection is based on grades... We may recommend that it be more of a landscape element up in here but there is a change in grade. Erhart: grass. What about along West 78th...row of trees and then it's fiat · . Fran Hagen: If I may make a comment. The building itself... 8atzli: I'm sorry, who are you for the record? Fran Hagen: My name is Fran Hagen with RLK. What I was stating, do You have a grading plan by chance? I don't know if you've had a chance to see' the site. It is falling away from West 78th Street quite, I think a total of 30 to almost 40 feet to the low point down where the pond will be · constructed. What we have is coming into the site, 2~ and 5~ grade until Planning Commission Meeting August 19, i992 - Page 19 we get to the front entrance of the building. We're proposing a grade at the street connection in front of Target of 63.5. Elevation 963 and the building will be set at 58 so that's about 5 1/2 feet lower there. But as you progress further to the east, the east property line there, the elevation of the roadway is about at 72 so that's about 12 feet. Erhart: It slopes down toward the building? Fran Hagen: Right. There will be, there was I think a plaza area up there wasn't there? Aanenson: That's what we talked about if the connection didn't go between this parcel. Between the two parcels. That there'd be a plaza. Fran Hagen: I believe on the landscape though, even with that parcel we were showing a retaining wall and a plaza area up in that corner. Proposed, not necessarily. Up in the northeast corner of the site. Rs far as berming, I guess that's what I heard you addressing. Erhart: I was just wondering if. Fran Hagen: It's pretty physically. Erhart: Trying to understand what was there. Fran Hagen: That's where we hope the tree massings-and we do have quite a bunch, what is it? I 1/2 times the normal requirement. So we're trying the best we can to mass some trees in there. Erhart: It appears that you're doing more to the west of that with shurbs. Fran Hagen: Again, the grade difference over in there is much less because by the time you come to the second entrance, you've dropped down lO more feet. That second entrance closer to, or further to the west is down at a 53 elevation. Proposed. In fact I think it's been graded. Rough graded there if you were to see the site. It's intending to drop down to a low point right around that westerly entrance to the Target site. Erhart: May I ask Chuck Dimler, we don't see his stand on here. Where does that go when we're all done?. Aanenson: The corn stand? Erhart: Yeah. Fran Hagen= Probably right where the entrance is. Aanenson: Talk to Todd. Erhart: Okay, and what, nobody's objecting to the idea of adding the 8urdick Park Addition, 8lock 3, Lots 1 and 2. Is there a problem? Aanenson: We haven't noticed that. 'We're saying when it comes back for a preliminary, as we've gone throughlthls, we realize those are the Only two Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 20 lots and what we're recommending, when it comes back for a preliminary, we noticed that and put that in as a part of the PUD. Er hart: ...be done? Krauss: There's a lot of, I mean this isn't the only action occurring on this. There's a lot of negotiation between the city and the property owners and the HRA so yeah, that should all be resolved by that time. Erhart: Well, I guess it's obvious from everything that's been supplied, somebody's put a lot of work into this already. Quite frankly, I was you know, like everybody else, you don't want Chanhassen to change too much too fast and I'm kind of nervous about Target coming to our little Chanhassen but after seeing the plan, I'm just a lot more comfortable with it. Particularly pleased that we could save those trees next to TH $ so it isn't shocking when you, it doesn't end up looking like Eden Prairie Center when you drive there on 212. Regarding the, let's see, at this point when would we expect the entire area, including Lot B to be developed? Assuming the economy doesn't get any worse. Krauss: Well yeah, it's really hard to know. It's contingent upon market conditions but I think in the very brief period of the last 2 or 3 years, you've seen the Chanhassen market just accelerate extraordinarily rapidly. Having Market Square opening up in October is going to add to that. Having Target, Target wanted to break ground this fall yet. I can't believe it's going to be too many years before Outlot B is built out. Erhart: Your reaction to the statement about not sodding Outlot 8. Aanenson: That's erosion control. Hempel: I'm sure Watershed would have some concern over that also. Erhart: Well yeah but yet we've left the' Charlie James p~operty sit over there with weeds for how many years now? How do you differeniate our position? How do you Justify our position? Hempel: Well our main concern is to control the erosion obviously and what we try to get is some fast growing cover. Not necessarily grass but we do get a clover, an oat, rye, barley type growth. Just to mitigate erosion. Erhart: Would we be doing something to the Charlte James property as well? Hempel: That's exactly it. It's left in it's natural state and eventually weeds do overcome it or prairie like atmosphere. Erhart: Of course that's all going to be redone now. On the other, hand, I do think people do plant grass and it does grow. The Highway Department is proof of that. Batzli: My front lawn isn't. Erhart: Anyway again, I'm a lot more comfortable with it. Other than that, that's about the only comments I had. Planning Commission Meeting AuQust 19, 1992 - Page 21 Batzli: Tim, speak to us philosophically for Just a second about, by making this a PUD, what do we do with' the areas around it? Does this change anything about the lots directly behind it between the building and the Monterey there and the property to the north? Do you see a problem with redoing this as a PUD? Erhart: The last time we had this in here, I stated that I'd like to'see us do something to bring the whole Monterey Drive into the plan. 8ut at that time, I thought the entrance was going to be to the north. Maybe that's why, and this way, looking at it today and going out and looking at the site, and actually the back of the building faces Monterey, I don't feel, I guess I didn't feel that that was a problem. Your question regarding making this a PUD relative to the Monterey Drive area, I guess I don't follow you. Batzli: Well this whole development. We're looking at this as a conceptual deal. Do we want to rezone? Is this the kind of development we're going to want here? I guess I'm asking for your impression on what do we end up doing on Monterey between this and the back of a huge building? What do we do to the north? Do we want to realign the road that way? We're doing a lot of things here'conceptual rather than you know, what's the slope of the roof. I think. Krauss: If I can touch on something you said Mr. Chairman. The alignment of the road is something that the City's been'planning on doing for a large number of years. That's not contingent upon Target or anybody else. That's something that we need to do to have a safe intersection with 78th Street and the boulevard. We also intend to. carry 78th Street to the NeSt as a, I forget what we're calling them now on the Highway 5'study. I see some of my task force members here. Batzli: Frontage. Krauss: Well sort of a parkway design and it's going to have an entrance into the park and continue on down. That road needs to be back far enough from the TH S intersection to be safe and that's why we'd always planned to do that. Batzli: So you're comfortable? Erhart: Assuming the area on Monterey would become, right now it's zoned what? Aanenson: General business. Erhart: Yeah, so now we have an industrial. Essentially an industrial site there. I would assume that with Market Square and this being here, any future development would be more likely retail or office, would it not? Krauss: Well there's no question that what occurs on the lots north of Pica Drive would fit into the commercial/retail context of downtown. Early on, the Assistant City Manager's and was participating in some of these discussions. We looked at the building down on Monterey. The industrial building that's back in there and they adviseability about including that Planning Commission Meeting August i9, i992 - Page 22 and it'S really innocuous. It's really concealed from most off site views and it's going to become even more so as it would develop and there really didn't seem to be any need from a design standpoint to-incorporate it into the project. Erhart: Yeah, that was the other thing when I made that statement that time was again I assumed that a lot of those trees would be, I thought all would be gone and you'd essentially start with a clean sheet of paper on all parcels. Thankfully which is not going to be that way and you're right, it's low and they're actually screened quite a bit by those trees. Batzli: What do you think about tying this in? Does this, according to the plans as they stand, do they tie in with the rest of downtown so that you get a feeling that this isn't isolating this'and the adjacent retail to the west from the remainder of downtown? Do you think they've done an adequate job along the side of the building to West 78th to make it pedestrian friendly or don't you care? Erhart: Well again, I would hoped that the entrance would have faced West 78th Street and I guess I always viewed it that way. Although I know, well anyway. The way it's configured to the west, I guess it acts as a wall between the downtown and where everything here is going to be. In'that respect, that's where I was picking up on Jeff's idea there. The importance of how this looks from West 78th Street along with the pitched roof. I guess I'm not quite satisfied that we have an adequate appearance from West 78th. What we don't want to do is to have it look like the side of Target like you do when you go to the Eden Prairie Center parking lot. I'm not sure we're that much different than that from what I've seen so far. Satzli: I don't know if we're different at all really. Erhart: I hate to think that we're going to go down Nest 78th Street and see a side of a building. Satzli: Big side of a building. Erhart: If your question is whether we wapt Target at all? Quite frankly, Eden Prairie with the traffic's getting too far to go for diapers. Batzli: I'm not asking that. I'm asking philosophicallY, you know have we done the best job we can on that site to tie this into the downtown so it makes sense to do it this way. Because we're, and this is the conceptual approval stage. I mean do we kind of like what we see here? I'd rather talk about whether they did a good job on the entrance treatment when we see the real plan. I don't want to say yeah, that's good tonight. I'd like to see them work on it some more and I don't really want to say you have to do this and you have to do that and we'll approve it. I don't think that's our function tonight. I'm looking more for some suggestions or guidance on whether this fits in with what we want our downtown to' look like and whether this is something we'll be able to look at when it does come in and not suddenly say, what have you done. Ladd, go ahead. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 23 Conrad= Z'll make my comments fairly brief. It's good, I like Target coming to town. They're a great retailer. I think some nice things have been done to date. ! have some general directions that ! feel real convinced about. That we're not even close in terms of what the building shouid Iook Iike on Nest 78th. Not even cIo=e. I ~ouId like to ~ee, and I don't kno~ ho~ that. You kno~ Ne have to go back to the a~chltect to make it kind of friendly. It's 330 some feet and I don't think we've tried yet. I would like to see something that's kind of friendly to Chanhassen residents on that side. I don't care if it's ~oofline or a grassy area. I need something on the street itself~ Ns'ye got a side~alk there and I kno~ ~e have some vegetation plantings but it just seems real. unfriendly. Real cold and not what the rest of Chanhassen looks like right no~. Other comments, I don't know how big the parking lot.is. It's hard for me to tell but I'm sure we don't have a parking lot this big in Chanhassen yet. Other directions. I'd sure like to see, it is kind of broken up with some, it's kind of broken up. I guess my preference, and this is a costly recommendation, but I'd sure like to see a grassy area that divides that parking lot in two. Going from east to west. From the front door going 'to the west property line and I don't know what I'm talking about literally but I'm kind of concerned that it is a huge parking lot and visually from the road, I'd like to break that up a little bit. Rnd then my last comment is, outlot B. It Just is hard for me to visualize it. It doesn't seem to be a PUD type of drawing. I don't care if it's any one of the three it doesn't, I'm not real comfortable with. It's building, parking lot, building, parking lot and driveways going through and it Just, I'm kind of uncomfortable with that. Of all those c~ments that I've made, the critical one is how we look on Nest 78th. There's Just no doubt. In my mind we're not even, Target hasn't tried yet. Batzli: Steve. Emmings: My comments are going to sound almost identical to Ladd's. I wrote them down so I could repeat them. The 78th Street side Of the building was number one on my list. The parking lot is number two and we've had some discussions here about parking lots being able to be designed so they don't look like parking lots. We haven't gotten-into that in any real depth yet. I don't know what it means but I like the sound of it and that's something I'm going to be looking at real hard. Outlot B, the idea of that. It is hard to get an idea of what's going on. They're even looking at three plans and I agree with Ladd, right now it doesn't feel like it's integrated either with this project or even with itself. The idea that that could be all fast food restaurants would be abhorent to me. I would prefer there be none but setting a maximum on it seems like a real reasonable thing to do to me. I don't, have any idea what the implications are. All the truck traffic to the back of this building is going down Monterey and then over on Pica Drive. I don't know what the implications are for the lots that are there or for the roads that are designed to handle that kind of truck traffic. But that must be a significant amount of traffic with some pretty big vehicles. I don't know. Is that something we've looked at or if it might be nothing to be concerned about? Krauss: Yeah, I don't think it really is a major concern. Monterey's been accepting the truck traffic for the industrial building for quite a while. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 24 It's also the main access to the service area of Market Square. When the possibility arose of getting the service bays for Target back there where it's really totally concealed from off site views, we frankly jumped at that chance. I think it should work rather well. Emmings: Okay. Well, that's good to hear so I guess it's the, I don't mind the entrance. It would be nice to have the entrance on 78th Street but I don't think it's terrible where it is. I think I can sure live with that. I don't think there's anyway we're ever going 'to think that this, we're ever going to integrate this gully into the rest of Chanhassen just because of the scale. It's so far off from anything 'else that we have, there's just no hope of it feeling like it fits. I don't think.- But that just means that a lot has to be done to that 78th Street side to do the best we can. I think that's about all I"ve got. Right now anyway. 8atzli: Okay. Thanks Steve. Jeff. Farmakes: i'm just going to make a few general comments. You 'were talking about philosophy and I've always been confused by what Chanhassen is philosophically. The city, because there really wasn't a city here, sort of built up from the 70's and basically were primarily in the commercial section here, the small strip mall. ' We sort of have evolved to a little larger strip mall from there and we have the possibilities of bringing in what is called some anchor to the retail section here to get people to drive to Chanhassen, and I know a lot of people-are a little nervous about . that. I'm not really familiar with the marketing strategy behind Target putting a store here. It seems to me that it does not follow typically what they do in some of the surrounding areas here. Typically they position a store adjacent to another large commercial development. I think the nearest one here is Eden Prairie. Typically they don't have residential across the street from there and typically they don't make up half of the commercial area in a downtown. And so I think certainly, I understand some of the concerns of the people who have voiced their concern to me anyway about this, as to how that's going to. change what they perceive to be as Chanhassen. From what I see on the building~ here, you're obviously trying to tackle that and I'm sure that the staff is pursuing a PUD to try and achieve that and. give the City some control over this thing. I'm a little concerend about where these people are goin~ to be coming into Chanhassen from. I know from what I've heard, at least initially on this traffic report, is that it's not going to-'impact the city but I can't help but believe that we,re going to get a lot of people coming in here from Minnetonka. Or the Minnetonka area which is going to mean TH 101 or CR 17 or TH 41, to access this area from the north.-We certainly don't have a lot of people to the south here. We have a lot of forest and open farmland between here and Shakopee. 8ut I'm sure possibly your marketing reports tell you exactly where these people are, where you believe these people are going to be coming from. And I'm a little concerned that once that traffic gets here, as to how it's going to impact some of these problems that we have had. The island situation and Visual clear sight lines coming in off of Market and looking down 78th. I'm not a traffic engineer but I know when I come out into those islands, it's hard to see and I have to commit to going out into the street before I can really see down the street to see what cars are coming up. And I'm wondering until we work out some of those problems, I'm a little concerned Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 25 about bringing in this much traffic into town. Again, that's a non-' professional opinion. I am concerned about the sight line from 78th street for some of the reasons that I brought up earlier. Residential across the street. I think we have to be sensitive to integrating the commercial next to the residential. It's going to overlook an awfully big parking lot which brings me to another issue. I thought in the earlier drawings we were going to try and minimize a very large expanse of impervious surface which we've already got locked up. We really don't have a main street. just sort of have a lot of parking lots' and commercial areas off of what we call main. street. It certainly wouldn't hurt to try and work in a few more trees into that parking lot. I know it may create a problem with the sight lines for the entryway and probably not something that you're going to get a dollar back on but I think it would go a long way to try and break that impervious surface up and come in from the west. That brings'me to my last comments. The Outlot B, I'm a little worried as to what type of restaurant and what type of developments would be going on there. My hope is that we would try and balance out what type of development we're, going to get there. Hopefully Chanhassen, we're not going to wind up with the west section of commercial being a discount area. Totally. ,And like an Arby's and something like that there where we get a lot of back...plexiglass or something of that nature. But all and all, I think that the architect in this particular building, this is certainly a big improvement over Eden Prairie. That's it. Batzli: 3oan. Ahrens: I'm going to start with Outlot B. You're recommending that there be no more than two fast food restaurants in there but it looks like on the plan that there are other restaurants that are expected to locate there or are possible. Aanenson: Correct. Ahrens: What kind of restaurants do You think are going to locate next to, like Perkins? Fran Hagen: An Applebee's... We don't know at this time but that's the kind of things that could be in those... An Applebee's or Bakers Square. Don't know for sure. Farmakes: That's in addition to the fast food? Ahrens: Right. I can't tell by the plan either what this is ever going to look like and I picture in my mind that this is going to look like one of those areas around Eden Prairie Cente~ you know. where the McDonald's is and there's a little shopping center and you have to drive. There's lots of parking lots and it's hard to get around and it's just kind of, like somebody just dropped this commercial,'ltttle commercial .area with lots of a couple fast food restaurants and a CouPle of other restaurants and it doesn't look, it's'not a real welcoming place or real comfortable looking place from either a retail standpoint. A restaurant standpoint... The only thing I can think that this is going'to look like by looking at the plan. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 26 8atzli: Are you thinking of the west end? Ahrens: Kind of west. It's on that southwest corner of like 212 and Prairie Center Drive. That area in there. Batzli: Yeah. Kind of a jigsaw puzzle. Ahrens: Yeah. Yeah. So I think there needs to be a lot of thinking on what's going to go on in this area because I can't teii and it doesn't look good from what I can tell. I thought we talked about a long .time ago putting islands in the parking lot. 'The impervious surface for this parking lot, impervious area is, almost 80~ right. What happened to that idea? Or was I dreaming that up? I heard putting islands in and you know making it, giving it a better appearance. Aanenson: Like I say, we'll be looking at the site plan more specifically. At this time we're really focusing on the zoning and the PUD itself. We raised some of the issues we had. I'm pointing them in that direction but if that's the direction you want us to go with the. Ahrens: I know you keep pointing us over here and 'we want to talk about these things over here. Aanenson: No, I'm not saying, that's what we're asking for is direction. If you want us to look at the landscaping, that's what we're asking you for is direction. Ahrens: Okay, I think we should look at that. And I don't see why we can't incorporate or why Target can't incorporate some type of an island. I know it's not what they usually do. I know it's more difficult planning wise. I know it will cause some maintenance, but who cares. The store itself, I don't know. To tell you the truth, the Chicago type store or the. 'Minneapolis type store, they all look pretty much alike to me. It's Just that there's a stripe here and there and maybe an entrance monument. Batzli: I think she just committed architectural sacreligion. I'm not SUre. Ahrens: Well they're gray. Long gray buildings. That's why they put trees up. We do have to, I would like to see some, there's got to be a lot more effort into how this looks from 78th Street. I agree with Ladd. I'm not going to repeat everything and I wrote it down too but Steve already restated everything that Ladd said. I like the PUD concept. I think it has to be developed this way. I don't understand what'would ever go in to- that lot that's located between the Target store and Monterey Drive. Is that retail? Is that what we envision or what? Krauss: It would likely be retail or office that's already into 78th Street, and frankly that's, it's a big element of tying the Target into the downtown streetscape because whatever's there is going to-conceal the back part of Target and kind of bring you around that corner which is now an open corner. Ahrens: But we would have control over what goes in there? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 27 Aanenson: That's why we're recommending the PUD for that piece too. Ahrens: The store itself, it does need a lot more work. I mean I agree with Ladd. I don't see a big improvement over anything we've seen in the past. We want something different I guess. We just and I think we've said that all along from the very first meeting at the fire station-through today. I mean we want something-that's very different from what Target normally develops and ! don't think it has to cost Target a lot more money. It may cost them more money but they also want to be 'in our community and I think that we have the right to tell them' what we want too. On the landscape plan, the plantings that they're proposing to put in here are pretty small types of trees and bushes which doesn't seem to me that it's going to make a real big impact on how this building looks to people coming into town and I think that needs to be redone and put some bigger trees on the plan and something besides the crab trees.and that type of thing. Are all three of these exits going to be, are there going to be stop lights? Aanenson: No. Ahrens: Which one? I forgot. Aanenson: This is where we're recommending it be right turn in, right turn out only. This one will have a stop light at the entrance to the Target store and this will be, it may or may not be signalized. It will be a full intersection though. Ahrens: I'd like to look at removing this parking lot too from the 78th Street side of the building. Margaret Fleck: Moving it this way? 8atzli: That's the employee parking? Margaret Fleck: Oh this portion? Ahrens: Yeah. That's all I have right now. Satzli: Thanks Joan. Erhart: Brian? Batzli: Erhart: Yeah. . Do you want more, I have some more issues here. Batzli: Okay, let me run down a couple and we'll come back to you. I think there's been a lot of good effort that's gone into this plan. A lot of work. I think the applicant is working with staff. It sounds like they're being sensitive to a lot of things that we like. .I think the plan needs refining. I think whatever we do along West 78th Street needs, careful attention needs to be paid to t~t. The Outlot B, Kate help me out here. Unless I miss something. Whatever happened to our 'Outlot B that was sort of a food court? What happened-to that? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 28 Aanenson: Well I think that their Concern with the design and the views of Target and the spacing of the buildings. They've basically thrown that plan out. That was one of the options t.hat'Barton-Aschman put together. Fran Hagen: And the parking. Batzii: Parking? Fran Hagen= The parking Was insufficient... Aanenson: They're trying to maximize the views from Powers and so they have the outlots spaced so you can see the front of the Target store. Batzli: Because I think one fo the things we really liked about that plan probably unfortunately, given what I've just heard, was that we could do a' lot with the backs of those buildings we felt and put up some trees and do some things where there wouldn't be .a sight line at all from Powers into the front of the building. I guess in looking at these plans, .I was disappointed in Outlot 8 from the standpoint that it seemed'like a maze or a jigsaw puzzle to traverse within the retail stores in that section. It didn't seem particularly, there didn't seem to be a logic to it then and !'m sure ! have an untrained eye and there is a logic to it but it did, when Joan brought up that part of Eden Prairie Center, by the west entrance ! think it is. I don't even go to those stores because of, it's just .maze like in there. To me. I don't go in there. It,s Unfriendly. I don't think that, the logic of how they have it arranged in any one of those three could be explained to me but if what I hear is that the logic is that they can see the entrance to their store, that doesn't carry great weight- with me particularly because I don't want to see a poorly developed end to Chanhassen so that somebody can get a glimpse of the Target store as they zoom up Powers. There isn't going to be an entrance there. If people are. going to Target, they're going to know that Target is there. I don't quite understand that. $o I would like to see, at least rationale presented when this does come back to us as to why it has to be arranged the way it does or certainly Outlot B needs a lot of redesign in my opinion' Is there any effect Paul, based on what we do tonight? Are we somehow limiting ourselves to one of these three choices that they've presented for the Outlot by us approving this tonight? Or giving this the okey dokey on the conceptual stage. Krauss: I don't think so Mr. Chairman. At this point, the level of design concept that is used in looking at is limited because they haven't really had an opportunity to explore it fully. We've raised a lot of the same questions you have. We're.convinced that under the PUD we can coordinate the development on this. I mean the worse case scenario from a visual traffic standpoint is if we go with the additional lotting that's along 7Bth Street. You quite frankly have the potential of having $ fast food restaurants and a Goodyear store or something like that. Each having separate driveways. Each loading onto 78th Street. Each looking completely different and despite our best attempts, probably having a blue building here and an orange building there and that-kind of a thing. This opportunity under the PUD is that we are going to coordinate the architectural styles around it and frankly Bill Morrish's opinion on that at that meeting was that unified building or individual buildings having a Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 29 simila'r architectural theme, you can probably achieve most these same goals. $o we are certainly asking them to refine that more and we'll bring back more definition but it's still an open question. They haven't really laid one concept on the table and this is it. So we've taken the proactive step of saying okay, here's our. concerns so when you do bring one back in, here's the guidelines we're going to live by. Batzli: Well my concern stems from' condition 4 which says the three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable. TS that saying to the applicant that the Planning Commission and subsequently the Council is saying yes. One of these three is fine as long as you go through proper channels to get each building approved. Aanenson: No, we go back through the preliminary process, we. want.to see those refined. Batzli: Well I know but we're somehow giving guidance to the applicant that we find one of these three, one of these three may be acceptable. Aanenson: Right. What we 'don't know, and it's hard because of the mix of use. They each have different parking standards so you really can't tie that down too much because if it's fast food versus sitdown versus retail, we have different parking standards. Basically we know there's only so much square footage and we've given you the range based on the different versions. 25,000 to almost 30,000 square feet of additional buildings and there can only be so much square footage on there. That parcel's only so big. Yes, we agree that it needs to be refined. The maze look and some of those sort of issues but there can only be so much useage of that' and we're saying, based on that, we feel that the comparable range, that much square- footage and it needs to be developed further. Krauss= At the very least, you're-going to have a concept that lays out the internal road system there that defines the architectural theme that they're going to have that mandates a sign'age package. That limits the number of free standing pylon signs. Mandates a landscaping package. That limits the more'obnoxious uses that are potential on that. And also it sets aside an appropriately sized piece of property. I think about a half acre for the HRA to work with developing entrance monumentations. We envision there being a prominently designed landscape structural feature similar to what we're looking at doing on Harket and other entrances into downtown. So there's a lot of framework to hang anything they come in with in the future on. Batzli: Okay, let. me ask my question one more time. By us saying the three proposals may be acceptable, not in terms of square footage or number . of buildings but Just in terms of the layout that we see on our plans today, does that mean that when we see this back as a plan, that we're actually acting on, it's more than likely we're going to get one of these three plans? Aanenson: I don't think so. Krauss: yeah. I think you're going to see a refined version of one Of them, Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 30 Batzli: Because if it was up to me, I'd say the three proposals for Outlot 8 are probably unacceptable and please redo them. I mean I'd rather say that. I don't know that any of us is enamored with it. I know the applicant hasn't come up here and spoken with~us and explained the rationale for why they're doing things a certain way and as you indicated, they're still working on it themselves. But you know, I don't really want to say that these plans may be acceptable knowing what I know right now. So I'm just trying to-discern whether we should be a little bit more careful with this language. Krauss: It's certainly appropriate to make these concerns known. The major part of this process at this point is to give them direction to come back in and resolve these issues. Batzli: That's what I'm doing right now. Is the sight line study that you passed out or Target gave you today, have you had a chance to look at it? And what does it say to you and why? In 2 minutes or less. Aanenson: Can't figure it out. Krauss: We really need some time to go through it with them. I mean this is the kind of analysis we need to have done. When we opened it up, one of the pages didn't seem to jibe with what we recall the'elevations to be. Batzli: Generally. Sight lines from up on TH 5. Given the elevation of the building and your unde?standing of the elevation of the road, are they doing a good job hiding the H back and the Satellite dish and whatever else they've got on the roof? Krauss: It appears that either, yeah. That it's going to achieve the goal. What they're going to demonstrate to us here is the wall and does the wall need to be 2 feet higher to achieve it or that. 8ut yes, you will not be looking down on a maze of pipes and air conditioners as has often happened in the corridor. Batzli: And I know that you said to Steve that there's not a concern about the truck traffic going back on Monterey'to the loading dock area. Is the outlot where the trees will be located, is that ever going to be some sort of, or is that going to be just kind of a nature area? Is the City going to have title to that? Krauss: The City would acquire title to that, yes. Batzli: That will not be maintained as a park or otherwise as an enticement to small children or anything else? Krauss: No. The idea is to preserve the trees in perpetuity. Batzli: And where do we envision the truck traffic coming into this area from? Krauss: Maybe that's a question we can refer to our traffic consultants who are here tonight. There were several questions that were raised regarding approaches to the site. Not only from commercial traffic but Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 31 also from customer traffic; There has been a lot of study done on the downtown street system. The questions that Commissioner Farmakes is raising about the downtown street .system are frankly, I mean we've got the design solutions for all of them and it was going to have been under construction this fall but after we started working with Target, we put Off the project a little bit to make sure that we'd'accommodate those concerns. But I'd like to have Tim Feeno from Strgar-Roscoe-Fausch, who is the City's traffic consultant possibly address some of those questions on approach directions. Jeff Bedenaur from Strgar-Roscoe is also here tonight. Batzli: Okay, why don't they do that real briefly. Tim Feeno: 3elf Bedenaur is our...specialist and he did most of the traffic analysis that was done earlier on and I'll let him try... 3elf Bedenaur: Based on the region location of chanhassen and the site in particular, most of the truck traffic that we anticipate will be trying to ingress or egress the site would be coming from the east on TH 5. Both for the commercial/retail/wholesale outlets. 8atzli: Excuse me just one moment. Can everyone hear or maybe you can go to the microphone to make sure. Jeff Bedenaur: Based on our previous traffic study for downtown Chanhassen, the major direction of a.~roach, because of the regional location of Chanhassen and the site in particular, is going to be from the east on TH 5. There's also a great number of trips who will come south on TH 101 and enter the downtown Chanhassen area from the east but they would be clients and patrons of the retail and commercial uses that are being proposed here. The truck traffic primarily would be coming in on TH ~ and I would expect that there will be a desire for most of the truckers to come in probably at Market, once they know the site and how to get in and out, they'll probably come off TH $ at Market. Come uD to West 78th and then travel west to Monterey and into the site from that direction. There might be some who continue on TH 5 to Powers and come around but it's kind of a reverse movement and I wouldn't expect there'd be a great deal of that. Batzli: Wouldn't they be making a left hand turn across traffic with. islands right there fo~ the stop light? Jeff Bedenaur: Right. There would be a traffic signal at the intersection of Market and West 7$th that would facilitate that turn for them. We anticipate that over time Nest 7$th Street will convert from a 2 lane divided section to a 4 lane divided section as far east as Laredo and possibly Great Plains. Batzli: Do truckers like making left hand turns as opposed to right hand turns because they're going to be making several left-hand turns if they come in the way they propose on Market? Jeff Sedenaur: Right. Well as I indicated, they'll have a traffic signal at Market to facilitate that left. And then the left at Monterey shouldn't be that difficult depending on the time of the day they make that turn. Typically I'm sure that there are trucks that are goin~ to comin~ in and Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 32 out at ail times of the day but I would expect it would be during the off peak periods that most of the truck traffic would be entering the site. Batzli: Is that true? That people from Target, is anybody here from Target, is that when the trucks normally enter? Bill McHale: They try not to mix truck traffic with their... Jeff Bedenaur: And as Paul had indicated, that ultimately there would be also a traffic signal at Monterey and Kerber to help facilitate that left turn as well. Farmakes: Excuse me for a minute. Are your traffic comments directly related to the Target or retail in general in Chanhassen? Jeff Bedenaur: The direction of approach percentages, and if I can find them I can detail those percentages, are to the downtown in general. Farmakes: $o the access that you're talking about when you're talking about accessing into town off of TH 5 from the east, is retail in general and not directed specifically to Target? Jeff Bedenaur: That's correct. We anticipate that 30~ of the traffic into and out of downtown Chanhassen would be coming into or leaving on TH 5 to the east. 25~ would be coming in or going out to the north on TH lO1. 10~ would be coming into downtown or going out of downtown to the north on Powers. 15~ would be coming into or going out of the downtown area on TH 5 to the west. And additionally, lO~ would be coming in from the south on TH lO1. That's the generalized directional distribution that we used in our downtown traffic forecast. The truck traffic in particular would be much heavier on TH 5 to the east. Farmakes: Doesn't discount retail have a broader draw than normal retail though? Jeff Bedenaur: ...didn't have an opportunity to look at a great many or a large spectrum of directional distributions based on the land use. that we were looking at for the downtown Chanhassen forecasting work. This is a generalized distribution and it's one that represents a.mix of types of land use. Office, retail, commercial, entertainment and so forth so it's a real mix. It's a real generalization. Farmakes: As I said in my comments earlier, what worries me though is that I believe the nearest Target to the north is Rldgedale. Is that correct? Jeff Bedenaur: That's right. Farmakes: Okay, and then to the east is Eden Prairie, correct? And we have comparatively to our size, Minnetonka is 60 how many thousand is Minnetonka? Krauss: About 50-52,000. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 33 Farmakes: Okay. And they're directly to our north. They're a much larger population base than we are and on the far north corner of that is a retail market. I would assume that a lot of density along TH 7 will consider making the trip to Chanhassen from the north. Jeff Bedenaur: That's right and that's one of the reasons we have 25~ of the traffic coming into the downtown area on TH ZO1 and 30~ coming into the downtown area on TH 5. Farmakes: But I know a lot of people also would cut across because of the limited amount of retail directly to'the north. The communities of Shorewood, Excelsior, Mound, all over to the west because there is a limited amount of retail shopping there. How much traffic do you envision on Powers or even TH 41 or Galpin Road? Jeff Bedenaur: Well we have estimated that there'd be about 10~ of the total traffic to the downtown area would come in from the north on Powers. I'm not sure what the land use densities or intensities are'for those areas along Powers north of Chanhassen but we felt that based on the regional model that we used to help us develop these directional distributions, that that was reasonable. Batzli: What percent did you have leaving the site going north on TH 1017 3eff Bedenaur: 25~. Batzli: Is there going to be a traffic light at the intersection at the bend of West 7$th where it turns into Great Plains and continues straight? Is there going to be a stop light there? Jeff Bedenaur: That will probably be the first traffic light that will go in on west 78th Street. Farmakes: Is there an existing market study that Target has in regards to where you think your customers are coming from? Margaret Fleck: I'm sure there is one... Farmakes: Have you seen anything to that or where they think the customer base is or where they're drawing from? Krauss: No. I have no idea. Batzli: Thank you. Jeff Bedenaur: You bet, thanks. Batzli: Dave. You had I think a fairly lengthy memo as to things that should be looked at. Do you feel comfortable with the resources that this' building is going to take as far as .water and sewer and what have you in terms of city? In terms of runoff into the drainage areas. Are you comfortable with the way this is ~otng? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 34 Hempel: To be honest Mr. Chairman, Charles Folch the City Engineer was the one who actually reviewed this one and based on his memo to the Planning Department on it, I believe he does feel confident that we do have enough infrastructure to accommodate the site and the proposed use. Storm drainage calculations of course were preliminary he looked at and there 'is an existing storm sewer line that could accommodate Part of the site drainage already. On top of that, the required on site retention pond would handle the remaining runoff. Batzli: Do we know Paul if a building like this is going to require any additional fire equipment or things like that? Krauss: No we don't and we don't actually do a calculation-of that. In terms of scale, if it puts it into perspective at all, this building is approximately 10,OOO square feet larger than Market Square. And in terms of what you're going to see ultimately in downtown, it's really kind of hard to project that far forward. But on the north of this site we have the Charlie James' piece which is equally able to accommodate significant retail and which is appropriately zoned so in terms of what percentage this will be of the total development in downtown~ I did a guesstimate the other day and probably about a fifth of'the total. The ultimate. Batzli: Erhart: That's all I had. Tim, did you have something else? . Yeah, a couple of things. The size of the Target in Eden Prairie. Bill McHale: It's about the same. Erhart: About the same. And does the parking lot meet the new standards that we put in in our PUD? In terms of-the islands and things.. We wrote into the PUD standards. If it falls into that. 'I mean it's regulated by the new PUD. Krauss: It's under the new PUD ordinance but it doesn't have specific. mean there's density. Hard surface coverage requirements. Erhart: There's requirements in there for trees? Krauss: No. Well our parking ordinance does require a certain amount of parking lot landscaping. It always has. Erhart: Maybe that's the one I'm referring to. Does. it meet this one?... Aanenson: Yes, it does. Erhart: Okay, and then what, we were going to use pots to put these trees .. in? Is that what I read in there? Aanenson: The ones in the front along 'the building? Erhart: No, the ones in the parking lot. The islands are planted in the ground, not in the pots correct? Aanenson: Right. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 35 Erhart: What is the, in the CBD in this area if on a standard development, what would be the impervious coverage allowed? And this is 7o~' What are we looking at here? Aanenson: Well the average we gave you in the report, it talks about 60 something. Emmings: 68 and 67. Erhart: Including Outlot B? Aanenson: Yes. We didn't include this or we took out the tree preservation area and we took out the area for the'monument too. We didnWt count those as part of it. Emmings: If you just look at the Target site itself, it's real high. Aanenson: Right. But we did let them count the trees and it's close to 80. Krauss: But again, this is a.very conservative projection. I mean if you draw the line around the entirety of the PUD, the average lot coverage comes out quite a bit lower. Erhart: Yeah but I'm talking about just the Target site is well above 70~. Regarding that West 78th side here I'm still, it kind o-f, I wonder when you take the most valuable street we have in town in terms of facing in terms of retail, is that we would put a side of a building there. I wonder if you couldn't look at it in terms of reconfigure the buildin~ to make it more east/west and move the entrance .to the corner so the entrance would face both north and west and then making the employee parking lot part of the parking lot. That would reduce the size of the west parking lot' and break it up. Or why can't you have two entrances? Both an north and a west entrance. Maybe you've looked at all of this. Krauss: Well I'd let Target answer why they have to have one entrance. That's an internal configuration but when we were trying to lay out the site configurations here, we're not dealing with a site that's terribly deep. The deepest spot is where the Target building is proposed right now. When we knock out the area we want to preserve for the tree preservation area, there's a limited footprint left. You don't have enough, I mean people will only walk several hundred feet from their .cars to a front door of a store. And if the entrances veered to the north side, the perponderance of the parking is moved away. Erhart: But they're there now. Krauss: It's not that, it's toward the north end of the building but it's still fairly centrally located. Batzli: And that would be like going to the Knox store in Hopkins. I mean you talk about a weird entrance. Erhart: Is that the entrance on that drawing? Is it on the north end? Planning Commission'Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 36 Bill McHale: Just about centrally located towards the parking lot. The parking lot veers north towards... Erhart: Well, I won't spend any more time on it but it's just that there seems to be, there's something that can be done to make that north side better and I think we've all said that and we're just trying to. I'm not the guy that ought to be trying to solve it for you but it seems to me there ought to be something more se~ible. Krauss: Oh I think there's a lot. There's a lot of things that'can be done there. Batzli: The only other comment that I'd have is, I would like to at least see a discussion when we take a look at this, if the City Council approves it and we proceed, some sort of discussion about a sidewalk or something. Maybe not just along West 78th but to the other retail.areas. If there will be any movement back and forth, if you park your car once and walk from Target over to the other retail centers, I would prefer to see some sort of sidewalk treatment there. Is there anymore? . . Farmakes: I don't think we talked at all about lighting at all and I don't know if technically we need to get into that but I know it's been a discussion of some of the other things that we've talked about. The intent of trying to minimize the indirect light that escapes. I know there's a lot of indirect lighting for a commercial development. Where you get a concentration of cars and street lights so is that, the lighting was kind of, weren't really addressed. Are we doing everything we can with the lighting to make sure that we minimize that impact? Because basically there's a fair amount of single family homes just to the north of here and our park is to the northwest. Krauss: City ordinance requires that light spillage be limited to a maximum half a foot candle at the property line. Which is fairly tight. And they're going to have to demonstrate to us that it achieves that. Now more than that, we get into, when we get to that level of design, what do the fixtures look like? They're all downward oriented fixtures and arguably you can even get into what kind of fixtures should they be. That all comes out during the site plan aspect o4 it. We just'want to make them aware that there is a concern with that and they'll have to deal with it. Batzli: Is there a motion? Oh, yes sir. .. B.C. "Jim" Burdick: My name is B.C. "Jim" Burdick from Excelsior. I... negotiated out this arrangement to sell this to the city and then to Ryan Construction. And first'of all, I appreciate your concern about those two lots on Monterey. I've own those for a ~umber of years and am very concerned about their position relative to this. Now in negotiations with Target, at one time that building was going to be katty corner and faced northwest. Another time ~t was going to be a bit farther south. And I gave on these points but it's very essential for us that there be a drive from the Target parking lot into the two lots we have between Target and Monterey. There's a racetrack style circle up there to identify 'them in the northeast corner and I negotiated this with Ryan and Target. Having this drive through there and I just wanted to bring up that this is very Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 37 essential and important to us. And of course ! do appreciate the concern that every one of you has shown about these two lots on-Monterey...what's going to happen to them. Rnd I would like to bring up one other thing for your consideration and that is about moving the Target building a bit farther south and martly into this area of trees. I don't like to 'see those trees, anything happen to them either but they're oak trees. The larger ones are very old. Rlmost any development, the oak trees die. There's no more sensitive tree than an oak tree. You can drive on maples and many other trees. Elm, if they don't get a disease and even around birch, more than you can around oak. So intentions are good on saving those oak trees but believe me, it's a job to save an oak tree if you've ever built a house near one. If you've got a house 50-100 feet from an oak tree and those will die. Not only 9 times out of 10 but.probably 98 out of 100. $o if you'd consider moving Target a bit to the south, it would most certainly help us develop those two lots and I think be more attractive taking the picture as a whole because as things now stand, we'll be so to speak behind the Target building. I believe that's all I have unless you have some Questions. Batzli: Thank you very much. 8.C. "Jim" Burdick: Thank you. Batzli: Is there a motion? Conrad: I'm not sure what the motion is intended to do. There's a lot of detail. I guess I'm kind of uncomfortable with what's here. There's some details in here that I didn't know were part of the conceptual review. Basically this is our time to tell the applicant what we think and kind of give some direction. So I'm not sure what this, there are details in here that gee, I would have to reword the whole motion to tell you the truth. But maybe staff is looking for us to somehow come up with some consensus or Paul, what are you looking for? RTe you looking for, you k~ow you're going to go through the same steps with City Council so the applicant can hear their concerns and provide the applicant with their direction. What's the point of the motion? Krauss: Well, to the extent that we haven't articulated your concerns or if you think we've misstated something. It would be a~ropriate to throw some language in saying that you have these additional concerns of da da da da da and we'll carry those forward to the City Council and' the developer will go back and start working on it. You know of course conceptual approval is by nature of the beast non-binding on all parties so you can have some latitude to say your piece. Batzli: You would prefer to see a motion which includes your points plus any additional concerns which we have? Krauss: I think so, yeah. Aanenson: If we could do like we did on the Oaks. We just said based on all the input. Just pass that report on and what we did is we took the Minutes and summarized those and made a laundry, list of concerns and passed those onto the Council. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 38 Batzli: You're uncomfortable with that? Conrad: No, not at all. I'm not going to make a motion. Because there's just a lot of debate in my mind on some of these things. I don't know if there's. Erhart: What happens if we want them to come back with something, just to come back with three treatments of the West 78th Street. What would happen? " Conrad: That's the point of why we're doing this. Erhart: Well I'm not sure we're ready to make a motion. We don't want to have it come back and look at it differently. I haven't seen any motions yet. I thought I heard a universal feeling from the Commissioners that the West 78th side is not acceptable. That's-what I heard. .Krauss: Right. Erhart: So what's the point in a motion? Aanenson: You tell them to do that. Krauss: Yeah, I mean you refer the item on. Erhart: Refer it onto Council? Earnings: My feeling about what we're doing here is we're saying, yeah. We think this whole area ought to be a PUD. We're not opposed to somethi~g along the lines of what's bein~ proposed for the Target store in any way and I think that's about it. And then there's a bunch of particulars including some more reasonable or some better design of the West 78th Street side but they've heard all that. 8ut I think the main thing is that we're in tune with developing the site as a PUD. Erhart: Okay, so we wouldn't be surprised if it came back then after tonight with a building that was reshaped? We aren't locking in on .this shape? Emmings: I don't think we've locked into any particular details have we? - It's a general Concept. Krauss: Yeah, I think you should not expect, I mean unless you're stating something specific, you shouldn't expect radical deviations. A U shaped building would be pretty radical. Erhart: That's what I would have gone for because I think the building shape isn't right to optimize the use of the property. The use of the property and to solve a problem. Batzli: I think a lot of effort has gone into that particular point to date. Looking at all the conceptual things they've done and given the slope of the lot, I wouldn't expect that they would come back with a reconfigured shape of the building at this point. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 39 Emmings: Ladd's point is well taken. -Why these conditions and we say we're doing kind of a conceptual approval 'and yet we're making these very specific recommendations here and really could make a lot more. Krauss: Kate and I had this discussion while we were writing this thing. Should we be more specific or less? We came down in the middle. Aanenson: I don't know if that's true Paul. Batzli: You came down on Paul's side. Aanenson: I said we should put as many conditions in here but, we had the same concern with Oaks. Remember the residents got up and we spoke and a lot of time and you're going to see a different design.. They've taken in. We forwarded it on, like I said, we made a laundry list of all the concerns. The residents concerns and I think you're going to see a redesign. As you stated, I don't think Target's going to be completely reconfigured. I think we'll see the outlot reconfigured but if you want to throw this list out, I'm comfortable with'that. Emmings: I think what we did on that one was we said, with all of the conditions in the staff report plus all of the concerns raised by everyone' who spoke, either from the public or on the Commission. Ahrens: I don't get the feeling we want to do that with this one. For instance, what Brian brought up earlier about the three proposals for Outlot B. I don't think any of us are sold on those...and see one of those come back to us. Batzli: Well I might like one of them if it. was properly explained too. I mean I tried to say that but. Ahrens: Right but are we limiting ourselves?' Emmings: You can change may to may or may not. Ahrens: Well that makes it meaningful. Emmings: Yeah, I think it does. I think if you want to avoid being trapped into them saying hey, you led us to believe that one of these would be, you haven't done that. They can't say that. That's the only thing that helps. The point of that being is that regardless of what they do there, each building's going to have.to-come through a site plan review. Batzli: I personally would be comfortable with the motion that talked in terms of we need work in these areas. The conditions set forth in the staff report and then I would hit the highlights of what we discussed tonight. I don't think it's necessarily fair to the developer to say, plus everything that was said. Well, go for it then. Do you want to make a motion Jeff? Farmakes: With all these lawyers here? Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 40 Erhart: Okay, let's list the issues and then one of us will make the motion. One i~ the north, West 78th Street view. Emmings: Parking lot. Erhart: Parking lot, two. What else? Aanenson: Design of Outlot B. Farmakes: Particularly in relationship to the park. Erhart: Anything else? Conrad: Jeff's concern was traffic. Ahrens: I think we should say the size and type of landscaping as it relates to the parking lot on West 78th Street and wherever else people have a concern. Farmakes: 78th Street view, do you have? Aanenson: Internal access into the walking? Farmakes: And it would be interesting to know that 20~ that they're talking about from TH 101, it'd be interesting to know how that relates to our Target...customers. Erhart: Okay, going once. I'll move that the Planning Commission.- Emmings: Okay, one other thing. On Outlot B, no one else really commented' on what they felt like with regard to ~ast food restaurants. Ahrens: The number or? Emmi ngs: Yeah. Ahrens: Well I'd like to see none. Emmings: Yeah, so would I. Erhart: I would agree. Without getting iht9 it but the thing, I agree with 8rian entirely is the place at Eden Prairie, it's awesome and I avoid it like the plague because you don't know what's in there and even if you see the building in there, you can't figure out visually how you get to it. You don't go in at all. Ahrens: I went in once and it was a big mistake. Erhart: It's goofy. On the other hand, I didn't comment on it tonight because I somehow I feel we could spend another hour on that and you know when we actually saw reality, it wouldn't be anything like we thought tonight anyway so I kind of feel it's a waste of time. 8ut I think the comments are good for whoever develops that area is that Eden Prairie area where they have the fast food restaurants in there is Just goofy. It's got -. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 41 to hurt the potential business for the people there. Anything else Steve? Emmings: No. Erhart: Well let me take a shot here. I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the conceptual approval of PUD #92-S as shown on the plans dated August 7, 1992 with the conditions set forth in the staff ~eport, 1 thru 11 with additional. And that the Planning Commission expressed additional concerns that we'd like to have staff review further the subjects of the view of the building from West 78th Street. The view of the site from West 78th Street. The parking lot. What it's view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping, particularly as it relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot. Four, the design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and friendly. And five, the pedestrian. Whether or not they expect to have any pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot B and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians might use such as the bus depot.and so forth or whatever. ~nd item number 6, concerns with look further into concerns of traffic. Batzli: Is there a second? Emmings: I'll second it. Conrad: So what does that position us in in the staff's il"points? It means we all endorse bringing the 8urdick parcel in. Endorse a 6 foot sidewalk. That's what bothers me. That's too detailed but anyway, I j~st don't like that. I think that's not a big deal though. Erhart: Your concern is with the 11 issues are too specific? Conrad: They're very detailed. I"don't want to tell the developer exactly what to do. I want to give'them our feelings and it's his duty to work with staff to see if they can resolve them. But I don't want to delete or change your motion Tim, that's fine. Erhart: Good, because I'm not planning on it. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of PUD #92-5 as sho~n on the plans dated ~ugust 7, 1992, subject to the following conditions: 1. Burdick Park Addition, Block 3, Lots I and 2 be added to the PUD at the time of preliminary PUD. 2. Submittal of PUD plans consistent with the 'recommendations of the staff report and Engineer's memo. .- 3. The most westerly access on West 78th Street shall be a right turn-in and right turn-out only, full access be limited to the other two locations shown on the site plan. 4. The three proposals for Outlot B may be acceptable but each building must proceed through site plan review. This site plan .review shall Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 42 consider the remainder of the balance of the site. This includes landscaping impervious surface, parking, etc.. Any major changes would constitute a rezoning. 5. Vacation of the existing West 78th Street· Acceptance of full park and trail dedication fees. 7. Six foot sidewalk along Nest 78th Street and Powers Boulevard· 8. Architectural compatibility with all buildings in the development' Compatibility with all signage, lighting, and landscaping. · Pitched roof lines are required on all building in Outlot B. Target shall have a parapet wall that screens all HVAC equipment. Pitched roof elements shall be introduced on the entry portion and the West 78th side of Target· 10. Submittal of all required site utility improvements including storm sewer, water and sanitary sewer. Uses are limited to those outlined in the report including the limitation of two fast food restaurants· Further that staff review the foll~tng subjects: The view of the site from West 78th Street. 2. The parking lot. · The view from all sides and the feasibility for either the size and type of landscaping, particulaYly as it' relates to the West 78th Street and in the parking lot. 4. The design of Outlot B. Specific concerns so that it's useful and friendly· Addressing pedestrian traffic and how they would get from Target to those buildings on Outlot 8 and possibly through to other areas that pedestrians might use such as the bus depot and so forth. Look further into concerns of traffic.' All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CO~CEPTI~L PUD FOR 113 sINr~..l.~'-'.. F~ILY EESIDENTI/IL LOTS (~ 63 (DIET) ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HI~4AY 41. AD3~CENT TO B~T ~UTONOTIVE (7305 H~FLTINE B~LEVARD). LU~._N BROS, DEVEL(~NT ON 30HNSON/DOLE3SI/T~R PROPERTY, Public Pre~ent: Tim Oas Tim Keane Dean Simpson Don Roy David Weathers Paul Youngquist 3ay Dolejsi Linda Carlson Terry Forbord 3ohn Uban Ron Peterson Ken Adolf 7305 Hazeltine Blvd. 7900 Xerxes So., Bloomington 7185 Hazeltine Blvd. 7205 Hazeltine Blvd. 7235 Hazeltine .Blvd. 7105 Hazeltine Blvd._ 6961Chaparal Lane Galpin Blvd.- Lundgren Bros. Development Company Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban -Summit Envirosolutions Schoell and Madsen 30 Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: 30 Ann, you're recommending that we approve the concept? Thank you and welcome back. Does'anyone have any questions before we hear from the applicant? Farmakes= Has the type of tree cover, has the city evaluated the tree cover that's proposing in your recommendations-that they not build through? That they eliminate some of these lots. Has the types of woods been evaluated? Olsen: Right, the applicant has provided on some of the pla~s. I think it's on the grading plan you can see where there's detailed trees that have been shown and yes, we have looked at some of those areas. Farmakes: I couldn't discern what exactly was on there. Olsen: We did request a cleaner copy which we got today which shows without all the grading and everything on it, which shows specific to what the trees are. I have not had a chance to look at that closely. .We just received it today. ' Emmings: Have you looked at connecting the cul-de-sac at the end of Street B? Whether it makes any sense to preserve'the option'of connecting that to the east? Olsen= Which one was that? Emmings: Whether the cul-de-sac that's at the end of Street B, whether it makes any sense to look at preserving options for connecting that to the east or the one at the end of the Street 3 or connecting it to the south. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 44 Olsen: Right. Ne looked at all of those to see whether there should be future connections and we found that due to topography and to existing wetlands, that we should not be. The topography going east of the B cul-de-sac was fairly extreme and the connections would not have been possible. And Dave looked at that closely. Emmings: And south out of that cul-de-sac on J, is that wetlands down there? Olsen: Again that's wetlands. That large wetlands. Emmings: So if they develop the property to the south of that that's in the 1995 study area, that will have it's entrance off of the new road? Okay. Batzli: I guess Terry, if you have a slide show and a presentation for us. Please proceed. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of Land Development with Lundgren Brothers in Wayzata. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard. Thank you for the. opportunity to appear before you this evening on this proposal. At this time I think I need to say that we're a little confused because I believe our application was for a concept plan, a preliminary plan and I think our application shows that and certainly our fees do and this was the first that I realized that this .was just a concept approval because I believe our application was otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, anyway. With us this evening I have a development team that I'd like to introduce to you. To my immediate left is Mr. 3chh Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. To his left is Mr. Ron Peterson of Summit Envirosolutions. 'And to his left is Mr. Ken Adolf of Schoell and Madsen. He is our civil engineer. Ron will has done all of the wetland delineation on this property and he can address all those issues. Our land use attorney Mr. Bruce Mulkerson has a conflict this evening and he may be here shortly. I thought that'prior to'me turning the presentation over to Mr. Uban, I should give you just a little bit of background. Most of you know who we are..Some of you may not but we've been in the community already for approximately 12 years and Lundgren Bros. has developed over 23 years, approximately 2,200 single family detached dwellings in the metropolitan area. Primarily in the western suburbs. Also there has been hundreds of multi-family and commercial projects developed by the company. Approximately 75~ I'm guessing of those. have been planned unit developments. The planned unit development within your community that you may be most familiar with is the Near Mountain planned unit development, half of which is in the-city of Chanhassen.. The other half, the northerly half being in the city of Shorewood. And like I said, that approval was obtained here .I believe somewhat around 12 years ago and we are just finishing the final phases of that. John, would you be so kind to run the slide machine for me. I'm Just going to talk very briefly just about our planned unit developments, and Near Mountain in particular because it's easier for me to refer to that being that you may be most familiar with it. It's approximately 300 and some acres. 360 acres. Approximately 450 dwelling units and there's a number of reasons, of why we did that as a planned unit development. Primarily because it allows flexibility and design and for us to achieve an objective while being at Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 45 the same time sensitive to the existing land features. Typically, as you all know, we provide a great deal of detail in our entrance monumentation. It's point of arrival to our neighborhoods. And as you know, the PUD oftentimes allows you to have some open space where you can provide other amenities that you may not see typical in other standard subdivisions. These particular slides are going to be of homes in the Near Mountain neighborhood. These lot sizes that you are going to see range in size from 8,500 square feet to about 11,000 square feet. Lot width at the setback of 55 feet to 75 feet. And these are homes in an established neighborhood. They've been tucked into the trees. A great deal of care was given, even 12 years ago before most people were attempting to do that. And these slides represent examples of that. Now you'll see in this particular slide in Chestnut Ridge, even though there are 9 foot setbacks on the house side and 6 foot on the garage side, you will see that this is probably about a 30 foot amount of space between these two dwellings and that is because it's on a curvalinear street or it may.be on a cul-de-sac. This is another home with a 20 foot front yard setback. 9 foot on the house side. 6 foot on the garage side. This home was featured on the front page of Better Homes and Gardens. This is another example of the type of homes that we'd be producing within a neighborhood community that we have before you this evening. Again, it's the same setbacks. This particular tot is a 55 foot wide lot and is 8,500 square feet. That's another example of a home where this one is more in an open area. This particular street where you've seen most of these homes has been featured in three national publications. Nany of you may not know this but the reason it was featured was because of the environmental sensitivity that was used in the design of this neighborhood on a small lot product in a wooded area. And again this is 12 years old and the city of Chanhassen, even 12 years ago was on the cutting edge of developing planned unit developments in the United States. This is an example of how you have a steep topography, terrain. Significant wooded area where you nestle a home into that area with the least impact on the environment as possible. You can see, if you look closely in the shaded area under the trees on the left side, that that is a boulder wall. A retaining wall that enabled to limit the amount of .grading on this particular building pad. This is another example of something. There's not a lot of grading here but just right in the front of that sidewalk we were able to put in some retainage and maintain the least impact possible to that significant tree. This is a home that's typical of an open area in Chestnut Ridge and it's not unlike the homes that we would be proposi.ng in this planned unit development. And likewise with this. Ne showed you earlier one of the entrance monuments to Chestnut Ridge. This is an entrance monument to Churchill Farms which is in Plymouth. Now one of the things Ne try to do is a little bit better job every year in the Nay we identify our neighborhood communities. The reason that we're showing you this, as the next slide will show, is that this isn"t a very good shot of it but it has the split entrance. There's a median in the middle that's vegetated or plantings and floNers. Petunias. Ail of our entrances are irrigated so they stay green during the growing season. And you can see, if you look closely, that it's a very grand entrance and this is very similar to the type of entrance that we would be proposing for this neighborhood community. This gives you a little closer shot of the median. Now the medians are, most of you are familiar with them. They're all over the TNin Cities. It's not, if you ask any public works department or any engineering department in any city, anywhere in the United States, they Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 46 will tell you they prefer not to have them. The reason that we put them' in is because we don't design them primarily just for engineering purposes. We design them for people. It softens the entrance. It gives you a very, very nice point of arrival. The neighborhood community that we are proposing this evening has a private park. This is something new for us in the city of Chanhassen, although we've been doing it for years in other communities. We haven't had a new development here that was large enough in order for us to provide a facility like that. But what we do is we go in at the very beginning. Before all the homes are built, we put in totlots similar to this. This is a $30,000.00 structure that was installed in Churchhill Farms in Plymouth. We put in tennis courts, basketball hoops, volleyball courts and we do those things at the very front end. And it provides our homeowners with something that they can't get anyplace else. It certainly increases the appreciation value of their homes and insures that their investment will be well protected and then when they go to resale their home, they stand a very, very chance of competing very well with all the other homes on the market. I won't get into elaborating in detail about Lundgren Bros. because most of you know who we are. We try to do a good job in the city. Every project that we do we go back. We assess it. Try to determine what we could have done better. It's very interesting if you look at Near Mountain and the newer neighborhood communities we've developed since then. There's a significant difference. There's more open space. We're trying to do a better job. This is not 'a departure from that. The proposal before you this evening is very, very low density. Has a lot of open space. A lot of things that we wouldn't be required to do. We're trying to provide a neighborhood community that is different than what the buying public can buy someplace else. At this time I think it's, I should Just tell you, in case you may'have forgotten, that we've been working with the city on this proposal for 2 to 3 years. was going to look up the date before I came and I just didn't have time. was trying to prepare a presentation but it took place when all of you were adopting the comprehensive plan. You may recall at the last minute you included this property into the comprehensive plan for reasons that you already know and so it's been a long process and now the feasibility. studies are being done for the sewer and water. We have had numerous meetings with staff over the last 2-3 years on this proposal and now we finally have the opportunity to present it to you. With that, I will turn the meeting over to Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. He will be presenting and conducting the presentation for Lundgren Bros. and we will be then also utilizing the other two consultants to talk about engineering and wetlands. Thank you. John Uban: Thank you Terry. What I would like to start with is give you an overview of the site so you can see it from the air. Set some feeling about the natural features because that is really what's driving the uniqueness and the difficulty on the site and the flexibility that we're requesting in the PUD. How to get around trees. Work with the rolling terrain. The wetlands. All these things come to play and at the same time, tak~ these things that are difficulties and make amenities. Make actually very positive open spaces that enhance the neighborhood that we're creating. This aerial shows generally, if you were over TH 5 looking · across toward the land, on the far right corner is CR 17 I believe and then you can see the lakes and so forth in the background. And Just below what looks like a cultivated field, that is the northern boundary of the Planning Commission Heeting August 19, 1992 - Page 47 property and the property then comes all the way to the south on down to the wetland. This is looking from the north. Looking back toward TH $ which is right at the top of the picture. We see TH 41 as the large' highway running through and once again that cultivated field that forms the northern edge of the property. Along TH 41 we have just One opportunity for access and we have trees. We're working inbetween trees. There's an industrial site there that we will be removing. Taking out a non- conforming use. Parts of the areas you can see are wooded. It's mixed. Very rolling and through all of this we're trying to locate a collector road as sensitively as possible, which has to go from TH 41 and through the adjacent property. Once again we're.looking at the site from the south, approximately over TH 5 and in the center of the picture you can see the property and then there's a line that separates the property from the adjacent property which is a power line. And this forms the eastern edge of the property. And forms a sort of' barrier that we have to incorporate into our platting. Terry Forbord: John, maybe we could pause there for a minute and just show where the collector goes. 3chh Uban: Yeah, if you could trace generally where the collector road will go. We're going through and there are wetlands and rolling hills and lakes and we have to follow really a very specific course and then we miss wetlands. Come down through the property and back out to TH 41. And as we go specifically into the plan you'll see .how this has to snake through the terrain. Batzli: On this picture, where is the proposed.PUD in the future, can you point where that is on that page? Terry Forbord: You mean the. outlot? Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: To the south. That property... (There was a tape change at this point in the presentat'ion.) John Uban: ...we have a power line and then we have a wetland and this is the area where the collector road is going to come through and link what is called the Song property directly to the east with this parcel. And you can start seeing some of the wetlands and so forth that are in that area where we're trying to meander our road. Just another general photograph from looking at the site. AnOther one.from the north looking back onto it. Terry Forbord: ...the 3ohnson property. John Uban: That gives you an overview and I will now use the overhead projector and go through the various drawings. The subject property, approximately 95 acres. This shows the surrounding property and it also shows the general location of the proposed collector and this is located really to meander through the property and miss all the wetlands and so forth in that area. The comprehensive plan places this area just .north of the study area, as brought out before and we're at 113 lots and if you Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 48 looked at the net density and translated that. into maximum, it'd be about' twice that amount, so we're really at a fairly low level to begin with. The kind of density that we're anticipating on the property. £xisting conditions on the property and if you recall the photographs that we look, we saw that here were the wooded'areas in green. Along in here. Down on the southern edge. Here's the wetland that forms the southern edge. We have inside of this various different kinds of wetlands. There's a variety of qualities and these are the ones tha~ we're trying to get through, miss, mitigate where we have to fill and at this point I'd like to, here's our line, power line that goes through the western edge and in orange, here's the industrial use and here's the existing house. And you can see some other trees that are just single lines which was also incorporated which were planted with the homestead. And all of this i~ folded into our approach to the property. The wetland conditions, we'd like to have Ron tell you now how that mitigation and Which wetlands are being treated in different fashion. Ron Paterson: Thank you John. The wetland resources 'on this site were looked at in some detail, almost from the outset and delineated or staked in the field and surveyed in so these are pretty precise boundaries. There is approximately l0 wetland basins on the site. The reason I say approximately is that some of these basins are remnants of larger basins where you have two remmants of what formerly was one basin. The reason for that is that this entire site has been very heavily tiled for agricultural use. And virtually every wetland on this site has tile graded to some pipe. For that reason, some of these wetlands have been greatly benefitted by the tile drainage. Other ones have been virtually eliminated. What we have tried to do in the process of laying out the plans for the site, we tried to, besides from just avoiding and minimizing wetland impacts in general, we've attempted where we can avoid impacts, to orient those impacts towards the most degraded basins. So that the more pristine or natural basins on the site are the ones that we had the most emphasis on preserving. There's approximately 24 acres of.wetland on the site so out of 95 acres, that's roughly a quarter of the property. The impacts that are associated with the proposed layout are 2.$1 acres. The... approximately 60~ of that, involves this wetland in the center of the property. I think that in your packet it labels it as basins 9 and-lO. That area is probably the most graded wetland on the site and in fact when we looked at it, we spent a lot of time scratching our heads deciding whether or not it really met the prairie wetland criteria in the first place. The reason for that is because it's extensively tiled. .Tile drainage flowing to the south and into this larger wetland complex of the development. I think the City's wetland consultant has also looked at this area and he had similar reaction...difficult to make a determination.., of upland versus wetland on that development. But as yOU can see, we've tried to limit our impacts as much as possible to the most degraded basins on the site. The one on the far left, we're attacking the uphill of that basin. Again, part of that basin was formed mainly by tile drainage from upwards to the north. The third...is man made-drainage swale that carries drainage from the face of the three. The next one over is a small seepage flooded basin and then the last one on your far right is the remnant of a drained wetland that once existed at %he edge of the property. The only reason there's any wetland vegetation there at all is, does that help? The only reason there's any wetland vegetation in that area at all is because there Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 49 is this drainage coming in from off site to the east. That's still flowing into that area and because of the extensive tile drainage underneath that area, water flows onto the site and essentially disappears. Percolates into the ground and enters this tile system. Comes out through a ditch down into the wetlands to the south. The blue areas, which Ken can address in more detail, are proposed storm water ponding locations. In developing our wetland mitigation areas, we have kept those separate from the storm water ponding needs of the site so as to avoid routing speed runoff into our mitigation areas. We've shown a series of locations along the south end of the site trying to keep our mitigation areas somewhat isolated from human activities as much as we can and tie them in with the existing wetlands on the site to insure that they're viable. Those areas, we have done a preliminary grading analysis to make sure that they fit in with the grading that's needed for the other storm water ponds in the lots. However, we will be refining that as we get into the detailed design process and there may be some refinements to those areas as we move forward if we find that we can actually reduce impacts further as we get into'more detail. Then we may modify some of those. The mitigation that we've, shown is at a 1 to 1 acreage ratio to what's being effected. ! would say that the quality of what we're going to end up with in the form of mitigation areas and the number of cases on the site, far outweighs the value of the wetland remnants that we're replacing. Each wetland will have a conservation easement around it. Both the portions of the existing wetlands that are being preserved as well as the mitigation of wetlands that we're creating. ! think that's all the comments ! have. Any questions? Batzli: ! think we'll probably have some a little later. Thank you. 3ohn Uban: What I'd like to do now is really go through, the attributes of the PUD. Why we're doing it this way. What we're trying to create from a design point of view and how we see a neighborhood being created here and the sort of uniqueness and the flexibility that we hope will meet with your approval. This is important to us. How this all .works together is part of the creative nature of planning but it's real important because what we do is really create neighborhoods and it's this process that's very important to us. This is the general layout and you can see that what we're trying to do, as you recall the slides, that we're trying to adhere to the topography of the area the best we can. Yet at the same time, incorporating a collector road through the site. Using cul-de-sacs to reach up into the areas that do not have access from othe~ directions. We're also reaching down into the areas along the wetlands for really the nice homesites. $o we look at it, where do homes really want to be. Where would they naturally want to set and then build a road system to-serve those homesites. And we're also preserving woods. Of course staying out of wetlands and through this process, we have an existing home we're saving. We're building on the front edge entrance. Boulevard conditions. We're bringing people in on a bridge that comes across this connection to the wetland. This b~idge system really starts to make this neighborhood a special place and where all these things have to work together to make a nice design. This collector road, as talked about earlier, as it goes through our property. Here-we've shown how it has to miss the wetlands and we have some high points and steep grades in the north so we actually go through here missing all the significant features and placing it in the Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 50 best place possible. This is how we've organized this area and pre-studied then the future connection. The overall impact, and I think some good points were brought up in the staff report and we are endeavoring to do better as we start our grading. But what we have seen and what we .can do by some adjustments. Some of them were pointed out. Making sure our homes or design of each individual home meets the site by grading our road system but trying to leave as much of the wooded sites ungraded so we actually fit a home to that site. Doing that kind of approach, really a tailor made connection between each lot and each home because there are 15 homesites that we can show you tonight if you we have time, and how they fit on each one of these sites. So what we've done is we've calculated with our most sensitive siting and so forth, that out of all the treed areas, we. will be preserving about 2/3 of it. And that's'really a, from looking at this difficult a site, is doing very well. And this is what we're striving for and we think we can accommodate that. We have very good preservation techniques for actual construction. And we will preserve a fair amount of these trees. The important thing is to understand that we also, even though these are trees that are in the backs of lots and so forth. That you saw on the photograph that when we just grade the roads and leave the lot, when we match the home, we can save trees up in the 4font yard too. It's hard for us to predict at this point exactly what that's.going to be like but that is how we've developed in the past. The open space that we've provided is in a system. We have a large wetlands to the south of course but along the collector road, we've also located other things. And you can see the private park. The 4font entrance. At the bridge we have this view in towards the wetland. This is part of our entrance feature. We have a wetland that we're exposing to the traffic as you drive by. It is, we don't want to hide all these in people's back yards. We want to bring them out onto the street as much as possible so that your feeling o4 what the neighborhood is really like. Sharing all the amenities as people drive in. And this is important because we have to build roads then because no one has a lot up and we have 1,090 feet o4 frontage on roads that are being built that don't have a home on it. And that'is a lot of frontage and this is frontage we could otherwise consume as lots and be more efficient. But this is what we think creates a very special neighborhood. And this is part o4 the 41exibility. This is what we're giving is all this amenity exposed to the public street. Over 1,000 feet and we're looking 4or in return the flexibility, on how we design our lots and make it fit to the site. Part of that, when we look at the different lot sizes. This is just a quick graphic that shows the di44erent sizing. The green being the smaller lots and the blue being the large lots. Over 3/4 of an acre. The largest lots get up to an acre and a half or so. And what we've done is those are the ones close to the wetlands or in the heavy woods on this side. This is up next to the power l'ine but here's next to the amenity in the northeast corner. Ail of these work within the system of creating a variety of lots. This creates a variety of homes. Variety of prices. Ail of which are the goals or attributes you look for in a PUD. So it's this variety that's very important and trying to adhere to just 4or instance a 90 foot width on a lot. It's very important for us to be able to fluctuate from that and that's what a PUD ought to do.- You should make sure that it works well and that you can locate lots. For instance, 2/3 of the lots are under 90 feet. Or 1/3 rather, but 2/3 are above that. But one half of the product can sit on those lots that are under 90 feet. And so we have a great variety. A great opportunity to put a lot o4 di44erent Planning Commission Meeting ~uqust 19, 1992 - Paqe 51 product on these variety of'lots. If we went ahead and put in 90 foot lots and figured it also that all the lots had a 20 foot setback because this is designed on a 30 foot setback to begin with and then see where we need the flexibility and so what we looked at is where we have lots around a cul-de-sac for instance. It's a pie shape and if you move the setback in to 20 feet, which we don't really anticipate doing, the width actually narrows 'up considerably but yet the lot is very large. And so this is the flexibility. This is where you have a large lot and sensitive area but you're really narrowing it up on the front side but you need to match, the product to that lot. And so we might lose up to 7 lots if we just tried to make them all 90 feet for instance. And this, on a product around a design that already is very low density and already contributing 1,000 feet of frontage of road that exposes amenities, it becomes a burden and an edge to the PUD that is saying, are we really getting the'flexibility that allows us to make this kind of design work; And this is just..one consideration. Batzli: Is this discussion in response to the staff's request that you move the front yard setback to 20 feet? 3ohn Uban: It's on all lots.- We don't need it on all lots, especially on cul-de-sacs we don't need that. We need the flexibility on just certain lots around wetlands. Terry Forbord: We would prefer to have a reduced front yard setback. It makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint. It makes a lot of sense from quality of life standpoint for the people who live in these homes. However, there are certain areas where it Just doesn,t work. There's a few number of lots that it doesn't, and that's not uncommon to have some degree of flexibility on those difficult lots to adjust... 3chh Uban: It's that flexibility we're really looking for in the PUD. The flexibility on the side yard setbacks. This shows generally how it really works. Still keeping the separation of 20 feet between buildings. Where we would have a 6 foot setback to a garage, perhaps there is a tree that happened to fit just off the'property line and if we were 10 feet from it, we'd rather be 14 feet away. You know it's that kind of adjustment to get away from trees or on curvalinear streets.where all the lots are just a little bit different and the home wants to sit straight but it's not straight to the one next to it. Corners of buildings may come a little bit closer and then we can move'the buildings around and this works very well when you have a developer that develops the lots as well as builds all the buildings. And this gives that adjustment and yet when it's all done, you don't notice that it's any different than a normal development. The separation is still there but there's the flexibility to move it back and forth a little bit with each siting of each home. Terry Forbord: It's important to note that those are minimums. It's a minimum of 6 foot on the garage side and a minimum of 9 feet on the house side. If you go to up Near Mountain and took a tape measurer, I would guarantee that you would find very few instances where they are actually that long. But what it does give you is the flexibility as an example that 3chh gave. If there are trees there, a steep-slope, you can move that a little bit and that certainly is in step with what the staff and the city have been suggesting as far as preservation... Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 52 Olsen: But you're also saying that you will maintain at least 20 feet at all times. Terry Forbord: Correct. And the staff, the PUD ordinance apparently as written is 10 and lO and the idea probably behind that is that you want to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between homes and we're assuring you that you would have that. John Uban: Specifically on the entrance, I just want to share with you some of the design and how it works. There's a single spot on TH 41 that we've worked out with MnDot where access is appropriate. We're.curving that road in. It comes in and curves around and at that same time you get a view that comes right across into the wetlands and this is part of our entramce. A way to make a dynamic entrance. A special place to live' It's looking at it just beyond trying to fit a certain number of lots on a piece of property. And right in this area there's a very large oak tree that we're going to key on and create this bridge with a large oak and then we'll have the pond and the wetland and it will be a very nice setting and nice entrance. We are planting along the highway through here where we have lots that back up to the highway. The problem here is the highway's higher than the property. We can't berm for it. I mean ~t would create another highway next to a highway practically; .$o all we can really do is do some planting along the back sides of the property, and that's what we plan to do. Terry Forbord: 3ohn, would you please note the outlots at the entrance. Typically we do not believe that .it is good practice to put homesites right at the entrance to a neighborhood community. If at all possible, we prefer not to. And so this neighborhood community is depicted on the landscape plans. Those are outlots that will be vegetated and are planted heavily and so we've deleted the homesites from those areas. 3chh Uban: It helps, as people come in. Get a focus towards where we want them to look and see a nice area. It also shows the median that we're proposing to help separate traffic but at the same time make a very nice entrance. The park area, we're proposing the skating pond, tennis court, and as you come across this bridge, here's a big row of evergreen material that we're saving to help edge this entryway. Coming in and then focusing once again on open space which is the park area. The double cul-de-sacs that we've talked about. This design, here are two wetlands you see in a little lighter green. This is an upper cul-de-sac and a lower cul-de-sac and they look out over these wetlands. $o we were creating these lookout conditions. Really nice sites. Once again looking for where the nicest sites would be and then creating the road system to work with that. We have explored, as suggested by staff, a method of cQmbintn~ these two. I don't know if I'll get it to line up perfectly here. In that fashion generally. Connecting those two cul-de-sacs. This is something we will strongly consider. We think the cul-de-sac system gives us really nice home sites but if there's a strong need to connect and the City really wants us to, we will look at this' and see what adjustments we can make. We would prefer of course to keep the cul-de-sacs. Terry Forbord: Now we do concur with the city engineering department that moving the water and we would not be opposed to running the sewer through Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 53 those cul-de-sacs down that ravine. Actually that would be beneficial to us... However, the main purpose for the cul-de-sacs is that 99.99 people out of 100 would prefer to live on a cul-de-sac is you gave them that opportunity. And that's why we're showing it like ~hat. Ne actually gain. a homesite by connecting the road but it's not a deal breaker by any means for Lundgren Bros. if you demand that we connect those. Ne just think it would make a nicer neighborhood. $ohn Uban: Also, part of our system Of cul-de-sacs. There's another element that's important to us and that is'the development of the landscape island. This island really breaks up that large expanse of asphalt that often ends up there and that's usually the most negative part of a cul-de-sac system. People love to be-on cul-de-sacs. They like the privacy and so forth but that expanse of asphalt is usually the part that people don't like and we have worked in other ..communities. We've worked in Burnsville for instance since they became a city. We've been their consulting planner and we're making a list of all the cul-de-sacs and we found that it's several pages long which have islands and it really enhanced the city as a whole and it's a very nice way of breaking up these cul-de-sacs. We have some slides to show you. .In addition, we just want to point out that we've studied this in detail working with the standards of a city. Making some adjustments. Working within the'right-of-way that this will accommodate most trucks and firetrucks and so forth. The turning radius while maintaining an island'in the center ' And I think this detail. will be able to work out with city engineering. Oftentimes it's the people who plow snow, do maintenance and so forth that wish they didn't have to go around something. It slows them down. But-in reality is, they aren't that much more difficult to plow. That really an island absorbs the snow. You don't have to plow the snow off the isla~nd and it actually provides a place, when properly constructed~ to place snow. And we'll show you some slides on how that works, and all of these are maintained by the homeowners association. All the open space. All the recreational facilities. 'All the medians. All the entryway features. All the landscaping that is common to everyone, which includes these islands. And it is there. They pay fees and it works very well. If I could just turn this off, I don't think we'll conflict without moving. These are just medians and roads. This would be similar to the median we proposed at our entrance but you can see how it really would break up and help create and define views as you enter first into the subdivision. But designed in such a fashion that it allows good sight distances.out to the highway. Those two things must work together. Here's an island in the center of a cul-de-sac. You can'see this particular one is elevated. You p'ite snow around the edges of it. It is not, it doesn't have to be grass. Gravel works out very well-so you don't have to mow it. The snow doesn't kill it. Maintenance is much lower and then you plant trees and so forth and what it does then, is here's a planted island from-the ground and you can see, instead of driving down a cul-de-sac and seeing many garages,' that will be broken up. You'll see the plantings in the center. And this really does a great 3ob of creating a nice setting for the cul-de-sac system. Terry Forbord: I think it's appropriate to point out that the myth that people have or misperception that they have that vehicles cannot turn- around when there are islands. If you take for'instance a semi-trailer. Semi-truck trailer, even without an island in a cul-de-sac they can't turn Planning Commission Nesting August 19, 1992 - Page 54 around. That's a fact. If you've ever been in a semi-trailer or if you know anybody, watch them. They cannot turn around in an existing cul-de-sac right now. The island does not become a factor for a-moving van so to speak. Some of the large fire trucks cannot turn around in a cul-de-sac without an island. So they have to back up anyway. So often times you may have heard the argument that well if there's an island there, that means they can't turn around or can't drive through it, can't anything so I think it's very important to recognize that.' John Uban: The last thing I want to show you and then Z'il have Ken Adolf go through some of the engineering elements, is Just what we've done to further show that we're adhering to ail the setbacks. The setback from wetlands. The buffer edge. Adhering to the-useable back yard plus accommodating a deck on a 40 x 60 pad. And each one of these lots we've exhibited the wetland in gray, a line around the wetland shows the combination of buffer area and the useable rear yard or setback which is 30 feet, and then we've shown each one of the homes and a deck that would happen on each one of those lots. And this shows how we'd...reguiattons and buffer ourselves and separate ourselves from. the wetlands. Ron Adolf: I'm going to briefly discuss the site engineering issues. The site is within the MUSA expansion area that was described. The developer or Lundgren Bros. has petitioned the City for the extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water service to the site. The sewer service would come from the extension of a gravity trunk main from the Lake Ann Interceptor which is east of Galpin Boulevard. That gravity sewer would be expanded at some point east of the site and then a lift station would be.constructed. In discussions with 8onestroo, that would be constructed someplace over in this area. When that lift station would then service the...eievation properties both on the site and also east of the site. Property of the site and that lift station would .pump the flow into the.gravity sewer. Lateral gravity lines would then extend from that lift station along the streets to serve both lots. The trunk sewer, as well as the trunk water, as I said, that feasibility study is in the process-and the current time table on that is that will be available in 1993. Water service to the site would be provided by a i6 inch diameter trunk watermain which really follows the collector street and continues east through the Song property and then connects to the water system at the pump house on Galpin Boulevard. Again the lateral lines would be extended from that trunk main. The trunk main would also provide the lateral benefits along the collector street. The storm water management plan would consist of accepting the surface runoff in the streets and gutters. Conveying that to some storm sewer. All the storm sewers would dtschar, ge into some storm water management ponds which are shown in blue. The numbed'of'ponds is really dictated by the amount of relief on the site. It is very difficult to try to consolidate the runoff into a central location so each one of these provides treatment of surface runoff prior to discharging into the existing wetlands. The storm water management would comply with the City's current draft ordinance on the storm water management. On the site grading, the first phase of the development would be on the west side obtaining access from TH 41. TH 41 does have a controlled access and really the location shows where this collector road connection is thff only location that is available for access. The site would be graded in phases. Probably a total of five phases over a period of 4 to 5 years. Initially we'd just Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 55 grade the first phase plus the street alignments'that would contain the necessary sewer and water lines to provide service to the first phase. For instance this collector street you. ld need to be graded to allow the watermain construction and some sanitary sewer would be required down to the lift station. The details of the grading plan will be refined. Staff has come up with some good comments in their review and we're reviewing those comments and trying to really achieve the goals of minimizing the loss of trees and the total grading on the site. I'd be happy to address any questions later. Batzli: Thank you. Is this a wrap up? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. We actually edited our presentation to you this evening because of the lengthy presentation to you earlier so we've skipped over a number of things that may be of relevancy to you. Ne have a number of concerns about the recommendations. More importantly I'm concerned about that we were applying for a preliminary plat and I'm not exactly sure how to handle that at this time. But we are available for questions and I'm assuming that you have a lot of them and we'll do the best that we can to answer those. Batzli: This is a public hearing. People in the audience that would like to address the Commission, please step forward to the microphone. Give us your name and address and we would appreciate brevity. Linda Carlson: My name's Linda Carlson, I live on Galpin Boulevard. I heard them say that the roads that go through there are public roads. I . don't know if that's normal or not for a PUD but my feeling is that the parks ought to be public as well. There are no parks in that area for the people in that area. $o that was my comment. Paul Youngquist: My name is Paul Youngquist. I'm at 7105 Hazeltine Blvd.. I'm the cultivated area on the north side that you-saw in the pictures. Boy it's late and I would not want to be on the Planning Commission. Thanks for doing your job. This might sound.like a paid endorsement of this project but unfortunately it's not paid. But I'm assuming that this in general is in compliance with the comprehensive plan and I feel pretty lucky that Lundgren Bros. has laid it out the way they have and I'm pretty well sold on everything that's been talked about. I like that east/west road. I know the earlier plan called for a'much larger road and this is a smaller road in size and it meanders through and respects the contours and the trees and everything. I like the amount of open space. I like the way they've left existing trees and so forth and I personally appreciate that the larger lots seem to be on the north side and the smaller lots on the south side, although the smaller lots are smaller than'I thought they really would be. But having said that, we have'a couple of concerns. One is assessments. We were hit for the Lake Ann thing here this last year and I'm worried about are we going to be hit for something else? I was real pleased to see, I didn't learn until tonight that things are coming in from the east rather than like coming from the north or something. I'd encourage you to take a good look at the density and lot size and then I'd trust you to enforce the wetland regulations. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page $6 8atzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Dave Weathers: My name is Dave Weathers. I live at 7235 Hazeltine 8oulevard and that's the square block which's marked out as exception on the north side part of it. And I pretty much echo the comments that Paul had just made. That we are fortunate that the developer that came along has laid it out the way he has. My concerns are the same thing..The density. The amount of what I consider a high density in that area. I'd prefer to see it less possible so I hope you study that as closely as you can. And also I am concerned about the assessments that will come with it. And with that I will make it as brief as possible so I'll stop there. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Don Roy: I'm Don Roy, 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard. I'm on the northwest corner of that property. The only concern I have is the, we ali have wells that are up there at this present time and I wonder what the plans-are for hooking up when this comes through and how soon and when will the. sewer be available to us if this projects goes in? You will have a little bit of a problem I think as far as drainage from these properties. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Erhart moved, Ahrens seconded to close.the public heari~. All voted in favor and .the motion carried. The ~ublic hearing ~as closed. Batzli: Joan. Ahrens: I'm sure my fellow commissioners will be greatly disappointed but I'm going to have to abstain on this project from discussion because of a conflict of interest. If you want me to talk about something else I will. It's only Batzli: She was the epitome of brief. Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: Did the staff on their recommendations that I read in here in regards to shortening 3, eliminating H, connecting G and I. Did you do a calculation of the 120 lots, what you envisioned that would reduce them? I mean I did a guesstimate of 8 maybe, pid you calculate that out at all? Olsen: No, we did not. Farmakes: $o I'm assuming that some of those comments that you made that you, I believe the time here that you want to discuss that further. I think that the recommendations are right on. Exactly where they should be. It seems to me that the purpose of the PUD, as far as the City goes, is to achieve some of the objectives that were pointed out here tonight. 37~ of those trees it would seem to me would be greatly reduced, that figure anyway if the city's recommendations were followed. It seems to me percentage wise, lot wise, that would impact on the total 'amount pretty slight. I'm not sure on your bottom line where that falls but from the City's position I think the comments have been a good recommendation from Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 57 the staff. As far as the cul-de-sac and connecting I and G, I think that that cul-de-sac is too long as it is Without a connection there or a loop. I'm sure obviously Lundgren is market driven. They're a successful developer and a good one 'in this Part of town and it helps sell. We certainly know here anyway that it helps sell homes and that's What people want. The problem.of course is that they don't provide bus transportation. Someone else has to do that for them and pick up their kids and take them to school. They don't drive an ambulance and some of the other problems that are involved with long, single access cul-de-sacs. I think the City's recommendation on a connection is a good one. Was there a price range at all mentioned in that report? I couldn't find one. I was wondering, do you have any information in regards-to the pricings since the lot sizes is so different from the bottom to the top? John Uban: We do have a general range. Ne have the products in a general range. We didn't show you all of that because of time. Farmakes: So from the bottom to the top in the price range would be? Terry Forbord: In today's dollars? Farmakes: Yeah. Terry Forbord: And this is subject, to change at all times. Farmakes: I won't hold you to it. We won't close the deal tonight. Terry Forbord: The intent here is, if you study the market in Chanhassen, there is very little housing stock in, it is usually at the extreme. Ail the way...low end and at the high end. And we believe that what Chanhassen probably needs the most of...housi'ng objectives, is probably to be, have some housing stock in that $150,000.00 to $250,000.00 range, including lot and that's our intention. Now we are working on additional assembly of parcels in this area and if that occurs, and it may, then that would be a broader price. There would be some homes in the higher price range and hopefully some homes below that. Although it's getty very difficult in Chanhassen to do that because of development costs. Farmakes: The other point I wanted to make, is we spent a lot of time discussing the issues of minimum square footage on a single family lot. It seems to me that the ratio here, I guesstimated here that under 15,000, they had about 24, somewhere in there, of under 15,000 square feet. Olsen: I haven't done that calculation yet until the preliminary plat. Farmakes: Percentage wise, it seems to me that that would be reasonable. It doesn't seem to me that they're taking ac~vantage of that situation. The private park. You said that the Park and Rec had went through that and I'm not sure that they inquired about the park neec~ in that area and I'm not really familiar with park service on that end'of town so I guess I have no way to comment on that. Olsen: The way they would have looked at it is that the neighborhood would have been resulting in the need for a neighborhood park and they feel that Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 58 the developer is still providing that. Farmakes: The final comment that I have here, on that lower section that you develop, I hope that by that time anyway, is that frontage road would come through in that section correct for TH 5? Was that OUT vision? It wouldn't meander because on the preliminary section it kind of meandered up a bit. Krauss: Yeah, we're not exactly sure where it's gotng to go. You have that Bluff Creek system coming in through there. It needs to be defined whether it's going to come north or south of that creek. Batzli: Let me ask the question before we move .on, on this private park. How private is a private park? 3chh Uban: It's a private park in the-sense that the homeowners Use it. They maintain it. They own it. They pay taxes on it but it's pretty obvious that children know no bounds and friends of friends and so forth... So in a way, there's no way to stretch any significant...but it is something that is part of that neighborhood. It's 'designed to be an amenity that they control. If they want to add another tennis court, it's up to themselves. They're in control of their own destiny in that respect. Batzli: But there's no parking there correct? John Uban: That is correct. Batzli: So it would be limited to on street if you will'. For example I ride my bike from Lotus Lake. I go to the park. Can they kick me out? 3ohn Uban: I suppose if you're drinking beer. and being rowdy. · . Terry Forbord: For most of you who have traveled around the country and this is certainly something that is not uncommon all over the United States. You don't see a lot of it in the Midwest. You have to get to Chicago probably to see a lot more of this. Ne've been doing it for probably oh 3 to 5 years but we have not done it in Chanhassen because we have not had a new neighborhood community in Chanhassen. As I eluded to earlier, we've gone to great lengths to try to be better at everything that we do everyttme we do a new project. YOU can't do something like this either unless you've got a significant, enough size of a site. We were before you not more than a year ago on what is now called Willow Ridge, or you may recall it as Ortenblat/Ersbo on Lake Lucy Road. And that particular property was not large enough for any type of a park and had any type of economic feasibility in it. But-more importantly, what we are trying to do as a company is we really don't have any desire to try to develop real estate and have neighborhood communities that are just like everybody else's. We can, all of us can get in our.cars and drive all over the metro area and see plenty of that already. What we try to do and what we've always tried to do, we're more a hitch developer. A hitch builder. We're trying to have something that is a little more upscale I guess or something. A little more special than what everybody else is doing and our buyer profile, if you look at them or interview them, or even the census data, will show you because it's that localized now. The data's so Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 59 specific, the buyer profile that typically comes into our neighborhoods is willing to pay a little bit more money to have something that's not just like all of our competition. And we also have found through exit interviews of our homebuyers and we also have found out Just by market analyst data that when people sell their homes, they have a much easier time selling it if they have some special amenities in the neighborhood where they live. And so really what we're trying to do is have a competitive edge over' our competition. Create a better neighborhood community. There's absolutely no doubt that it takes stress off the city's park system. When we do this, we go in and we build it right away. Now those of you who have worked on the parks commission in the city know that they usually wait until all the people are there and then when there's enough money, maybe then they build the park. And every city has that problem because there's Just simply not enough money. $o what we are doing is we are putting it in immediately so people know that it's Part of the package. The homeowners association controls it and owns it and it's a real benefit to those people who live there. And it also benefits the city because it takes some of the financial burden off of them. Batzli: $o the operative word there though was the homeowners own it and control it. Terry Forbord: That's correct. Emmings: I don't think I have much to add. I guess my observation would be that I think that the staff, the conditions that have been attached here or put down by the staff are a good list of issues. I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with, when it says reduce front yard setbacks for all lots on local streets to 20 feet. I don't know if'you want to do that but I think the conditions do a good job of identifying the issues, and maybe that's enough since we're, this is really a concept plan. Why does he think we're doing a preliminary plat and the rest of us think we're dolng a concept? Krauss: We're really not sure. We were under.the impression we were in sync on that but it is a PUD. Emmings: Krauss: We always' do a concept review, right? Yeah. It's optional actually. Emmings: Oh really. Krauss: Yeah, it's optional to do' By typically what we do is we come back in and the same thing with Hans Hagen. You come back in after the concept with the preliminary and plat concurrently at the next round of meetings. And then that would be the last time you see it.. Emmings: But as far as, just so we're clear on what we're doing, we're looking at it as a concept? Krauss: It's set up as a concept. Batzli: It was published as a concept. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 60 Earnings: Okay. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: I would like to point out that the ordinance allows an applicant to go through both processes at the same time and we've done that before with the city and our application I believe it clearly shows that's what we applied for and the fee structure that we paid for... And if it was an error, then so be it but I. want to make sure the record's straight. .. Emmings: And I guess if we were going to look at this as a preliminary plat at this point, we had an awful lot of conditions and we've got an awful lot of things that are unresolved and I don't think I'd be willing to do that, but. Batzli: No. But clearly if they've paid the fee for the preliminary plat. Olsen: It's just one fee for the PUD. Krauss: We went with the unitary fee structure. It's not broken out. Batzli: So they will not have to pay another fee to go through the preliminary plat? Krauss: Well, we're always willing to take a developer's money. Batzli: Ladd. Conrad: A gentleman had a comment about sewer and connecting. Krauss: I think we can try that one. We've got the feasibility study being done now and the honest answer is.we won't 'know the answer until the feasibility study is completed. Now knowing what we know about how this project is being laid out, there's not, I won't say there won't be any assessments off site to the north but I don't think there will be. The utilities are being brought in from the east. If there's any benefit accruing directly to lots, it comes through the east side. So as it goes out to Salpin and Lake Ann Interceptor. That information will be available when the feasibility study is completed and there's a public hearing held at the City Council. When that happens, all benefitting properties, all the properties that stand to get an assessment are notified and invited to come to that public hearing. And the Council makes the final determination as to who's going to be assessed and what ~ill be deferred, if anything. The other question in terms of extending utilities to'adjoining lots, that's something we regularly look at when'we get the final engineering done. We look at where it's appropriate to extend it. I don't know specifically if it will reach some of your properties. Some of them are considerably uphill from the site which makes for difficulty. We usually terminate these things at property lines and don't extend it. If you want to give Dave Hempel in engineering a call in the next couple of days, he can tell you specifically how close he thinks we're going to get with the utilities. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 61 Hempel: If I Just may add to that. I believe the acceptance or consideration of acceptance of the feasibility study is scheduled for September 14th City Council meeting. Conrad: Parks. The Park and Rec has identified, is there a neighborhood park in the area? Krauss: No. Conrad: Will there be? Olsen: Well it wouldn't be a neighborhood park. -What they're providing is essentially a neighborhood park. What you're probably thinking about is more of a community area and I don't know that they have. identified a larger park in that area. Aanenson: I think you also should look at the fact that Minnewashta Regional Park is close. Olsen: Kitty corner, yeah.. Krauss: This is the first private park if you will that the Park Board has looked at and we didn't know how to react to it but they were comfortable with it. Keep in mind too that they're not getting any credit on park dedication so the developer, for the right to do this, is essentially. getting hit twice. Conrad: That's recognizable. There was a comment that said maybe we need parks in the area and I just wanted to follow that-up. That somebody lived outside this area. Krauss: The other property in this area that could theoretically benefit from a park is the Song property. Now Lundgren Bros. may or may not work on a coordinated project with that. In the future I know that it's been discussed. If there is, and if it coordinates with it too, I suppose they would have...to this park or another similar one would be built there. If somebody else develops that, I think the Park Board's going to have to look at having a separate neighborhood park and resolving some of those recreational issues on that site. Conrad: Generally I really like the plan. I think it's neat. Recommendations from the staff, 5, 6,. 7 and 8 are pretty absolute and I guess, you know it's sort of the PUD. We can slip those. I don't want to i slip them in all cases but I think, I'm not sure I'm as absolute as maybe the staff is on that and I think there was some things that Terry talked about and other presenters that I think we should listen to. Again, I think we just want to be sensitive to that. My 'only other two comments, and I'll probably be all by myself on these. ~6 and ~7 in the staff report, connecting I and G. I really like how it looks. I just like the cul-de-sacs that way. I think it's terrific design. If we take a 10ok at what City Council approved at Kurver's Point and the cul-de-sacs there, we're not consistent as to how we implement .this.. I really like this. I like how it makes the neighborhood and I know there's concerns about that but that's just my point. I like the center islands. I always have.. Planning Commission Heeting August 19, 1992 - Page 62 I think it makes it attractive and I know there's no engineering group or maintenance that will say they like it in the world but I like them. Batzli: You like the little islands? Conrad: I sure do. Batzli: And cul-de-sacs too? Conrad: Yeah. I think they look neat and they can be an asset. So those are my two off the wall comments... Erhart: Okay, well other than the late hour, I'd like to say that Lundgren Bros., and thank them for really, they've spent an enormous'amount of time on this in the last, I didn't realize it was 3 years but they volunteered to come to our wetlands ordinance group and speak to us about this and they brought in practically their whole staff on another evening to describelhow the new ordinance would effect this development. So that's appreciated guys. And I think the development's really neat. The difficulties that- you have here combined with,' in light of the fact that actually it's a beautiful piece of property and this particular'piece I thiDk represents a lot of the property that remains to be developed in Chanhassen. I think we really use this as a prototype of what we do with the rest of the city because what it is is essentially'wooded areas that have been, where the trees have been removed from small fields that are high ground surrounded by wetlands and it's just a lot of, as you walk around Chanhassen, that's really what all remains in the whole city. So I think we're learning a lot on how to do this and how to do it right and I'm pretty confident it's going to look really neat when it gets done. So just quickly, I'll just go through my list. On page 4 that you talked about this exception to the property being designed so that it can be ultimately access from Street S but it's just not clear on the plans to me how that would happen. I'm not asking for an explanation now... Also, again when we go through these PUD lists of things that we're looking for, it implies there that we're actually expecting the developer to react on each one of them and I didn't think that was our intention of a PUD. That they had to give us something on all of them .... ask them now to respond with more and I'm not sure that's needed. I agree with Ladd. I see no point in connecting I and S. People want cul-de-sacs. It's safer. It is safer and these are not long. So I'd like to see.it the way it is, although I guess I'd like engineering again to review the possibility of extending Street B to the end of the property so if it's possible to hook up later on in what I think is the Song property. Krauss: We looked at that in a lot of depth. Over a period of about a year. Erhart: Well I'm getting used to be disagreed with tonight. One more isn't going to hurt. Removal of B in lieu of private streets. I think we ought to look at doing more of that. I think private streets, when you get in this kind of area with the slopes and the wetlands and stuff, can do a lot to fit things in without destroying things and what you're giving up there sometimes though is a sharing of some of the things. The nice'thing about the streets and cul-de-sacs, it's sort of a nice, even sharing of the Planning Commission Nesting August 19, 1992 - Page 63 wetlands over a large number of houses so I think agree that looking at private streets is a good idea, and they do work and they're used a lot really outside of Minnesota. But when you travel around you see a lot of private streets. I think our ordinance allows what, 3 houses? 4 houses? Krauss: Four. Erhart: The lot widths, we tie that into the 20 foot. Terry, you tried to tie in the 20 foot setback and correct me if I'm wrong but I thought.what you said is, if you measure the lot width at 20 feet, then it 'becomes smaller. That's one of the reasons why you have so many sub-standard narrow lots. I guess my feeling is that I sort of agree with staff that we ought to maintain the 90 foot, although they ought to be measured at the 30 foot setback. $o when you get on those lots where you have 20 foot setbacks, it could be less than 90 feet. Then going back to the recommendations where we say rechJced front yards on all those streets at 20 feet. You know if we just want to make a carte blanche statement like that, then you've got to question is our ordinance right. I don't think our ordinance is wrong. Olean: I intended it more for. Erhart: I think we ought to do it lot by lot. Olsen: Yes, that's what we... Erhart: Let's see. I think I'm now convinced that the idea'of Just requiring 20 feet. between buildings has some merit and would agree with that. I notice I don't see woodland easement or what do we call it, tree easements so I'm pleased with that so far. And hopefully on a later meeting we'll have time to discuss trees before this one comes back in. I'm not suggesting we.do it tonight anymore. This foundation plantings 'and your rear yard trees is an interesting thing Terry. I don't know, you must have read the Minutes of the meeting where we discussed in our new PUD. voted against the PUD because of particularly those two requirements. I didn't think it made any sense and in discussing with Paul earlier, I think now I understand where we weren't communicating on this. I vle~d the PUD as it is applied against a subdivision where the lots are sold and the people get their own developer and make thet~ own builder and build their own house and I could not visualize how you made the connection between the guy developing the lot and the guy who builds the house were two entirely different people. Apparently you were not thinking that way at all. Your idea was, or most of the Commissioners idea was in this PUD is that the developer also is the builder. Now maybe I'm wror~. Is the builder always as a developer? See, I didn't think so. $o I think we've got this first case of a problem, this foundation plantings and your rear yard trees are problematic. I don't see how we can, it doesn't seem to make sense to us to have a PUD where we require foundation plantings and rear yard trees because it is unconnected to the subdivision. It's something that relates to the building itself so I don't know. I think it's a good point and maybe we can. Krauss: We've spoken to Terry tonight about some options for resolving that particular point that I think you'll.wind up agreeing with. You also Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 64 are trying to cover with the ordinance, you're covering cornfield development too where there isn't anything and it may be sold off to individuals. But I think we've got a positive way to work out that issue. Erhart: Okay. My question here in, we talk a lot about saving trees. I was a little surprised that someone stated here that we were going to lose approximately 1/3 of the trees. How do you know this far in advance exactly where the. building pad's going tO be-to determine how many trees are going to be lost? Can you do that? Do you know where the building pads are going to be? John Uban: Generally yes. Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord from Lundgren Bros.. Even though we are in the conceptual stage of this, staff usually likes to know so they have an idea of what impact the development may have on the site. And so we take the time. It's not specific because we haven't been out and surveyed each lot and surveyed the building pad. But by utilizing the technology that we have, you can get a fairly clear idea, plus. or minus there's obviously some room for error. But a fairly good idea of what you're going to be taking out and the grading plan, you're trying to balance the dirt on the site and so you know what you have to do and so you come. fairly close but you really don't have a real concise idea until you're in the final design phase. Erhart: But this 1/3 does include the building sites? Terry Forbord: I'm sorry, I can't hear. Erhart: Losing 1/3 of the trees, that includes the trees lost for building sites? Terry Forbord: That's from development. I don't believe that was calculated into actual pads, was it? Farmakes: Total loss to development is 37~. John Uban: That's based on grading the whole site and in some cases putting in different homes like ramblers. Not ramblers but not having walk outs in some cases. $o we've adjusted the grading plan to reach that number. And also we may be able to save more but we don't know Until you actually match a specific house for a specific owner. Terry Forbord: It's probably fairly close because we' recognize that most of the building pads in this neighborhood community will have corrections. In other words, you'll be doing soil corrections on almost all-the pads so that's probably fairly close. Erhart: Of the 33~, what does it do to house pads versus streets and utilities? Okay, 33~ of the trees are going to be lost. Of those 33~, say now that's 100~. Of the 100~ trees lost, what percent is due. to streets and utilities versus the housepad? John Uban: About a third for a street system.. Actual street and then the rest. Eden Prairie for instance. They are very aggressive when it comes Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 65 to fitting development into existing woods. Aggressive in the sense that they have very strict rules and very...method of figuring things out. So they just automatically assume that you're going to lose probably around 40~ of the trees. And that's just what you have to accept in development. You know doing a road with lots and'you get the lots and the homes... Erhart: Alright, well that just gives me an idea here. I'm trying to figure out where this tree thing for notes later. The islands. Maybe once and for all we can get an action here where we can have islands in our city. Because everyttme islands have been proposed by. a developer, it's always okay Dave. We're going at you here. It's always the. street maintenance don't like it and by the time you get all done and we all up here kind of go along and it gets thrown out. And I've always liked islands. They're all over the place. Eden Prairte's got them. Maybe we have more snow than them. Do we get more snow than Eden Prairie that we can't have islands here or something? I guess I'd really like to see the Commission take a stand and maybe a poll here to see if we can get rid of this mentality that we shouldn't have, of not having islaDds because i think they're, as Terry said, I think there's a lot of advantages. I think we ought to allow islands. I know Ladd said we ought to allow islands. Batzli: [ don't know if we're going to allow rebuttal. Do you have real rebuttal or just it's going to save us money and stuff like that? Hempel: No, just a couple comments I guess towards the islands that we have problems with. One of them is our public works maintenance. Snow plowing and so forth. Damage to the curbs on the island and so forth takes repairs. Again, the street function. J6 itself is for vehicles. Manueverin.g and so forth and with those islands and that, they do look aesthetically pleasing and they break up the neighborhood asphalt surface but again there may be safety issues with children playing on them. Cars coming around and so forth. These are all issues to be looked at. There may be some liability risks of having an island such as what is proposed. Those are some of the things we consider. 8atzli: Thank you. You don't get rebuttal. Next point. Erhart: Can we get what the other Planning Commissioners. Some direction. Batzli: Oh, I like islands. Emmings= I like islands. Erhart: Jeff? Farmakes: I think they look just fine. Personally I don't like cul-de-sacs. I think that they're private streets and a lot of them are are paid for by the public. But' they're in demand. Consumers want them and that's why they're there. It obviously looks nice. Ahrens: It hasn't been a real big issue for me Tim but you know., I guess they're okay. I agree with Jeff's' statement about cul-de-sacs in general. I think it does create too many private streets but they're okay. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 66 Erhart: Okay, then to go through your recommendations. ! think most of them look reasonable. 5 maybe add lot widths so each lot has a minimum 90 feet at the normal 30 foot building setback. 3o Ann, maybe that's... We talked about the 20 foot. 16. I would not connect I and delete islands, we talked about that. So that's it. Thank you. This guy extracts all this stuff out-of me from Target when I had little to say, and now I have something to say and you guys laugh. 8atzli: Thank you Tim. I Just have a couple of quick comments or questions. One is, there was talk of a lot of tiling on the site. What is the effect going to be when we start grading it? Are we going to take out the draintile and how is that going to effect the wetlands? Is this going to effect which wetlands still exist or is that being calculated into the runoff through the NURP ponds or whatever we're putting in? Olsen: We haven't looked at that in detail yet'. Batzli: Okay. Have you guys looked at that in detail? Ken Adolf: Z'm Ken Adolf. I'll address it from the engineering point of view. Rs far as the drain tile, I think it Would be best when the drain tile are found, to try to maintain them, especially they can be routed into some storm sewer and then go into ponds. The dTain tile is providing a function in kind of draining the on site soils and if~you Just arbitrarily block that, it could cause water table to rise in Some area that we don't know about. So I think we take some care to try to maintain those and connect them into the new storm, sewer and drain it into ponds. Rs far as the impact on the volume requirements for the NURP ponds and so forth, the drain tile typically drains at a very slow rate over a period of time so as compared to the runoff you get from a rainfall, it's very low volume, so it really wouldn't impact the storage requirements for the NURP ponds. Batzli: Okay. Are we going to requi?e or are we going to need to require some sort of easement ove~ these drain tiles if we're going to try to maintain them? Have we ever done that before? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have. We have numerous drain tile systems within the city and we constantly are uncovering them. We do have problems in the future once the development is in and the home building starts and these drain tiles are uncovered in building sites. And the homeowners are subject then to a drain tile system and sump pump that pumps 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Their only recourse is to pump it usually out into the city street and the City then has ramifications of repairing that. Connecting them to a storm sewer system or something. In fact we are considering in some of these areas to look at requiring a drain tile system behind the curb Just for these situations that come up where they're excavating large amounts of fill along the sides of hills that may expose a seam where there's ground water problems or drain tile-problems. So it's starting to be a problem for us I guess from a city maintenance standpoint and we are having some injuries from pedestrians and bicyclist with these drain tile systems draining out into the city streets. Batzli= Have we looked at, I know we've spoken about this at the City Council/Planning goal session or what have you, to have everyone's sump Planning Commission Meeting August )9, 1992 - Page 67 pump drain into the storm water, storm sewer system. Has'that been looked at all for this particular area? Krauss: Actually there's some changes in the Building Code that they're looking at. It's now mandatory for every new house that you pipe a sump pump to the outdoors. Batzli: Understood. Krauss: Which it didn't used to be. You used to get a sump pot and then it was up to you and most people just dumped it in the laundry tub which causes problems. Batzli: Right. Krauss: What Dave is referring to is situations that run all winter long. We've had icing situations. Batzli: That's why I'm asking. Can we require them to put it into the storm sewer directly and not into the street? Krauss: If it becomes an issue, I suppose we could. We haven't tried that yet. Hempel: I believe that's something the City Engineer ~s trying to get on the books. Batzli: Thought I'd ask. The private park I'm sure is an interesting concept. I'm not quite sure how it works. I'm not sure how it ties into the development to the east or to the south. I don't necessarily like the idea that this is private to the exclusion of someone bicycling in from the neighborhood next door. Although it may not be very likely to happen, but the possibility would exist for in essence the neighbors to say, get out of here. This is private. That kind of troubles me. I think I like the price range that's going in here. I like the development in general. I think a lot of work's been put into it. I like the treatment of the wetlands. The one thing that did concern me regarding the streets, I actually like the cul-de-sacs. I like the islands. One thing that concerned me about the street was the way that this, I don't know what we're calling it a collector, or what are we' calling it, the one Street A? Olsen: Collector. Batzli: What kind of traffic are we expecting on that street? Krauss: It really shouI'd not generate significant thru trips. You're talking about serving this neighborhood and the ad3acent neighborhoods. Now emergency vehicles will be able to transit through there if they need to. Delivery vehicles. But there's really no reason for, especially when the new frontage road is built, there's really no reason for anybody else to use it. Batzli: Okay. So this bridge is going to have to be built for pretty heavy duty stuff if it has to, firetrucks and what have you anyway. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 68 Krauss: Right, there's no question of that. Batzli: The location of the roadway into the Song' property. Has that been looked at by that landowner and they're comfortable with where that's going i n there? Krauss: Well yeah, I don't want to speak for the Song's. I believe they're out of the country right now-but we did have a meeting. We being mysei1:, engineering staff, Terry Forbord and the Songs were both present. And we did look at options for getting the road through there and I understood that they were comfortable with it. Frankly it's really the only place to put it. It's a very tough route to take to get through. Anything else causes significant damage. Batzli: Regarding conditions S, 6, 7 and $, I think those should be looked at individually. I think probably the City and the developer are thinking ot: the same things here as far as how to combine those conditions so that they treat the wetlands sensitively and maintain some space inbetween the houses. So I guess I've already said I like the center islands. Has there been, the trail system through this neck of the woods. That is just running along TH 4i now? Olsen: That's correct. Batzli: There wouldn't be a trail system coming along Street A at all? Olsen: There will be a sidewalk. Not a park trail system. Batzli: Is that one of the things that you had a problem with Terry? The sidewalk along Street A. Terry Forbord: Typically we do not like to have trails or sidewalks in our developments because the people who live there don't want them. Usually people who use trails enjoy them but they prefer they're in somebody else's neighborhood. However, we believe that this particular-sidewalk probably makes some sense because it's...I think there is some merit to having a sidewalk along...to go from one side to the other without having to be on the street. John Uban: We think it should be on the north side. Terry Forbord: ...because the park's on that side. Batzli: Those are my comments. Does anyone else have anything? Anyone have a motion? Erhart: Again, it goes back to just a question of, why do we want to'adopt a motion? Batzli: Because you're going to love Steve's wording.that you're just about to hear. Erhart: Great, let's hear it. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 69 Emmings: I move that the Planntn~ Commission recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 single family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented in the staff report in accordance with the comments that have been made. Erhart: You took the words right out of my mouth. I'll second it. £mmtngs moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan for 113 si'ngle family lots with the understanding that the applicant will continue to work with staff on the conditions presented 'in the staff re~ort in accordance with the comments that have been made. Reduce the amount of tree removal currently proposed through reduction of grading, use of retaining walls, removal and shortening of cul-de-sacs, different housing styles, lowering of street grades, and reconfiguration of lot sizes and locations. 2. Provide a detailed tree removal plan illustrating types, number and caliper of trees over 6" caliper being removed. 3. Revise lot areas by removing wetland area from the calculations. 4. Demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12' x 12' deck without intruding into any reguired setback area or protective easement. 5. Revise lot widths so that each lot has a minimum of 90' at the building setback· 6. Demonstrate that each lot provides a 30' rear yard setback and that there is a 30' exterior setback. 7. Reduce the front yard setback for all lots on local streets to 20'. 8. Maintain a minimum lQ' side yard setback for all lots and that all accessory buildings and structures will maintain a 10' setback. 9. Revise the landscaping plan so that it provides the landscaping required for a residential PUO (boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping foundation and yard plantings, tree preservation) and provide a proposal for a budget for foundation plantings. 10. Provide architectural covenants. 11. Locate the extension for watermain service alon~ the east side of Trunk Highway 41. 12. Extend the watermain beyond "I" street to "~" street to loop'the two water systems together. 13. Locate fire hydrants approximately 300' apart and in accordance with' any location recommendations by the Fire Marshal. Pianning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 70 14. Provide storm drainage and ponding calculations to verify PiPe sizing and pond volumes and extend storm sewer lines to the detention Ponds to minimize erosion along the slopes. 15. Provide a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along one side of Street A. 16. Review the connection ! and 8 street to provide a 3~ or less grade for the first 50' at intersections. 17. Delete the center median islands on A street and all cul-de-sacs. 18. Submit details on proposed wetland alterations, mitigation, buffer strips and protection of wetland. 19. Provide as built locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads. 20. Respond to issues raised by the City Engineering and Park Department. All voted in favor except Ahrens who abstained and the motion carried. pUBLIC HEARIN6S: ZONIN6 ORDINANCE RMENDMENT.TO DEF~N~ DOCK SETBACK ZONE. AND; ZONIN8 ORDINRNCE AMENDMENT REGARDING FENCE REQUIREMENTS. Batzli: The other two, they're public heatings so I just want to make sure that there's no one in the audience that has come to discuss either the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setbacks or fence requirements. No? Okay. Seeing no one in the crowd, is there a motion to table those two items until our next meeting? Emmings: Yeah. I'll make that motion but, I want to Just say that it seems to me that the way that dock setback zoning ordinance amendment is written, is very, very confusing. I think it really needs some serious work. Olsen: Yeah, we've gotten a lot of comments on it. Aanenson: We would have recommended that it be tabled anyway. Emmings: Yeah, there's at least, the 100 feet makes no sense. It doesn't you know, I don't know if there's anything that needs to be said here about situations where you have shared docks. Aanenson: Yep, that's what we're going to put in. An exception or exclusion in for a common dock... Emmings: Also, look very carefully and decide whether you mean, if these are the extended lot lines and you go in 10 feet, from the definition it sounds like it's the area in here that's the dock setback zone but it's not. The 10 feet on each side, so I think it really needs a lot of work. Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1992 - Page 71 Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to define dock setback zones and fence requirements untt! the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzit noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 5, 1992 as presented. OPEN DISCUSSION: TREE CONSERVATION Ef~SEM~NTS, Conrad moved, Emmings seconded to table the tree conservation easements discussion until the next Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor except Erhart who opposed and the motion carried. Conrad moved, Erhart seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting Nas adjourned a[ 12=18 a.m.. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim