The URL can be used to link to this page

1992 10 07CH~NH~SSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 7, 1992 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Matt Ledvina, Steve Emmings,l Brian Batzli, Jeff Farmakes, and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ~SENT: Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner; Kate Aanenson, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician PUBLIC ~EARING: LUNDGREN BROS, PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE ~ST SIDE OF HIGHI~Y 41. NO~TH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND ADJ~ENT TQ 7305 HIGHWRY 41 (HAZELTINE 80ULEV~D): A. REZONE 93 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURal. RESIDENTIAL TO PiJD. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. B. PREg~HIN~RY PUD ~JPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISZON OF 112 SINGLE F~tILY LOTS ~qD 80UT~OTS. C. WETLRND ALTERATION PERMIT, Public Present= Ne,me AddTee~; Terry Forbord John Uban Ken Adolf Ron Peterson Bruce Buxton Thomas W. Green Tim Keene Jay Dolejsi David Stockdale Paul Savargen Lundgren Bros, 935 E. Wayzata 81vd, Wayzata Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc. Schoell & Madsen, Inc. Wetland Specialist 401 Golf Course Drive, Baxter, MN Box 5055, Brainerd, MN Larkin-Hoffman 6961 ChaParral Lane 7210 Galpin Blvd. 9950 No. Shore Road, Waconia Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the Public hearing to order. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Terry Forbord. I'm Vice President of land development for Lundgren Bros. at 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. As you may recall, we were before you not too long ago with this concept plan approval and at that meeting the Planning Commission-embraced our concept almost entirely ~nd passed it onto the City Council for their review. At-the City Council meeting held recently, they also accepted the recommendetions of the Planning Commission and also agreed on a couple other fine points that we had presented to the City and approved that concept plan approval and as you know now we're back before you for the preliminary plan approval. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 2 Before we go any further, let me just introduce'the development team to you in case you have any questions of those professionals that I can't answer. To'my immediate right is Ken Adolf. He's our consulting engineer and he's with Schoell and Madsen. To his immediate right is NY. Ron Paterson and he is our wetland specialist. And over here in the corner is Mr. John Uban and he's a principle with the firm of Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, and they have attended all the meetings previously with me. Because you're already so familiar with this proposal as we've pretty much covered most of the details conceptually during previous meetings, out of courtesy to you and I know you have a full agenda, I thought what we would do is go directly to the recommendations in the conditions. Since we last met, and since the City Council meeting of a couple weeks ago, there have been some additional conditions imposed upon this approval and I thought it would be important for us to go through' those this evening and clarify some of them and discuss the remainder. Nhat I'm handing out to you is what is on the overhead and basically it is just a repeat of the recommendations that you have before you in your packet with below it, or in the margin, our comments and I'll just go through these as quickly as I can and if at any time you have any questions or you choose to interrupt me and ask'a question', please do so. On some of these I will actually have our engineers or-the planners or the wetland specialist address them. Under the first items related to the approval of the PUD, we have no comment on either number 1 or number 2. On the recommendations in the conditions related to approval of the preliminary plat (92-4PUD) to create 112 single family lots with the following' conditions. We are requesting that you delete what is being proposed in the recommendation and inserting in it's place the following. The front yard setback for each lot may be a. minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-way. The intent being to minimize the impact on the. natural features of constructing a new home on each'homesite. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14-19, 37-43, 52-S7, Lots 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78-81 in 8lock 2. In addition to these lots, staff has also recommended similar flexibility on.the following lots. Lots 22-24, Lots 30, 31, 46, 47, $8-61 and 66-72 in 8lock 2. The reason that we are asking for that is because if it states as proposed that they shall maintain a 20 foot period.- That means that that has to be the setback. 20 feet. Now the idea, and I think'that we're on the same wavelength as the staff on this and of'the Planning Commission for that matter, because we discussed that at a previous meeting. The idea behind the flexibility is to-insure or to.give the capability to move that structure around a little bit to try to maybe save something. There might be a tree there. There could be something to give you that flexibility but if you say that everyone has to be 20 feet, what happens if at 24 feet you'd save a tree? Ne think that flexibility is an important item. The next item, number 2, we do not have a problem with. Item number 3, we would prefer to modify that and the reason that we'would prefer to modify it is based upon my discussion with the Fire Marshal Mr. Littfin and he had concerns about reducing the cul-de-sac diameter to 100 feet and we indicated to him that that would not be a problem for us. We could maintain that larger diameter and we could work with that. Batzli: Excuse me one minute. Jo Ann, was this originally done? Dropped down to lO0 in order to reduce the grading. Was that the only reason that we had done that? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 3 Olsen: Right. Yes, we're fine with that. Terry Forbord: And we agree with engineer Dave Hempel in that the collector street right-of-way should not be reduced tO 50 feet. Ne think because of the nature of that roadway and the fact that there will be a sidewalk there, that we should leave that at a higher, and ['m not exactly sure what right-of-way yOU're proposing. What is that, Dave? Hempel: 60 feet. Terry Forbord: 60 feet, okay. Olsen: That condition just referred to local streets. Not the collector. Terry Forbord: On page 2, items 4 thru 7, we are in agreement with. On item number S of the same page, right' now the recommendation, the condition of this recommendation states that the area shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not a'llow the removal of any healthy vegetation. What we are proposing instead would be that a tree removal plan, approved by the City staff, will be required for each lot in the subdivision prior to the issuance of a building permit. There shall be no clear cutting permitted for any lot,except for the placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as removal of. any vegetation with a 4 inch caliper or more at 4 feet in height. And I've taken this paragraph from a developers agreement between the city and Lundgren Bros on the Summit at Near Mountain and it's worked quite well. It was actually I think proposed by the city. The reason'that we're proposing this instead is because the way that it's written now, you couldn't build any home. You couldn't build any streets and you couldn't put any utilities in which would preclude us, obviously we wouldn't be able to proceed. Batzli: Can I interrupt you one more time Terry? Terry Forbord: Yes sir. Batzli: Have you guys seen this before? Or did Terry just give this to you guys as well? Olsen: Just now. Terry Forbord: I did not get a chance to get this to them. We had the staff report late Monday and between now and then there was no time to respond and get back to them. Krauss: Excuse me, did you want us to raise Some questions or can we raise some questions on some of these? Batzli: Yeah. Yeah. I'd rather now have to go back through it so if you have questions, you bring them up. Terry Forbord: We could back up if you'd like. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 4 Krauss: point. Well this is on number I think we're comfortable up to that Olsen: Terry is correct in saying that that's the wording for Summit and we've had some difficulty in the tree removal plans where you'll have a tree removal plan. You'll see that the house pad is showing the removal of some of the trees that you had intended to save. Then you're out on the site. It's between you and the homeowner and well, that's where I have to have my house. So you end up losing trees that were supposed to be preserved. And this is, I was just kind of roughly this up right now but the blue area shows the trees on the site. The solid blue areas are the trees that are being removed so the highlighted areas that have not been shaded in are the treed areas that are... Anyway, you can'see that the house pads will still have room in the clear areas and these are the areas that we're saying are to be shown to be.preserved. That's one of the whole reasons that the PUD has been proposed and is being accepted. We're saying that fine. We've agreed that those are all to be saved. Let's save them. And they are not in areas where the utilities are going to be going. They're beyond the house pad area and this is what we did With the Willow Ridge PUD and it's been working very well. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. Terry Forbord: Perhaps there's just some confusion in the language and the understanding. What I was interpretting what staff's condition was, was that the areas in blue would not be able to be, they'd have to be in a preservation zone. And obviously there's streets and there's house pads in there and that would be very difficult. It was just 'my-interpretation of what I was reading. Is it my understanding that the area then that's in white is the preservation zone? Olean: Right. The area that you're showing. That plan shows all the vegetation. It shows the vegetation that's being removed and our intent was the vegetation that's not being removed, to be preserved. John Uban: Maybe I could. Some of our confusion I think came from. the point that when we were before you last time, we had discussed not removing as many trees and allowing the home placement. The actual building of the home to be fitted into the trees that could be saved and not torn out during the construction process of putting in utilities, building pads and the roads. We do have some places on this particular map where'we anticipate the home and the woods will meet. And there may be the need to remove some trees based on the construction that we actually, find happening when we're out there and-do the final plans. What we don't want to-happen is to have that construction process, the final design and siting of each home to be inhibited by a preservation area that could use some adjustment. So what we were suggesting is, rather than the strict preservation based on our preliminary plan at this point, that a preservation happen later on after we're better able to adjust. That's why we suggested this different wording so each site could be looked at specifically. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 5 Batzli: Let me ask you this question. On the plat we're looking at, if you come around the podium and you look up there, you show trees and the house pads aren't anywhere near those preservation areas that Jo Ann has drawn up there. Now I don't understand. I mean you two are missing each other I think. Jo Ann is saying there are tree preservation areas which will be deeded as tree preservation areas. You haven't shown on your plat here, clearly not anywhere near any house pads or anything else. Is there a problem with preserving the tree areas that you show us tree areas on the plat? You can save other trees. Terry Forbord: Yes. Batzli: Ne're not telling you to cut down all the other trees but we're saying these trees in particular are ones that we want preserved. 3ohn Uban: The actual drawing and putting an'easement on the plat prior to construction may not accurately show the edge that will actually be created when you put each one of the homes in place and make those final' adjustments. Ne may decide, and hopefully we'll'find some trees that we can save in the construction process. It may be in a sideyard or a front of a house. Ne may wish to move the house back or twist it a little bit and...adjustments may be inhibited if we too early set a line that says this is the line for tree preservation.. Hopefully, the process we had suggested with individual site plans that show how that tree preservation works would be the best way to match the home with a site and have that preservation take place. Batzli: But see I see a big difference between your condition, which says nothing about tree preservation ar'ea. Ail you're talking about is you're going to submit a tree removal plan. This would be a preservation area which would be part, it would run with the land. Am I right? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Ne don't have a problem with the concept of what you're saying. Here's where the problem exists and we're already starting to feel this a little bit in a previous development. Nhen we talk academically about these kinds of things and we try to create in the narsative what's going to happen, we try to draw these lines to scale of l inch equals 100 and 1 inch equals 50 feet. And all that looks real wonderful but if any of you have ever even done any landscaping your yard or done any kind of work where you actually get out into-the real world and you're dealing with dirt and you're trying to make some things work, I mean that fine line disappears. I mean it disappears. There's no such thing as a fine line. That fine line becomes 10 feet. Becomes l$ feet. And it becomes impossible to do something. For instance, if you,re building a home, you've got to have a perimeter around that.home of probably of anywhere from 10 to 15 feet minimum, Just to be able to function and to operate and everything's going to be wrecked inbetween. Unfortunately. It'd be neat if there was a better way but so far there Hasn't been one developed and all we'se saying, it's where that envelope, that building envelope meets the preservation zone is where the adjustment somehow needs to be made and that's where it gets real'difficult to start dealing with. As far as everything beyond that, everything beyond that envelope or that construction zone, ! don't have a problem-with having a preservation zone. But what happens is that, if you clearly try to say here,s exactly where Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page $ it's going to be, well then you say, you know how do you predict what a house that isn't even there yet, how it's going to fit in that. And so somehow I think that it's important that, and this is what we do in other cities as well and this is what we've done already in this city. We bring forth, here's the plan. Here's the house for this lot. 'Here's the tree preservation plan for this lot, and it works quite well, or it has in the past. Batzli: How do you react to my comment that your. tree preservation, well your tree removal is not equivalent to a tree preservation area which is a condition of approval? Terry Forbord: Like I indicated, we don't have a problem with a preservation zone. I think it's the language or the semantics that we come up with right where the construction envelope touches that zone. What is it going to be? The way I interpret this right now,-and maybe I'm being too paranoid too. I mean that's possible but I'm the guy that has to go out and live and breathe it and make it work. And what we're already finding is that these are very difficult parameters. I think that it's fair to say and I believe that you would agree with me. You trust that we have the same motivations that you do and. I trust that we're on the same wave. We want to save as many trees as possible. It's to my benefit. It's to my customer's benefit but I do know for a fact that when I get Out there it's not as easy as what you see on those pretty drawings in the real world and so we're trying to figure, but a way to make that work. And maybe somebody has a better idea than I've been able to come up. Batzli: But we don't gain a preservation easement though. Terry Forbord: I'm willing to grant a preservation easement outside of the building zone, as long as we have that capability that we're not going to have that problem. Batzli: When does that happen though then? Emmings: That has to happen early. Krauss: Yes. It has to happen now with the plat and frankly that's all we've ever asked for. We are not trying to pick and choose homes that you have to shoot uh, I'm sorry. Trees that you have to shoehorn a home inbetween. We frankly have found over the years that this tree cutting plan, and it's not only with Lundgren. It's been used in a lot of. projects, is a meaningless exercise. I mean I will save every tree that I don't have to cut down. Well, that's nice. We're not trying to restrict the type of homes. We're not trying to restrict' where you put the home. We're saying set up a reasonable pad. Set up a reasonable area for the' deck. Where there's trees coming into that lot, set up a reasonable lt~e beyond which cutting should not occur. Now if they can pick and choose and save trees between there and the street because'they shoehorn the house in, more power to them. 8ut we don't want to get into the business of regulating individual trees like that. That's too difficult. We just don't want to do that. Terry Forbord: I agree 100~ with what staff just said. Planning Commission Nesting October 7, ~gg2 - Page 7 Emmings= Then how do you d~fine the no cutting zone? Krauss: They're obligated to show us a building pad on each lot. If it's a 15 foot clear zone beyond that, so be it. You just boot the line further back. It's no different than establishing a no cut line. around the wetland. You make your best estimate of where it is and you shoot that line. It's not a new technology. Terry Forbord: I think we're talking the same language here. In fact we want to take this even a step further in that it's possible that some of the trees in this area that are cross hatched, that are shown for removal, will actually be there when it's done because we'll be trying to save that tree and then try to get the house in behind it. $o from the comments that I've just heard from staff, I think we're talking the same language. How precisely you put that in a narrative and make it so, I'm not exactly sure but I know we're talking the same language. I do not have a problem putting it in a preservation zone beyond the building pad and I think that's what they're saying also. Emmings: I have a question here. We've called these conservation easements in the past and now we"re calling it a preservation area. Is that the same thing? Krauss: It's one in the same. Olsen: It's one in the same. I think with Willow Ridge we did call it preservation. We switched over so that's why we're doing it. And then just one final thing is that we were basing it on this plan that you see here and even in our narrative of the report, we did point out that they are showing the trees right up to the edge and aren't providing that 15 foot area around the house pad and that we do want to have the plans to reflect that. To be honest and say that, when-they show the reduced grading, they now show it right up to the house pad and we're saying, well really you're going to be 15 feet beyond there and so that's what we are agreeing to. That yes, there will be removal of trees beyond that. Not right up. We understand the house pads. That they won't. Emmings: Jo Ann, essentially so I understand. Are the areas you've outlined as the preservation areas on this map, at least roughly the same as what we're seeing in dark green? Olsen: Well we're both using the same information but this'is not what you're going to get. I honestly believe that there will be less trees preserved than what you see on both of these plans because they are not showing that 15 foot leeway around the building pad and that's one of the reasons we pointed that out in the report was just to say that the tree removal has been reduced but yet the plans aren't-really showing all that will be removed. Emmings: But the area that will be in the preservation zone is yet to be agreed upon between the staff and the developer? t4e're just saying there's going to be one. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 8 Olsen: Well there will be a plan similar to this and if Terry wants to add that 15 feet, then yeah. That wouId be the plan that we'would go with. Terry Forbord: And I think you can even add to that by what I've just stated previously. Is that it's possible that some of those trees that are now scheduled to be removed will not be removed. And again, these things are, it's not an accurate science. When you're driving you know a Laterno Or a Caterpillar, dual engine, I mean it's just not that precise and so what you try to do is you try to save it as best that you possibly can. What I'm hearing is that we're in 100~ agreement with the staff. Is what I am hearing here and these are things that when you get'into the actual final design documents, these things become a little more fine tuned and then actually in the developers contract you get further into the language so I don't see this as a problem based upon what I've heard. Batzli: So even if we said something like, the areas as substantially shown on the plans or something. These are the areas that we're trying to preserve. You're comfortable with that. Terry Forbord: Yes sir. 8atzli: Okay. Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions related to number 8? Number 9 was that this has come up before you folks and I think you directed the staff to work with the applicant. It went to the City Council and deleted this item. And because staff felt that it was important they had requested that it be placed back on. And this requirement basically would require that the applicant would provide the city with "a's-builts", locations and dimensions of all corrected house pads or' similar documentation acceptable to the Building Official. Let me give you a little bit of background of what this means. An as-built would be an engineered drawing that would show you a cross section of a building site that would show the depth, width, height, all drawn into detail of what was done on a lot in a subdivision if it had soil corrections done. For each lot that had them. Now, in many subdivisions there is a considerable number of lots that have soil corrections done to them and it's because you have to make your site balance and make all the dirt work and the water flow where you want it and the roads have to go and the house'pads, t mean it's a complicated thing that you're trying to do. And so in some areas you're going to end up either adding dirt or you're going to be trying to cut dirt and if some of the existing dirt that's there is poor dirt or if it's an organic nature and it has some, it compresses and it does not become firm, you can't build a house pad on it. So you have to go through of stripping of that out and then you put in dirt and lifts of maybe 1 foot or 2 foot and you compact it with a roller. Then you put in another lift and you do that until you get it to the elevation that you want to get it at. The problem with all this, and it works quite well, but if you had to do an engineered drawing for each lot, you would add $400.00 to $500..00 of cost to each lot and you'd have a piece of paper that did not solve your problem. Now I think that in my discussion with the building inspector, the problems that they have had in the past typically. Not always but typically have been when they have a developer who is not the builder. And if he's here, I'm sure he can address those. I don't know if he's here or Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 9 not. But in the case with Lundgren Bros. ~e are the builder. We do the work in there. We build the homes and we're there from the very beginning to the very end. Now there's two situations that, two solutions or remedies that we have as a builder. If in fact we have corrected the soil on a lot, and then we sell a house to someone and it's typically like a corner of a house may just get off the building pad a little bit because you might want to tilt that house just to take advantage of the way the streetscape is or the way the cul-de-sac is. Or maybe it Just looks better tilted so let's say you just tilt a house a little-bit so typically if this condition does happen, and this is the fear of the Building Inspector, maybe the corner of a house would just be off the edge of a-"corrected building pad". Okay there's two choices you have if you're the builder. One, you can move the house back into an area.where the soil is suitable. Or two, you dig down further until you hit suitable soil and then you add additional courses of block. And now some of you may have heard this type of terminology before. Those are your two choices. Okay,. so by having an as-built doesn't solve either one of those problems. You wasted $$00.00 and it didn't solve a problem. Now when I asked the Building Inspector, he agreed he had never had a problem with Lundgren Bros. on any situation like ' this. That we had always gone ahead and if in fact we did go off of a building pad, that we always went about and'built and constructed the house in the manner that there would not be a problem. But the situation obviously just is one of those additional layers of regulations that you could add and it wouldn't"have to be Just confined to this type of situation, that keeps adding to the prices of homes and it doesn't solve the problem. And I asked the Building Inspector, what would this provide you with if in fact you had this? He said, well obviously what-he could do is he could have it to scale. When we submit for the building permit, he could take the house, reduce it to that scale and kind of Jockey it around on to see if it was on the building pad. 8ut what are you really doing there again? You're dealing with drawings at 1' inch equals 100 feet. There's absolutely no accuracy whatsoever when y~'re doing something like that. You could not take a drawing reduced to that size and come up and say yeah, now you're on the pad. Now you're not. I mean you could be off 5 feet easily so from a. realistic perspective, that's really not going to give you anything. So we would request that that item be deleted and what we would rather do is what we're doing right now. We'd like to, the Building Inspectors come out. They inspect the dirt. The pad before the footings are poured and we would be happy to provide them with whatever information that is normally done. We've never been asked this in Chanhassen before. We've never been asked it in any other city that we've ever worked in 23 years and we feel it's just a' level of bureaucracy that wouldn't really help solve'a problem. Batzli: Why is this in here? Krauss: Because the Building Inspector asked it to be. Ne have had, the Building Inspector has had problems. There have'been homes that have slid off their building pad. I would agree with Terry that the situation where those happened, I think there were 2 or 3 of them that happened, is not really germain necessarily to this situation because that was a project that had mass site grading. It was a cornfield. That's not the way this is going to be developed. We have asked Steve Kirchman to think of some alternative measures that are less onerous that satisfy him and his Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 10 department. We assume that there are. I really don't know how to advise you on it. It's not something we have expertise in. The condition is worded such that alternative options should be looked at and we're not bound by one method or another. So I'd like to leave it in or leave it with some sort of a provision or provisionary note that says it should be resolved by the time it gets to the City Council. And at that point we can ask the Building Inspector to defend that or make that case themselves. Terry Forbord: We have added our recommendation to there and maybe that would suffice with what Paul just said, in that the applicant shall work with the Building Official to assure that each home is constructed on suitable soils. Krauss: Initially I would say that that's, fine. I mean either way you read it, any alternative is possible. So the alternate language is fine. Batzli: Well, if for example the applicant had to receive approval of the city building official and he was requiring as-bui.lts because he wasn't convinced that it was suitable soil, they."d have to provide that, right? Krauss: Correct. Yeah, and this is a new requirement for the Building Official. And we'd like him to research, it a little further. But again, we don't have a good answer for you tonight. Ahrens: Couldn't we just change similar to-other and leave... Krauss: Sure. Terry Forbord: Any further questions on number 9? Hearing none, item 10 and 11 are fine with the applicant. Item number 12. We would like to replace 12 with the following. That the applicant shall provide sewer and water service to the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlot E and Lot 1, Block 4. And individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D ('cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time of the exception parcel connects to the water and sewer service provided, the City will refund a portion of the connection fees to Lundgren Bros. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the cost of installation of said improvements to said properties through credit of a trunk and sewer and water assessments. think that our consulting engineer, Ken Adolf' can explain this engineering item better to you than I can. Ken Adolf: The two locations that are requested as far as sewer and water extensions are the north side of the development. Sewer and water extension in this area from the north plat line, and another extension in this area to the corner of the exception. And also sewer and water service from the cul-de-sac... The developer is agreeing to do those_but is requesting that some consideration be given to reimbursement of the costs for those extensions to serve other properties. The lift station which serves this entire area is located right there. So there's a fairly long connection required just to get from the lift station to the development. And if these facilities are going to serve other properties, we feel there's some basis for having some of these costs considered either trunk Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 11 improvements or some reimbursement or credit to the current assessments to this property. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that condition. One other condition that was deleted I guess was the modified version was the applicant shall extend sanitary sewer on Street A to the easterly plat boundary. There is a small piece of high ground east of the subdivision that would be very difficult to serve with sanitary sewer when that parcel develops. We anticipate sewer would be brought in from Galpin Boulevard or south of the property on up. There's a low ravine area that would have to be crossed and rather doubtful that there'd be' elevation to service it and be a gravity so it is our recommendation then that Street A, at the easterly edge of the plat, that sewer be extended to that plat edge. Unless the applicant has other provisions, to serve that parcel to the east. Ken ~dolf: I forgot to address that that's an extension in this area. The most easterly lot is right here and that house is really on the west portion of that property. It's kind of the top of the hill. This street grade is going to drop off fairly sharply and in order to service any of this area in the Song property would require lowering the sanitary sewer considerably in this area. We feel that this area of the Song property would be better served by sanitary sewer being extended through-the Song property from the south. Terry Forbord: To the forcemain that's being constructed as a part of the trunk sewer project? Ken Adolf: Well actually it'd be a gravity sewer... Terry Forbord: What increase in depth would you anticipate in that collector road of the sanitary sewer if in fact it was extended in that- portion easterly? Ken ~dolf: This street drops 10 or 15 feet in elevation from this point to the plat line. Terry Forbord: So the additional depth of the pipe. Ken Adolf: The sewer would have to be at least that much deeper to service it. Terry Forbord: I think these are engineering items that the.engineers can possibly get together and work through. Batzli: Yeah. What I would suggest is that you have your consultant talk to our City Engineers to see if that would even be feasible because I don't think that we can vote on that yea or nay without knowing whether the depths and everything else would work out. Terry Forbord: I think it's fair to say that Lundgren Bros, when we meet with the City Engineers, as we always have in the past', we've always come to a conclusion that's been workable for the City and for us and so I think it's just a matter of having that opportunity to do so. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 12 Emmings: What about the other changes they're suggesting there tonight... Hempel: Yes, typically the City would refund a portion of the service costs to the exception. We've done it on similar plats. Vtneland Forest Addition. However, as far as the trunk sewer and water assessment, the City has not typically refunded those costs back to the developer. The cost the City would refund would be a lateral type assessment or cost for installing that section of main to service that parcel. The trunk sewer and water costs are assessed on a unit basis which, depending on the acreage and so forth, is how we arrive'at the number of units to be assessed on the parcel. Therefore we would request that that be eliminated in their proposal. Terry Forbord: Mr.'Chair. We'd like to go on record saying that a lateral benefit reimbursement would be acceptable to Lundgren 8rcs and we think it would be fair. Are there any other questions on number 127 On number 13. The existing business that's on Lot 1-, 8lock 1, we've been asked to require to connect that to urban services. That business is going to be demolished on January 3rd of 1994 at the latest. If the Current owner can find a place to relocate to, then he will be'moving sooner. I think it wouldn't be well advised to spend the kind of money to hook up a buildihg to sewer and water that was going to be demolished in that short of a period of time period so we would ask that that would be struck from the recommendation. Krauss: We could agree to that. Terry Forbord: Number 14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specs and detail plates. We've asked that, except for the condition in recommendation number 3 above, which diSCUSsed the right-of-way reduction and also discussed leaving the cul-de-sac at 120 which everybody seemed to agree with, that shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Everything else to that remains the same. Emmings: I don't understand the change you're making. Terry Forbord: The change is if you look at item 'number-3, Or condition number 3. It states that the preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street rights-of-way from 60 to 50 and reduce the cul-de-sac radius from 120 to 100. We've already discussed that item land it's already been acceptable but I believe the City's standard specifications show 60 foot right-of-ways and that's why I'm saying except for. And I think they'd agree with that. Hempel: Yeah. No, we've comfortable with that. Terry Forbord: On page 5, 22 thru 24 are, we're in agreement. Page 5. Did I skip a page? Emmings: Yeah, there's a page missing. Terry Forbord: Page 5, or mine are out of order. Excuse me. Page 4. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 13 Emmings: Our's are too. Terry Forbord: How can those copying machines collate out of order. I've not figured that out. I apologize for any inconvenience. Emmings: You could work for the city if you do something like that. Terry Forbord: Number 15 and 16 are okay. And number 17, we would ask that that be modified so it would state that the grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation and we've struck the areas related to drain tiling because we do not know 'where existing drain tile is on the site and we do not know if there's any proposed drain tiling. And so I'll let the engineer deal with this and discuss this because he's the one that has alerted me to this. Ken Adolf: Well as Terry said, it's really impossible to show the existing drain tile because no one really knows where they are. We do know that there are a number of tiles in the.area. As far as proposed drain tile, where existing drain tile are encountered,.we're proposing that those would be, by encountered I mean during the construction process we're proposing that those would be either repaired or connected into some storm sewers so that the drainage patterns would not be altered.. Hempel: The reason why Mr. Chairman I believe that comment got put in there is one of the plans did show an existing drain tile through one of the wetland areas. Also, the plan showed a proposed drain tile to connect the two wetlands I believe and we just would like to see thaC information also on the grading plan. Terry Forbord: It is true,.we have discovered one drain tile. The drainage patterns, as our wetland specialist.can tell you, would lead one to believe that the site is laced with them but we do~'% know where they are. They probably will be discovered once construction starts out there. And so it's difficult to put them on the grading plan.now because nobody knows where they are, except for the one or two exceptions that.exist but I - can assure you there are more than that. 8atzli: You don't go out there with your little bent welding rods and kind of dozz around there? Terry Forbord: I always wanted to learn how to do that. Batzli: It works. It works. I've had to find drain tiles that way. Terry Forbord: Are you available on weekdays or weekends? Well, Mr. Hempel, do you have any recommendations how we could maybe amend this? Hempel: I believe we could amend it to include any wetlands or drain tiles that are encountered I suppose during construction. With the as-built construction plans, that these drain tiles be shown on the record drawings. Batzli: If they find one when they're grading, would they be required to fix this? Would it hurt something if they switched it somehow or took out a section? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page i4 Hempel: The city is laced with drain tile systems and what we've found in the past is you're better off to connect these to a storm sewer system or reconnect the drain tiles to keep the drainage pattern that's going. If you interrupt the drainage pattern, you could cause a problem upstream which you may become liable for in the long run. So we have, in the past typically reconnected any drain tiles back up or connected them into a storm sewer system. Batzli: He added to his proposal that the wetland mitigation area is then a known existing and proposed tiles or whatever and also include that they will report any that they find and may be required to connect them or work. with staff if they find them. That would be satisfactory? Hempel: That would be acceptable, yes Mr. Chairman. Terry Forbord: That is acceptable to Lundgren Bros. On number-19, the only modification that we have added to there is the word .drainage. That would be in the third line I believe where it says now, it presently says an easement shall also be provided. I just added a drainage easement shall also be provided along wetlands. I think that was in the intent. I'm- pretty sure by reading further on in the text. Is that correct? Hempen: If I could maybe just ask Jo Ann. Typically wetlands, do we-have a conservation easement over those as well as a drainage easement or, have we in the past? Olsen: We do have conservation easement also. Hempel: Okay. So the final plat of the development can reflect the drainage or drainage utility easement over the wetlands. However, the final plat cannot reflect a conservation easement on that document. Any conservation easement is dedicated through an easement agreement. So I think the language that we use by an easement covered both types of easements. A conservation easement and the drainage easement. Terry Forbord: That's acceptable to Lundgren Bros. talking drainage. $o number 19 is okay. I thought they were Emmings:. Well now, wait a minute. It only does talk about easements for drainage and utilities. That's all 19 talks about if you read it. $o should we add something there? - Olsen: The intent was also to protect the wetlands.- Emmings: It doesn't say that. Terry Forbord: So the appropriate. Emmings: Conservation, drainage and utility easements should be conveyed. If we just add the word conservation in there will we do what needs to be done? Olsen: Are you on the first sentence? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, ~992 - Page 15 Emmings= Yeah. If I just add. Ahrens: But is the purpose of a conservation easement to provide access...? 01sen: Right. So it is the second sentence. Batzli: But the conservation easement is over the wetland area but you want it for. 01sen: It includes the wetland area. The buffer. Batzli: So your number 25 doesn't cover it? 01sen: Yeah, that covers it. Emmings: So Ne can leave 19 the Nay it is. Originally? Is that what Ne were saying now? 01sen: I don't think it makes that big of a difference. Terry Forbord: That would be fine with Lundgren Bros. On number 20, I'll !et the engineer, describe that to you. Ken Adolf: This is probably one of those items that could be worked out with the city engineering staff...but the request, or the condition I should say Nas to extend the storm sewer which right now is going to end at that point and to extend it to this storm Mater basin. We feel'that right now this is discharging right at the existing wetland and there's really no need to extend the storm sewer any farther .... surface very shallow swale... I don't see the need for the storm sewer extension. Terry Forbord: What we're trying to avoid, is we're trying to avoid putting a bunch of pipe in the ground where it's not needed. That's the issue. Hempel: Staff's issue on this is you're essentially discharging the storm sewer in the middle of the resident's back yard. We're saying extend it to the rear property line which is' the sedimentation basin limits or the wetland limits. In either case there's going to be a drainage utility easement over that. The rear yard to provide maintenance and drainage ways so we just felt the resident would end up having an undesireable ditch section through it's back yard and one way to resolve that is to pipe it with storm sewer an additional 30-40 feet of pipe. Ken Adolf: I guess extending it to the rear property-line is fine. That's a shorter distance than the entire distance to the basin. Terry Forbord: To make sure I understand what the two of you are saying. You're saying extend it to the rear property line? Okay. I think this is another item that the engineers are agreeing to agree. Batzli: Well Jo Ann, is there an issue of them putting it directly into a wetland? Were we trying to filter it somehow? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 16 Olsen: I think this is different. Is this the same drainage? This is different. Hempel: This case is different than what 30 Ann had previously indicated about connecting the storm sewer between the wetland and had the pristine spring water traveling through it. What we're concerned about is the discharge of the storm sewer in the middle of the back yard also creating erosion problems. Typically the outlet of the storm sewer is at the sediment basins so discharge is at water level. Not up above which would have the potential for being an erosion problem over time. · Olsen: This is what we're talking about is. My issue is these wetland basins, this drainage would come in... Hempel: Again, I'm sure it's. an issue that can be worked out'during the plans and specs review process. Emmings: Now does piping it to the rear of L'ot 33 solve the problem as far as you're concerned? Hempel: I think it's two different issues. Emmings: Oh it is? Alright, then I do.n't get it. Obviously. .. Olsen: The piping that they're talking about is coming from the street. Drainage. And this over is overland drainage. Emmings: But 20 addresses storm sewer lines. Olsen: Right. Emmings: $o now if we've got two issues here, which one are we talking about in this condition? Batzli: Ns're not talking about Jo Ann's. Olsen: Not talking about me. Emmings: Okay. So you don't have an issue here? Alright- So now, does giving it to the rear of the property line make everybody happy? Hempel: Happier. But we can work it out-during the plans and specification process to arrive at a comparable spot where the pipe should discharge. Terry Forbord: I think that the item that I do.agree whole heartedly with, and I don't believe that is what we're doing but David had indicated that he doesn't want this going right through somebody's yard. Well neither do we. And I can say that for the record. It's not our intent to do that. But we do believe that we can reroute that water or route that water without having to put in pipe. Batzli: Well, what happens if we say that you'll work'with the City Engineering to do this or an other alternative acceptable? Planning Commission Nesting October 7, i992 - Page Terry Forbord: That is acceptable. Yes sir. Batzli: Okay, what's next? Terry Forbord: Well because my pages are backwards here, I'm going to go back to the previous page. Onto number 25. Olsen: That's fine with us. Terry Forbord: The only reason we eliminated G and H is because those are areas scheduled for future development and I'm pretty sure'that the thought was the same between us and staff and I just clarified it. Okay, onto the last page. I'm not sure if my numbering is correct here but for the last item I just stated that all conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit as shown below. Because we had'requested that some of those be changed so if we move into the Netland alteration permit #92-9, we would like to delete item number 2 and I will have Ron Peterson, our wetland analyst address that. Ron Peterson= Thank you Terry. Could I get that mitigation plan for the corner of the site? 3ust by Nay of re-orienting you to this portion of the site Netland basins. 8atzli: Excuse me a moment. Can everyone hear? Okay. Eon Peterson: Wetlands 7 and 7A lie immediately to the north and east of the storm water pond that's shown on this plan. These basins are very, very marginal remnants of a larger wetland that appears to have once existed in this entire area. And are Just barely wetlands. And the reason for that is that there appears to be an extensive tile system under that whole area. Nhat is occurring i-s that we're getting drainage coming in from the east. From the Song property that enters these two small basins and essentially disappears. It enters the tile system at that point and then re-appears at the northern most head of Basin lC. Which essentially takes on a ditch like character from there. [t flows to the south. Now maybe Ken can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't know that we have a problem in routing that drainage to the mitigation area versus the storm water pond. I don't know that it necessarily would need to be piped but perhaps I think a swale Nas already shown in the plans. But I see two options for dealing with these basins, and the reasons behind those options would be related to making sure that we don't end up with some type of a drainage problem with the adjoining lots. One would be to essentially encourage the continued drainage of that area. In other words, and I think that's what we applied for.initially, was to drain those two basins so that all of that water goes to the south and could go into the mitigation'area. In that manner Ne could make sure that that flow doesn't end up turning up in somebody's basement or elsewhere. The other option Nould be perhaps to provide a little bit more fill around the edges of the house pads in those lots and then even excavate those basins slightly deeper so that they form-an amenity and then have those again, discharge to the south. I think to maintain those areas in their current condition is more or less going to.just leave a couple of soggy spots off the back ends of a couple of lots that aren't going to really serve any particular wetland functions and aren't going Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 18 to be an amenity to the lots adjacent and they're going to be rather soggy places for the kids to play in, is what they're going to be. Olsen: The reason that we stated in there that it could be, that wetland 7 could be maintained is that on'some of the plans it still showed that it was existing and that the house pads could still meet it so we were saying that if it didn't need to'be removed,'don't. I agree with what Ron's saying. If it's Just going to be kind of a worthless mushy area, that's not a major issue with us. We do strongly feel that the runoff should be routed to the new wetland mitigation pond. And I don't think it can be a drainage swale. I believe that's a hill. $o I don't know, is it? I can't see on here. Hempel: The grading plan that we looked at indicated a hill there kind sloping down towards the house pad and. Olsen: So therefore it would have to be piped. Hempel: Yeah, it's going to be rather difficult to put a swale'in there. We felt a pipe would have to be installed. Ron Peterson: Perhaps we could get some clarification about what the problem is with running it through the pond. I. mean if it goes into the pond, I don't know what's. I mean the mitigation area that we're creating should have wetland hydrology without having the additional drainage. Essentially all we're doing is bringing two higher areas down to the grade of the existing wetland on either side so that we should be getting wetland hydrology even if we don't get this drainage. Olsen: Well it was, it's just not to waste that drainage-because it was good drainage. And in working with our wetland consultant, they were saying, it was just something that he really remembered when he was visiting the site that there was a high amount of runoff coming into that pipe from the Song property and that was-very high quality runoff coming from another wetland system that carries wetland vegetation with it. Ail the other nutrients. I guess he was saying it would be a real waste to have that go to a storm water pond. That it would be beneficial to have it go to the new wetland mitigation area, and we agreed with that. Batzli: Well let me see if I'm even coming close to tracking what we're talking about here. The current wetland 7 and 7A, they're not high .quality wetlands, correct?- Olsen: Correct. Batzli: So you're trying to take the water and get them out of a not. very high quality wetland and put it down into the newly created one which is about 4 or 5 lots to the south? Olsen: They are currently directiog that' into a storm water pond that's adjacent to the mitigation pond. We're just saying direct it to a different. I mean it's not that much of a difference. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 19 Ron Peterson= I think we can probably find a way to engineer that. I mean I think, we think that would be beneficial too to run that water in there. I'm sure that between the engineers we can work out a way to get that in there. Olsen: Into the storm water pond? This is where it's being proposed to be directed to a new storm water pond. {4hat we're saying is that it should instead be directed to the new wetland area. Terry Forbord: ...water quality? 01sen: It's good water. -It should go to the wetlands instead of a storm water pond. Terry Forbord: Ne don't have a problem with that. Batzli: Okay. Terry Forbord: Okay, the last item that we had a concern with was the next item, item 3 and Ron will address that as well. Ron Peterson: Perhaps you could leave that same graphic up-there for another moment or two. The concept behind the wetland mitigation plan in this area is to blend these two areas, or three areas into' existing wetland basin 1. The three .different parts of it, lA, B and C. And for that reason we have tried to match the grades of that wetland area and perhaps maybe take it down another half a foot to a foot. The reason for that, or for trying to replace what's being lost as close to in kind as we can. And I don't think we have a problem with making some minor changes to add a little bit more diversity in these areas to get a combination of open water and emergent vegetation but we thought that 6 feet was possibly a little too deep to suit that purpose and is going to result in an awful lot of excess mater'ial that we're going to have to waste somewhere and I don't know exactly where that material would go. The second part of this recommendation regarding getting into that part of Wetland lC that lies between those two mitigation areas and deepening that as well. We've been trying to avoid extensive modifications to existing wetlands because the other wetland agencies that we have to deal with will view those as adverse impacts, even though all we're doing is perhaps changing one wetland type to anotheg. I~' recent months we've been on other projects been required to actually mitigate for changes we've made to other wetlands. And so we'r'e trying to keep our mitigation in line with our impacts and leave any'existing wetlands we can alone as much as we can. Olsen: Okay, this is what we were proposing was to combine the mitigation for this whole area, and to increase the depth so there is some open water. We agree that you should try to-mitigate in time but this area is such a large wetland area. It's really pretty low quality and we shoudl really add some open water and Just a diversity would be very beneficial. I agree with what he's saying though by increasing the amount that's going to have to be removing from a wetland that would have been altered to begin with. That's probably a good point and so we should probably modify the condition that this be two new basins then. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 20 Add increase depth to this and they don't necessarily have to alter this one. Terry Forbord: That is agreeable with the applicant. Batzli: Okay so Jo Ann, what ever happened to the conditions we used to put on when people did things like this that talked about slopes and undulating bottoms and muck and all that good stuff? Olsen: Well they're doing that with the one wetland. And that's essentially kind of what we're requesting for these other ones. Batzli: 8ut we're not putting that condition in? Olsen: They already did it with the one, but no.. We could put it in but some of the mitigation that's being proposed are going to reflect what exists there and then those really wouldn't really match so it wasn't an easy condition to do as a general condition. 8atzli: Okay. 8ut those conditions are still what we're trying to achieve? Olsen: Yes. Batzli: Do you follow the change they made to condition 5? Okay. you have anything else Terry? Terry Forbord: Just a follow-up on your comment to what you were' just describing. Those conditions are not a problem for us. As long as we don't have a consistent 6 foot depth in these. We think that's a little over kill and extreme. It ends up causing other problems with other agencies and things and we're trying to avoid that. That is the end'of our comments. I think we may have a couple comments-regarding some 'of the issues related to the buffer strips and I think Mr. Uban has some comments on those. John Uban: Sorry, I was distracted for a second. Terry Forbord: Okay. We were just talking about the buffer strips and the setbacks. 3ohn Uban: When we put together our plan and so forth, and showed the setback to the wetland, 40 feet and then accommodated a l0 foot buffer strip, it was our understanding that when we met with staff and had talked with them, that this basic process was, the setback was-to the wetland. And then you created a buffer strip in which you maintain natural vegetation in there. In that setback area. And what has transpired as either a misunderstanding or somehow we're not, didn't track exactly what was the intent of the setback and as we read the staff report, as it's been amended and handed to us this evening, that they are indicating that the setback is from the-buffer strip. Not from the wetland. And we will do our best to accommodate within the development those adjustments and the fact that we can narrow up some of the streets by 50 feet versus 60 and looking at that type of flexibility, we will Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 21 adjust to best meet that condition. There may be a few spots where it may not exactly fit and we would hope that the flexibility within the PUD and so forth would allow a 5 foot variance here and there where it may be necessary. We don't think it's a big problem and we will make our adjustments accordingly but we did have some confusion on the'real intent and how the ordinance was being interpretted'and applied to this condition. Batzli: Thank you. 3o Ann, we never got your response or rebuttal if you will from their recommendation to modify, condition 1 of the preliminary plat. They listed a lot more blocks and-lots if you will. Did you have any reaction to that? Olsen: No. We're agreeable to what they're proposing. I guess we were just trying to go one step further and to point out lots where, the 20. foot front yard setback would be very beneficial. It would reduce the impact to trees, the wetlands and grading. And so. we're Just playing it out that those lots should have the 20 foot front yard setback. Again that's the whole purpose of the PUD. We're just concerned a lot of times where the setback would actually be 30-40 feet and that would actually be impacting more than what is being shown or believed to'be happening now. Batzli: But given their, assume for a minute that they have a conservation easement around the trees and assume that they need to put the 40 foot buffer from the wetland.' Would you still be uncomfortable with allowing them flexibility to move it around, which is what their proposed wording gives it? Olsen: Right. What they're doing is .fine. I don't think we need to be' as strict as I was. Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. If there is anyone else who would like to address the Commission. I invite you to'do so. If you'd come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record,. we'd appreciate that. Tim Keene: Tim Keene with Larkin, Hoffman, Daley and Lindgren, 7900 Xerxes, Bloomington, and I'm here this evening with Tom Green and Bruce Buxton on behalf of Mills Fleet Farm. Property owners to the south and west. Just a quick question for either of the engineers. It wasn't clear from the drainage plan, and I believe it's wetland 6 in the southeast corner. Will that be discharging off site and if so, which direction? Batzli: I think it's lC. Wetland Tim Keene: Well it's in the extreme southeast corner of the site. Emmings: Can we get something up on the board so he can. Olsen: Yeah. This shows the wetland that you were asking... Ken Adolf: I believe the question was, is the storm water basin in this general area, number 6. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 22 Tim Keene: Correct. Ken Adolf: That's going to discharge off site. I guess indirectly it does. It will discharge into this large wetland...which will extend ultimately off site. Tim Keene: Okay. Will that be wholly contained within the property controlled by Lundgren 8ros or will it be effectine our property off site? Ken Adolf: As I said, this will discharge into this very large wetland complex so we don't expect that given the size of this wetland, that there will be any impact at all. On site or off site. Tim Keene: Okay. 8atzli: Is the property that you're here representing, do they abut this wetland? Is that the issue? Olsen: On the south side. Tim Keene: I'm not certain as to the extreme boundaries of-the wetland and Tom, is that contiguous to? Tom Green: I'm not sure. Tim Keene: Yeah. It's hard'to say from-that site because the site information, once you get off the developed portion is not any level of detail. That was our only question. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, as with any storm retention pond, the city does require that the pond discharge at the pre-developed runoff rate from the sedimentation pond. $o the volume of water or the discharge rate of the water will be at the pre-developed runoff rate. Overall I would anticipate the overall volume or the amount of runoff would be slightly increased with the added impervious surface through the development but as Mr. Adolf has indicated, there's a very large wetland to the south of this development. Batzli: $o you wouldn't envision having to put. in some sort of pipe or culvert at a certain elevation in that wetland is so large? Hempel: That's correct, no. Tim Keene: Okay, thank you. Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the commission? Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing ~as 'closed. Batzli: Joan, do you have some comments for us? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 23 Ahrens: I feel like I just sat through a staff .meeting. I think that a lot of this stuff should have been worked out before coming to us. I'm saying that not just staff but for Lundgren Bros because we've been sitting here for almost 2 hours discussing things that .you're in basic agreement on. Besides that, I'm not going to go over each'condition that Terry has discussed here. I'm going to go along with the staff report on this and with.everything that"s been agreed to tonight between the developer and the staff. The only condition that.I kind of have a problem with is condition S that deals with the tree preservation area. I guess I'll be satisfied. I think Brian you proposed to insert some language. I'm not even sure because I didn't write-it down but I think it was something about the areas...proposed tree preservation areas will be...eventually agreed to by the staff. Batzli: I think I said something about the.areas substantially as shown on the plans will be protected in that they're going to work with staff to get a final designation. But I would like some comfort from us. I agree with you that what.we're looking at is the area that we think. It's substantially that area. I don't mind if they've got to move in-5 feet or 10 feet because that's where the house pad goes. I agree with Terry that looking at this plan with these scales, there might be a couple of minor adjustments but I would like to be assured that it's substantially what we're looking at is going to be preserved. Ahrens: And if that can be done with the language that you've stated, I guess that's all we can do but I agree. I think that that area should be preserved as it's shown on that plat. I guess the questions that remain open I guess I'm going to defer to the city's expertise and allow them to work those things out with the developer. Do we see this again? Batzli: No. On you have any feeling, we talked about this last time a little bit. The issue of the private park versus public. Or 50 foot easements or do you have any concerns with those or the islands? Ahrens: Well I understand the park issue has been resolved by the Park and Rec Commission. They weren't too crazy about t-he private park. I don't personally like the idea of a pr'irate park. I like to see public parks going into neighborhoods. I don't know why developers wouldn't be welcomed to that idea either. But I don't think that we have anything to say about that at this time anyway. Batzli: Well we could recommend. Ahrens: Okay, I recommend that it be a public park. That's going to be a collector street going through and it's going to be eventually there's going to be kids from other neighborhoods riding their bikes to it. There's going to be a trail along TH 41. I mean who's going to, is the Association going to be,- going to take turns monitoring the park to make sure there are no outsiders in the park? Batzli: Well the thing I don't want to see is something that we've talked about in a little bit different setting and that is the problems we've had with some private beachlots. You .know, who enforces these things? Who patrols them? If this is a private park and there's a party Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 24 there, are we responsible? Are the neighbors responsible? Who's responsible to these and that's kind of'bothered me. It also bothered me, I think I brought up last meeting. The kid rides his bike over from the Song property, if Lundgren doesn't develop that and somehow include it. And does this mean that he really' doesn't have a right to play there? Ahrens: WeI1 if it's a private park, I guess r~>t right? Batzli: Well that's the issue. Ahrens: What was your other question? Emmings: Islands. Batzli: Islands. Easements. The roadway easements. How do you feel for example about a 20 foot.setback from the road with the reduced right- of-way? How that impacts? I think you get, if this is, well actually the collector street, are there any houses that will be pulled Up on a collector street 20 feet from it? Olsen: They're proposing some. Batzli: Are they? Ahrens: That are going to be what? Olsen: 20 foot setbacks. Batzli: There was a comment in the report about Lake Lucy Road. That this isn't going to be the same as Lake Lucy Road. Do you re~ember that Jo Ann? Ahrens: Right. They said that. Olsen: The justification for not having the SO foot right-of-waY. Batzli: Yeah. Is it Lake Lucy Road on the east side of, is it Powers that's real. What's the one that they've got the houses tucked in. It's a collector street. Ahrens: That's on the east side of CR 17. Lake Lucy Road, they have all the problems all the time because people drive too fast on it. Batzli: It seems very narrow and it's a collector street and it seems like we're constantly talking about it. How is this different from that? Krauss: There are some similarities but there's some differences too. There's fewer homes on the frontage in this proposal than there is on that street. That street has very small lots. The biggest problem on that street though is that curve where you come onto Nez Perce. In coming around that curve and not being able to see around it and cars then manuevering and turning north into Vineland Forest. The street itself we had some complaints from residents on it when some of the Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 25 platting was occurring. That they didn't wish to encourage thru movements in front of their homes. Unfortunately, that's what that. street's designed for. It is a thru street and so that part of their questions couldn't be answered but most of the problems there come from that, it's probably about a 15 mph curve down to Nez Perce. Batzli: Well it seems to me that there's always a lot of human activity around that road and it seems ill suited to be a collector and I'm wondering how we're avoiding that kind of situation here. Or aren't we? Is it because the lot sizes are small so it's Just kind of a dense congregation of kids playing out in the street? Ahrens: But really there's not even any development on this side of Lake Lucy there so it's not like there's a lot of homes. They're small lots on the south side of Lake Lucy. Krauss: No, it's the same up and down. Ahrens: On both sides? Batzli: It's both. You could drive up and down. Krauss: There were a few vacant lots up to the summer but they're now' built on. You know that's a perfectly straight shot. Each home is 90 feet apart. There's no variation in lot width. There's no change in grade. There are those tough intersections. In this case, I'm not even sure. We do have a wider street section anyway being proposed.. That was built to a very narrow street section. They're proposing to compromise- some on the right-of-way requirement for a collector street but what's the street width going to be there? Hempel: The street width is like a local street of 31'foot back to back wide street. Where the proposed street in Lundgren's would be approximately a 39 foot back to back. Batzli: $o this would be $ feet wider-than that road? Hempel: That's correct. Krauss: It's also going to have a trail along side it. ' Batzli: I guess I'm just thinking, if we have a lot of buffer zone and preservation in the back yard, the place to play will still be in the street because we'll have small front yards, and granted there will be the private park which hopefully will be where the kids go to play o~ at least in the cul-de-sacs but I've noticed a lot of activity on that road. Rhrens: One more comment. It doesn't, are there going to be no parking signs posted in the cul-de-sac? Is t.hat what's being proposed by the Fire Deparment? Hempel: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 26 Ahrens: That doesn't, I mean that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Cul-de-sacs always have lots of people parking on them. Who's going to be monitoring that? It's so unrealistic, I can't even believe'that it's proposed. Olsen: He's making that requirement as a result of the cul-de-sac islands. AhFens: Right, but you know and I know and everybody else knows that people are going to still park on those cul-de-sacs so why doesn't the city just fix the problem and make the area bigger or get rid of those islands if they're unworkable for the city instead of setting up unrealistic expectations. Hempel: Well that was our initial p~oposal was to have those islands deleted. However, we've been kind of advised through the Planning Commission and City Council that they like the idea and to maybe work- from a design standpoint to enlarge the cul-de-sac and to make it so we can have vehicles park there and still facilitate the turning movements of a five truck and school bus, garbage truck and so forth. $o it may require additional pavement in the cul-de-sac to do that if the applicants willing to do that. Ahrens: ...like the idea of an island there but are people going to like having no parking signs in their front yards? Emmings: No place for guests to park. Ahrens: Yeah, no place for anybody to park. It's just... I think the islands have got to go. Batzli: I thought it was my understanding, from Dick Wing and I won't quote. I'll kind of quote. I'll paraphrase. His line was, if we can get close, hose lengths are no problem. Are what ~e're talking about here is the fact that they won't want to back up? Hempel: ! believe that's the 'Fi-re Marhsall's contention.. If they get down a cul-de-sac and it's the wrong cul-de-sac for whatever reason, turning abilities are constricted and they end up. backing out. Batzli: If for example we have people parking all the Nay around the cul-de-sac, could a fire truck turn around in there anyway? Hempel: No. You're correct. They would not be able to. They would however be able to jockey back and forth easier than with an island obviously. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I. ~ had purposedly deleted this portion of our presentation because it would be redundant because we have already given it to you before and to the City Council but we are prepared to addressed each of those issues. The City Fire Marshall himself has a diagram that he shared with us. It had the City of Plymouth's logo on it and I've seen it many times because we~ve developed more lots in Plymouth than anybody else. And what is an acceptable turn around, and there's 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 27 Or 4 different variations. There's one called a hammerhead. I mean there's just a number of different types of variations of what can be done by an emergency vehicle in the event they needed to turn around. In the event they couldn't go through a cul-de-sac. In the event it was closed. I mean they try to figure worst case scenarios, which-they should because precious minutes could save.somebody's'life. When we met with the Fire Marshall, he .shared with us schematics of turning radius of the equipment that the City of Chanhassen has. Including their new vehicle that they purchased within the last few years. We talked with him about his concerns about turning that vehicle around in the event somebody was parked in the cul-de-sac. Whether they were on the outside of the cul-de-sac or whether they would be against the island, because we have the same concern he does. We don't want anybody to get'hurt but are people making a bigger deal out of this or is there really another way around this? And so what we're tried to do, is we've figured out a way to answer that question. Now if you remember, the largest truck that the city has is a boom truck and it has a boom up on top of it and it's high off the ground. $o John if you would maybe put those up on the overhead and then you can describe your overhead to the Planning Commission. John Uban: This is a diagram that we were given that shows...and this shows the turning radius... Terry Forbord: 3ohn, can I interrupt you. Can you describe to everybody what each one of those lines is. John Uban: I'll be glad to. The line with the dash, this is right-of-way right here. This is 120 feet of diameter for the right-of- way. These are lot lines radiating out from the cul-de-sac. The home, we've shown one home with a car and so forth so you can envision then instead of driveways all the way around... Here we show the island and cars parked on the edge and you can see that the template and the equipment can move around the cul-de-sac with cars parked on the inside. We also then looked at what happens with cars parked on the outside. Batzli: Assuming for a minute that the front edge Of the fire' truck is right at the curb as you drive it ther-e. What's the clearance between the back of the truck and those parked cars? 3ohn Uban: Through here, all of 6. feet approximately. Batzli: 6 feet between the back of the fire truck and the car, the way you've got it drawn? John Uban: Right here. Batzli: Yeah. 3ohn Uban: Approximately 6 feet. I might be, you know depending on the cars that stick out. Batzli: Yeah, and if they're parked several feet away from the curb. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 25 3chh Uban: If they're parked out and away from the curb, certainly. The condition that we found that would happen with the cars parking around the perimeter of the same cul-de-sac. What we found is that the outer edge, that is the turning radius, it's not the center island that restricts the movement. It is the parking on the outer edge which happens no matter if you had an island or not. And so that is the condition where there is difficulty in getting the equipment to move around the outer edge. The best way and the only way to manuever them is for the vehicle to come up into the cul-de-sac, back halfway around the other side or a third of the way around, and back out again. Any cul-de-sac, this is the method that has to be used for turning the vehicle around if there are cars parked all the way around the outer edge. Islands or no islands, that is the situation. The island is actually in the center where few movements are actually made so that it actually helps the drawing of where the cars can park... Now this is what we have proposed. This is within 120 foot cul-de-sac width or right-of-way and approximately go feet then where the cul-de-sac curves. Ne also have another design that we will be sho~ing to the Fire Marshall for his review which shows 50 foot.radius or 100 foot deep of curve. And this then gives us a lot more room for the occasional parked car and when we compare it what Plymouth has, they have 80 foot. So if we have the difference between 80 feet and ~00 feet, that gives us l0 feet on either side which can accommodate a pa~ked vehicle and still allow some movement of most vehicles...except for maybe a semi-truck or something like that, through the cul-de-sac without ever having to stop or make any ad3ustments with an island in the center. Terry Forbord: I think the most important thing that one needs to remember is what Chairman Batzli has stated. That if there was no island in this cul-de-sac, that vehicle would have difficulty turning around if cars were parked within the cul-de-sac. The Fire Marshall's concern about cul-de-sacs isn't if there was a fire in this cul-de-sac as if it was a fire in a different cul-de-sac and they made a mistake and went to the wrong place. That's what his concern 'is. Because if there Was a fire in this cul-de-sac he could pull the vehicle straight on it and I guarantee they'd fight that fire. They wouldn't saY, oh I can't get close enough. I'm going to leave. But they are concerned if they're in the wrong cul-de-sac and they have to go away. And the way that they would do it, if they couldn't not turn around as indicated, they would do what is really what is done in a hammer head approach. They'd pull in and back up and drive back out. Ahrens: Have these plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? Terry Forbord:. He showed us the plans and we're showing. Ahrens: ...plans been shown to the Fire Marshall? Terry Forbord: These plans are renditions that we made after he gave us the information and we illustrated it-for your benefit. ~hrens: Okay. I think they can go back to the Fire Marshall and see if this is acceptable to the Fire Marshall. They look fine to me...so .that should be taken care of outside of our group. Planning Commission Meeting' October 7, 1992 - Page 29 Terry Forbord: And I think his memorandum indicates that too. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Do you have anything else? 3elf. Farmakes: I'd like to back up 3Dan and say that I think we could have saved ourselves an hour here at least if this had been worked about before the meeting. In fact I'd like to compliment Lundgren Bros. I was at your home on Lake Lucy Road. Your model home. I asked questions about the conservation easement along next to the wetland and acting as a customer and they answered all the questions correctly in regards to that so my compliments. That isn't often the case by the way. Batzli: Undercover. Farmakes: 'That's right. I was undercover for the city. I guess first of all I'll address the issue'of this amended piece here. I support the City on 8. Whatever they'feel comfortable with. I think the idea of the tree preservation thing is a good one. And how they want to reword that would be fine with me. The rest of the 9, 12 and 20, whatever they can work out with the city and them is fine. The rest of them, it was my understanding that you're in agreement with them. So I'll leave that. Some of the stuff that disturbed me is stuff that we talked about already so I'm not going to go at great lengths about it. I'd just be repeating myself. But the issue of these long cul-de-sacs is not very wise for us' to pursue. I know that the Council has approved this and.I'm in a minority here. I don't think that everything that we should be doing design wise for the city should be customer driven. That there are a lot- of very educated people telling us not to do this who's profession it is to design and actually build the city and maintain it. And yet we continue to approve these type of things. These long cul-de-sacs which would be B Street which is basically one long private road. and I think that the original idea of G and I, connecting them was a good one and it reduces any of the cul-de-sacs that are there in this development to being at least fairly short. I think we're being kind of arrogant on 'our part by ignoring this type of advice that we're getting from staff. Getting from noted city designers. Professional opinions, at least from what I've read in that regard. We also don't deliver the mail. We don't pick up students'. Deliver them every day. We don't do the type of functions of plowing streets and ! think we're ignoring what they're sayinQ to us by encouraQin~ this type of development. For the issues of 3 and H and some of the other comments. I'll support the staff on. If they don't think that that would be appropriate based on their earlier recommendations, I'll support them on that. That's it. The issue of the islands. On the issue of maintenance, I'm not sure if that's still been explained. If there's a city concern on that but the turning-radius, if in fact the Fire Marshall says it makes no difference for safety. Batzli: Thank you. Steve. Emmings: I guess I don't have too much to add. I agree with everybody else on the preservation easement on the trees. I think that we've got to have that ahead of time and not at the time of issuing the building permit. On connecting G and I, I do agree with Jeff's comments. And I think we also, Dave did you tell us that they are Doing to be utilities Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 30 that run on S and I streets and will run between the cul-de-sacs as if there were a street there? -' Hempel: That's correct. The utility extension will be between the two cul-de-sacs and service part of that subdivision. Emmings: $o you'd just have easements across those yards to get in'there for, so there will be sewer and water and all that? Hempel: That's correct. Batzli: Jo Ann, just remain me once more. If they did connect those cul-de-sacs, do they lose any lots? Olsen: No. They showed that they actually gained a lot. Is that correct? Terry Forbord: That's correct. We would gain lots by doing that. The only reason we did it... Emmtngs: I know people like cul-de-sacs and I actually, there was a time when I was, I didn't like cul-de-sacs at all. The only reason, it seems like the marketplace says people like to live on them and I recognize that. I've been told it enough times by enough developers but this is an awful long one. You know when you start all the way up there on A street and get down to here, that's a lot of cul-de-sac so I think it's a minority viewpoint anyway and especially on the City Council so, but I just wanted to let you know. I still think too that options to push B Street to the east ought to be preserved. But I mentioned that last time and nobody was interested in that either. Batzli: You'd have to build a bridge over the wetland. Emmings: Well I don't know. Or you move it up a little to the north and go around. They say that's not much ot: a wetland anyway. But I don't think any of those things are going to happen. $o that's my comments on that. I don't think I have anything else. Ahrens: Brian, can I say just one more thing? Batzli: Yeah, please. Ahrens: I also thought that, I said this at the last meeting that S and I should be...I don't think that's a minority viewpoint. Emmings: Maybe not. Batzli: Matt. Ledvina: Well I don't have too much more to add. i would support the conditions that staff has generated-and also the modifications which have been discussed tonight. I think Lu. ndgren has pretty .much addressed the issue regarding the islands and I think that's a-nice ~:eature ~:or the subdivision so I'd support that. I also support the connection o1: the Planning Commission Meeting October 7, i992 - Page 31 two cul-de-sacs. So I think that would, it would improve the serviceability of the development. Batzli: What do you think about, Since four people have now said they support connecting these cul-de-sacs. If in fact the City Council decided that or Lundgren you know, lobbied them that they really didn't want to connect these, would it make a difference to anyone on the Commission that they drop the island on. these lower cul-de-sacs to improve safety, if that's a concern? .In other words, we're talking long cul-de-sac and if they did have to back out of this thing, it would really be quite a back so would that impress anyone? That that would be an option if the Council decided. Emmings: It doesn't sound like islands are the... · . Ledvina: It doesn't appear that that's an issue as' far as the information they had there. Batzli: Well they would be an issue if people were ignoring the no parking and they were parked all the way up and down. Someone has a party. There's cars parked all the way up and down, maybe it would be helpful. Farmakes: Actually if the island wasn't there, when I go into a cul-de-sac, usually I park within and not on. Batzli: In the cul-de-sac across from me, they park a boat and a truck out into the cul-de-sac $o you've got about a 30 foot object-sticking into the cul-de-sac so I don't know. I don't know why an island would hurt but anyway. Farmakes: I actually agree with them. I think it's a dead space really. Ledvina: No other comments. Batzli: Tim. Erhart: Well Brian, you know I've been here for 6 years and I tell you, we've been talking about cul-de-sacs in every other development-for 6 years and you know, flexibility's nice but this is anarchy, and I agree with 3can and the others that said that some of this.stuff could have been worked out ahead. But I'll'tell you the real problem is, we've got a lot of subjects where we have no policy. If we don't have ordinances, we ought to at least have some policy on some of these things. It's a free for all. I mean one day, depending on who the commissioners attend a certain meeting or whatever seems to be t~ mood that night. That developer gets stuck with the short cul-de-sac. He has to have short cul-de-sacs. A nice guy comes in, or a guy. like Terry comes in with a slick message and you know, everybody loves long cul-de-sacs and we're worrying about, now we're worrying about the City Councilmen. What they're saying these days. And it's not just cul-de-sacs. It's the islands. It's the entrance islands. Now all of a sudden we've evolved a new thing called a tree preservation zone and I've been trying ko get on this agenda now all summer is a discussion to set a policy for tree Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 32 preservation because I tell you what, we haven't even talked them out because Paul already has stated in a report that we've got some problems with the tree preservation zone that we're already applying an~ ! personally think there's a big problem. I'm not going to get into them right now because it's a waste of time. Because I tell you, I've just listed a whole list of as-built drawings. I mean I could go on and on and on. Why do we sit here and discuss in front of all these people and work until 10-'00 at night because some city official here decides that he wants to go to Paul and says he wants as-built drawings. And it's not Paul's decision to tell him no. It's a policy decision. You can't make that in front of every developer that comes in here. Because the next guy that comes in is not going to be as good as Terry and he's going to get stuck with as-built drawings, t4e've got to decide here to set some policy on some of these issues. I think it's a great plan. I'm not surprised that there's a little confusion about the setback thing. I think we've really got to make sure in our new wetlands ordinance that that's clear because it's a change from what we had. I think that's probably the confusion. The note that it's a change so I'm glad you're willing to go with that. And it looks like there was pretty much agreement...it looked like you were comparing the notes Steve. Other than that, I quite frankly a couple years ago we probably Nould have moved to table it until it came back. I remember when Dave Headla was complaining about 12. Thank goodness we're not going to do that here. We're not going to see you on this one again. I think it looks good. That's all my comments. Batzli: Okay, thanks Tim. My comments, oh go ahead Terry. Terry Forbord: 3ust a brief comment. The reason we've continued to pursue some of the items that I've heard being discussed here tonight primarily is the islands, the lack of connection between I and 3, and the medians was because that's what the Planning Commission 'passed onto the City Council. The Planning Commission already said that this is what they wanted and they passed that onto the City Council and-they agreed with you. And so that's why we're back because ! think the vote was 4 to 2 before. I think it was Commissioner Ahrens and Commissioner Farmakes were opposed to the islands and the medians and everybody else was for them and they also wanted the cul-de-sacs. So that's'why we continued to pursue it. It is what we wanted. .Council agreed with you. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: I think we're also ignoring though that that was staff recommendation that we connect. That was part of the staff report. So I don't think that's inconsistent with their policy as far as at least, I haven't been here that long but as far as I know, they've always been opposed to long cul-de-sac situations. I believe it's 1,500 feet. Erhart: If you don't put some rules on it, if you don't put some measureable things on it, it's irrelevant. Farmakes: I don't think this is an ordinance. I think they've been consistent with their recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 33 Krauss: It actually used to be an ordinance. Before my time there was a 500 foot length which is fairly standard 'in most communities. Erhart: You don't have, what's a long cul-de-sac? What to you is a long cul-de-sac might be different to me is a long cul-de-sac. Farmakes: 1,500 feet, was that the? Krauss: 500 feet was. Batzli: We used to say and turn around 1,500 or something. - Emmings: That's because we have one that's that long. I think that's where that number was from. 8atzli: So that was our rule of thumb? Emmings: Yeah. That was the bad one. Farmakes: I remember this issue first, when I was here first coming up as the issue on TH lO1 where there was already an area a long cul-de-sac. Emmings: That's where we first ignored that policy. The Commission said let's stick with it and the City Council said no. Let's have a long cul-de-sac. ahrens: We tried to be consistent'. Erhart: Is there a policy? Emmings: I think there has been. I think the Planning Commission has always said, let's not have them... Erhart: Well I guess my point is, in our office we have a policy it's in writing because I don't think anybody can use a verbal policy. Particularly in a situation that's complex and so many people involved. Emmings: We have a policy but it's'writing them down. Batzli: Thanks Tim for your comments. I think they're good ones. I also would express a little bit of disappointment that some of this stuff wasn't handled. I Understand that Lundgren didn't get the report until 2 days ago or what have you so'that doesn't give them much chance to iron out their issues with staff and I think the problem may be us trying to push some of these things onto the calendar before you're able to work out all these things with the developer. And I'm not sure Where that pressure comes from, although I have a good sense of where it does, to get these things on the calendar but you're probably in the awkward position of, too much of this is resolved behind the scenes. We complain that we're not part of the process but we were just part'of the process and we didn't like it. So in the future, to the extent that these kinds of' things can be ~esolved, I think the Commission in general would be grateful. I like the development in general. I have mixed feelings about the cul-de-sac issue. I like the islands. I'd like staff to, obviously the developer's going to work with Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 34 the Fire Department on the island issue. I think if it would help to redesign, if it turns out that we have a long cul-de-sac and it would help safety at all to remove the islands on those particular, you know on the end ones. The fire truck goes down the long cul-de-sac and .he's going to run, that's where he's going to have the most trouble. And to the extent it would help, I guess I'd at least have recommended staff maybe look into that as an alternative if, I get the sense I.should say, that we're about to recommend that the cul-de-sacs be joined. And maybe this all goes away then but if we don't and it's still an issue because the City Council either overrules us and puts the cul-de-sac back in, maybe staff might want to take a look at that as an alternative which would help safety. I agree with the changes that we talked about. I'Ve been glancing over Steve's notes and I think I agree with most of what he's.about to say so I'd entertain a motion now if we have one. And I do appreciate Lundgren working. I think they have been fairly sensitive here to the wetlands and trees and grading and things and hopefully if history repeats itself, they'll be sensitive to that as they develop this project so looking forward to good things. Emmings: I'll move the Planning Commission'recommend approval of the Rezoning from A-2 to PUD with the conditions, the two conditions in the staff report. .- Batzli: Second. Is there any discussion? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning from ~-2, /%gricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development with the followln~ conditions: i i The applicant shall enter into a PUD Agreement which contains conditions of the preliminary plat approval and wetland alteration permit approval. 2. All conditions of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Batzli: Move on to the preliminary plat approval. Emmings: I'I1 move the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots with'the following conditions. Condition 1 will read as proposed in the handout given us by Lundgren Bros. Number 2 will remain as is. Number 3 will read as follows. The preliminary plat shall be revised to-reduce the local street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet except Street A and maintain the cul-de-sac at 120 feet. And then I'm going to add to that one that cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city of Chanhassen, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the. inside or outside of the turning radius. And no parking signs may be required. Number 4 thru 7 will stay as they are in the staff report. Number 8, we use the version from the staff report with the following modifications. The first senteDce will read, the area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. And then the second Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 35 sentence will'stay as it is. Another sentence will be added that the precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be.agreed upon between the developer and staff. 9 will stay as it is in the staff report but we'll change the word similar to other. 10 and 11Nill stay as they are. 12 will stay as it is in the staff report. And as an aside here I'll say, with the understanding that the wor.k that has Go be done.between the developer and staff with regard to the extension of the sanitary sewer on Street A. 13 wi'll read as proposed by Lundgren Bros. in their handout tonight as will 14. 15 and 16 will stay as they are in the staff report. 17 will read as follows. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also'report to the City'Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. 15 and 19 will stay as.they are in the staff report. 20 will read as follows. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended' to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. 21 thru 24 will stay as they are in the staff report. 25 will read as proposed by Lundgren Bros in their handout tonight. 26 thru 30 shall remain as they are in the staff report. Time out, we've got two 3l's. So 31 as it appears at the bottom of page, oh no, okay. 31 will stay as it is in the staff report, as will 32. 33, ! propose that cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that road be pushed, that ! street and G street be connected. Batzli= Is there a second? Farmakes= !'11 second that. Batzli: Discussion. Ahrens: Good job Steve. Batzli: I'm probably about to vote not in favor of the motion. Not because it wasn't beautifully crafted but only because of the issue on the cul-de-sacs and I guess in talking about it last time, I think we had agreed and there was probably a different mix of people here, that we liked it. And I'm not convinced one way or the other whether it should go in so I'm going to vote against this probably Just to alert the Council that it's not I think a heartfelt unanimous decision, at least by all of us on the Planning Commission but thank you Steve. Any other discussion? Emmtngs moved, Farmakes ~econded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat (#92-4 PUD) to create 112 single family lots Nith the following conditions= The front yard ~etback for each lot may be a minimum of 20 feet from the street right-of-Nay. The inten~ being to minimize the impact on the natural features of constructing a hen home on each home site. The lots that have already been identified on the preliminary plat are Lots 1, 14-19, 37-43, 52-57, 62, 65, 73, 74 and 78-81, Block 2.- Zn addition to these lots, staff recommends similar flexibility on the following lots= Lots 22-24, 30, 31, 46, 47, 58-61, 66-72, Block 2. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 36 · · · · · · · · 10. 11. 12. £ach lot shall maintain a side yard separation of 20 feet between each principal structure, including decks. The applicant shall be required to submit proof with each building permit application that the 20 foot separation is being maintained· The preliminary plat shall be revised to reduce the local street right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet exert Strut A and maintain-the cul-de-sac at 120 feet. Cul-de-sacs must be large enough to facilitate turning around of all emergency vehicles in the city-of Chanha~en, taking into consideration cars that might be parked either on the inside or outside of the turning radius, and that no parking signs may be required. The landscaping plan shall be revised to provide exterior landscaping along Hwy 41 within the subject property. The exterior landscaping plan must be approved by city staff. The applicant shall provide a copy of the covenants for review and approval by city staff· The pool located on Lot 4, Block 2 shall be removed by the applicant prior to the filing of the final plat. Outlet F and Lot 1, Block 6 shall be vacated by BMT and cleared no later than January 3, 1994. The applicant shall be required to receive demolition permits prior to removing any of the existing buildings. The area substantially as shown on the plans as tree preservation areas will be protected by a preservation easement. The preservation easement will not allow the removal of any healthy vegetation. The precise delineation of the areas for tree preservation shall be agreed upon between the developer and staff. The applicant shall provide "as-built" locations and dimensions of all- corrected house pads or other documentation acceptable to the Building Official. The applicant shall be required to pay'full park and trail dedication fees at the time of building permit application at the per lot fee in force for residential property. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement for future trail construction, along the western border of the subject property abutting the right-of-way of State Highway 41. The applicanL shall provide the necessary drainage and utility easements for construction of the lift station within the development· The applicant shall provide sewer and water service tO the parcels directly north and east of this development. The sewer and water service stubs shall be extended between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 and between Outlet E and Lot 1, Block 4. In addition, the applicant and city engineering staff shall work.together regarding extending the sanitary sewer on Street R to the easterly plat boundary. An individual sewer and water service shall be extended from Street D Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 37 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. (cul-de-sac) to provide service to the exception parcel. At the time the exception parcel connects to the se~er and water service provided, the City will refund a portion ofthe connection fees to Lundgren Bros. The existing home on Lot 4, Block 2 utll-be required to connect to the municipal sanitary se~er line ,ithin one year after the se~er system is operational. The existing business on Lot i, Block 1 shall be removed after January 3, 1994. Except for the condition in Recommendation 3 above, all utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance ~tth the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Formal construction plans and specification approval by the City Council will be required in conjunction 'with the final platting. Fire hydrant spacing shall be subject to review by the City's Fire Marshal. The applicant shall apply for and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory agencies such as.MPCa, Health Department, Natershed District, DNR and MnDot. The grading plan shall be amended to include the wetland mitigation areas and any known or proposed drain tile systems. Furthermore, the developer shall also report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. -. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle l0 year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed to provide access to maintain the ponding-areas, an easement shall also be provided along wetlands and each side of-drainageways from the storm ponds or wetlands. Easements for drainage and utility purposes shall not be less than 20 feet wide along the lot lines with the exception where utilities have been combined in the same easement 'area. In those areas the easement width shall be increased to 30 feet. The storm sewer line proposed to discharge'into Lot 33, Block 2 shall be extended to sediment basin No. 6 or some alternative design acceptable to the City Engineer shall be developed. The applicant shall construct a 36 foot wide gutter-to-gutter urban street section along Street a. The remaining streets may be constructed to City urban standards (31 foot wide back-to-back). Both the business and the existing home shall change their addresses in accordance with the City grid system once the streets have been Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 38 constructed with the first lift of asphalt. Driveways shall also be relocated to take access off the interior street (Street A). 23. Type III erosion control is recommended around the higher quality type wetlands. Type I erosion control shall be around the remaining or lower quality wetlands and sedimentation ponds. 24. The applicant shall' resolve-vacating the existing private road easement through Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5. 25. 26. Drainage and conservation easements shall'be dedicated over all wetland areas within the subdivision, including'outlots except for Outlots G and H which shall be replatted in the future. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant Shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 27. The applicant shall provide high water elevations, for all wetlands. 28. The applicant shall provide at a minimum deceleration and acceleration lanes along Trunk Highway 41 and possibly a bypass lane on southbound Trunk Highway 41 if so required by MnDot. These improvements should be incorporated into the street construction plans accordingly. 29. Plans for the turning radius of the proposed cul-de-sacs with center islands must be approved by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. Note: "No Parking Fire Lane" signs may be required. .This 'will depend on the size of the cul-de-sac and the ability of the fire apparatus to turn around with vehicles parking in the cul-de-sac. 30. All new street names must be approved by the-Fire Department to avoid duplication or confusion with existing street names. A 10 foot clean space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. 32. All conditions of rezoning and wetland alteration permit. 33. Cul-de-sacs G and I be eliminated and that I street and G street be connected. All voted in favor except Batzlt and Erhart who opposed'and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Batzli: Your reasons Tim. Erhart: ...reason you have to be-consistent on previous Planning Commission. And I still, as I say, I don't agree with this tree ordinanc6 thing and I guess that by itself wouldn't cause me to 'vote no on it but I think we haven't thought that through and where it goes with the lot owners on the end. I think we're imposing this on a couple of developers already. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 39 Finding ourselves writing things like, I mean it was a little shocking to me that we, I thought you misread item numbe9 1 where it said we shall maintain a 20 foot front yard setback. Terry, I have to commend you on that. I thought you were just a little off base 5ut what it really is, that's driven by this tree thing. We have put people's safety, we have put trees over people's safety in our thinking in this thing and it's crazy. Emmings: What's the safety issue? No front yard? Erhart: No front yard. And then we~ve had years of a real policy...an ordinance where we.said you have a minimum of 30 yard setback. And then all of a sudden somebody gets a wild hair that this tree is worth more than anything and next thing you know we're demanding, we're going to our developers and demanding that we don't exceed the 20 yard setback. Emmings: See I think it's more than that. I don't-think it's just the trees. I don't really connect those two in my mind, although I think sometimes it works out to be the trees. But I think we've also heard people talk about the fact that their back yards are more valuable to people who live in developments like this than their front yards. I'm going to be real interested to see what a development with 20 foot front yard setbacks look like. 'I've got real reservatio~ about it. Erhart: You've got one down by south 'of the one we Just approved. South of, north of Lyman Boulevard where You have these tree preservation easements. 20 foot setbacks. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Erhart: Yeah right, Stone Creek.- Emmings: Well yeah but you can't see houses there yet. But I want to see what they look like when they're in and I don't know what it's going to look like and I've got real reservations about-it but. Erhart: Well I certainly do. Emmings: But I think it has as much to do with, you know if you've got people use their back yards for a lot of recreation. I thi.nk you're trying to create a little bit bigger back yard and you .have all the easements with the wetlands too, not just trees. Erhart: Historically they would go in and make good old American decision. This is their land and if they wanted to remove some trees and make a back yard, that was their perogative and now we're getting into telling people now how to run their home. Emmings: too. Folks used to shoot their neighbors when they got mad at them Batzli: I don't agree with that because this is a PUD and we're preserving more than what they would have had to preserve had they gone in there with a standard subdivision and they could have done exactly what you're proposing with a standard subdivision, and we Chose to preserve natural Planning Commiss£on Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 40 features and that was a decision we make by doing this this way. But I agree with you. Erhart: ...20 foot setbacks.' Batzli: Well then I say, why did you vote to change the zoning to .PUD? I mean let's just do it as a straight subdivision. Erhart: ! think it needed a PUD but this 20 foot setback is only one thing as part of what we've got for the PUD. Ahrens: What's the setback on the house...is that about 20? Terry Forbord: Terry Forbord speaking. To be honest, I just don't know right off the cuff like this. Ahrens: It looks like about 20. Terry Forbord: I believe that it is. An example also is in Near Mountain. Near Mountain has setbacks 1-ike that and I've mentioned that before and Z know it's an older subdivision so it's difficult to remember back. That was 10 years but those are 20 foot setbacks. I apologize, I did not hear the vote. What was the vote? Batzli: It was 4 to 2. Terry Forbord: Okay. In favor or? Batzli: In favor. So the motion does .carry and my reason again was, only on the issue of whether to link the cul-de-sacs. I don't know that we fully looked at that and so I have a hard time voting to link them up. I'm not opposed to linking them up. I just don't know that we really addressed that so, is there a motion on the wetland. Oh, this is well after the fact but I just noticed this. That we approved this without referencing the plans. Emmings: Yeah, and there were 42 plans here 'and I don't know, do we need a reference to a particular plan? Olsen: Well I thought we had the date September 9th in there. That's the date of the plans. The official copy that we got. Batzli: Our motion was made by looking at these plans so for the purpose of the City Council, yeah okay. Is there a motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit? Erhart: What did you finally agree with on 3? Emmings: I can take a shot at it if you want to get going. Planning Commission, I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-9 with the following conditions: 1-and 2 as they appear in the staff report and then 3, modify the version that's in the staff report by just changing the second sentence. The second sentence will read, the proposed wetlands to the north and south of Wetland lC shall Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 41 be combined with Wetland lC. 4, 5, and 6 shall be as they appear in the staff report. 8atzli: Is there a second? Ledvina: Second. 8atzli: ~ny discussion? Emmings: Did that do what you want it to? Olsen: Well I don't know that you can do the first sentence and the second sentence together. I think if they're combined. Emmings: Well that's what you said. You said you still Want them to go to 6 feet on the parts they were creating but not to 'do the part in the middle I thought. Olsen: Right, but I don't know if that means combining them. Emmings: I don't either. Olsen: ...I think what we agreed to was, what we meant by combining them was that they would be the whole, the middle part. The wetland lC would be graded also so you'd have one basin. But now Ithink what we've said is that rather than having to mess with the wetland that wouldn't have been touched, that you have just two basins on either side of it. Emmings: So that won't be combined? Olsen: So essentially it's not being combined. Emmings: What will be between-the. olsen: Existing Wetland 1C. And you'd have basins on either side of it. What we had proposed is that they would be combined and be one basin a~d they were concerned with the dredging out wetland lC that wouldn't have been altered otherwise. Emmings: So you're actually thinking those two basins will have borders all around them? 8atzli: Emro i ngs: There won't be any flow between the... -. Okay, I misunderstood that. How can we fix it? Fix it. Batzli: Just eliminate the second sentence. Do you like that? Olsen: I think that, yeah just using the first sentence. That takes care of it and I'll need a change of at least 6 feet. They don't want it to be consistently 6 feet .... the 3.proposed wetlands adjacent to those shall have a depth. Batzli: Shall have an undulating depth in places 6 feet. Planning Commission Heeting October 7, 1992 - Page 42 Olsen: Right. And then remove the rest. Batzli: And then eliminate the second sentence· amendment· Olsen: Batzli: Ledvina: Batzli: Ledvina: Emmihgs: Batzli: Sounds good. Who seconded this? I did. Do you accept that? Yes. That's fine. Is there any other discussion?- How's that for a friendly Emmings moved, Ledvtna seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Netland Alteration Permit #92-9 with the following conditions: 1. The drain tile leading out of the newly created wetland to Wetland shall not be replaced. · The runoff currently entering Wetlands 7 and 7A shall be piped to the newly created wetland adjacent to Lot 28,.81ock 2. If possible, Wetland 7 shall be maintained in its current condition and location· 3. The three proposed wetlands adjacent to Wetlands'lA, lB ~nd lC shall have an undulating depth of at least. 6 feet in places. · A revised wetland plan shall be submitted which shows each wetland edge, the proposed buffer strip and dimension, and the proposed setback and dimension (not including the buffe~ strip). This plan shall also include the wetlands being created as part of the mitigation plan. · The revised wetland plans shall show that the minimum'average buffer strip required is being met. The applicant shall be required to monument the buffe~ strips with a monument on each lot. The proposed monumentation shall be approved by staff. All conditions of p~eliminar¥ plat and ~ezoning. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 43 PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPT ~PPROVAL TO REZONE 178 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, ~RICULTUR~L ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNZT DEVELOPHENT AND LOCRTED AT THE SE GURDRANT OF HIGHNAYS 5 AND 41 AND NN GU/%DRANT OF NEST 82ND STREET RND HIGH~AY 41, GATENAY NEST BUSINESS PARK. OPUS CORPQR/%TION, Public Present= Name ~ddTe~s Bruce Buxton Thomas N. Green Jay Dolejsi 3ohn Uban Ken Adolf Ron Peterson Harry Adams David K. Dungey Peter Olin Michele Foster Bruce Perkins Paul Paulson 401 Golf Course Drive, Baxter, HN Box 5055, Brainerd, MN 6961 Chaparral Lane Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. Schoell & Madson, Inc. 7101 York Avenue $o, Edina 115 Nest $2nd Street, Chaska 105-Nest $2nd Street, Chaska Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Opus Corporation 125 West 82nd Street 3160 West 82nd Street' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Commissioner Erhart left during discussion of this item and was not present for voting on the motion. Michele Foster: My name is Michele Foster. I'm Director of Real Estate Development for Opus Corporation and I'd just like to make a few brief comments. Ne were pleased to be able to spend a great deal of time with city staff on Monday afternoon so we'won't need to spend a lot of time tonight trying to clarify the staff report since you've been through that process once this evening. Opus is very pleased to be part of this project. We are not the land owners but we have been selected as the developer for Gateway West Business Park. We understand the importance and the prominence of this site in Chanhassen and to the city and that's partly what attracted us to the site. Both it's location and access. It's visibility. It's natural amenities and it's our intent to develop this park as a high quality mixed use business park similar to many other business parks that Opus has developed throughout the Twin Cities. I think Opus is recognized for the quality that we aspire to in our business parks and we expect to perform and implement the same kind of standards in Gateway West. As Kate mentioned, there are a number of issues and we're embarking on a very complicated process for this property and time consuming process. We, by no means have resolved many of the issues.- Basically our goal through this part of the process is to identify what those issues are and work with the city and the city staff as cooperatively as we can to come up with a development concept that works both for us, the landowners and the city of Chanhassen. John Uban, who you saw a few minutes ago wearing one hat is also the group that we are working with as the planning consultants for the project and $ohn would like to make a brief presentation. Basically giving you our perspective on the development concept that we have presented for the property. , Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 44 3chh Uban: Thank you Michele. I'll show you a few overhead transparencies and I'll leave a number of them out because maybe'staff has really reviewed a number of the issues, the comprehensive plan and so forth. What I'd like to show is just generally how we have viewed the site. How we have organized it really to work in a way that we think addresses the many needs that we see the property being used for. There are future goals or future policies of the city that we cannot address at this time because they have not been completed. This obviously will take more work with the various task force and so forth. But what we're trying to do is develop, a park that has a very individual identity within itself, yet works well with the surrounding properties. Adheres to good, responsible e~vironmental standards and provides wonderful opportunities, not only for employment but also for recreation. And what we're looking at is an overall perspective. One that itakes the cooperation of both the landowner, the developer and the city to really make a project that everyone is proud of. One of the elements in this is saving what I think everyone recognizes is the most visible, the most prime corner of the site and saying, let's do that last. Let's wait for the best use possible to come forward and it's one of those things I think that everyone can get excited about. Get involved with and the city and the developer can really work together to make something very nice happen there. We have two cities that are very interested. Chanhassen and Chaska in how the area looks and it's going to be difficult for us to adhere to every one, each individual's concerns about aesthetics and so forth. But we are committed to developing the best possible set of standards that will work with development and at the same time meet public standards for aesthetics. If I could show you then. Basically outlined in the different colors. In yellow are the wetlands and in green are the woods. And you can see most of the environmental features are on the eastern edge. So when we looked at this particular part of the site, we said let's make this the area for park. It has very nice woods in it. It attaches into the industrial that is developed to the south in Chaska, and we're hoping that a park can really develop out of these natural features. And then allowing those edges that are all along the highway, State Highway 41 and 5 to then develop with normal industrial/commercial type development. On the edge over next to the Arboretum ~e do have another wetland which we either see as being used partially for development or for...but we have tried to work it into our development plan .so it does create a nice edge for the adjacent uses. Basically as shown in the comprehensive plan we have indicated from TH 41 and 5 connecting road pattern. This pattern...to conform with what is in the'comprehensive plan. Again and connect a frontage road system on the south side and then to connect at the appropriate places to Highway 5 and to Highway 41. These highway connections have been reviewed many times with MnDot and we have been working with them in detail to coordinate how to enter the property. At what point and how to grade and so forth. The actual development plan, well the other thing that we've looked at, I know there are some concerns about how the right-of-way will be handled along the south side of Highway 5. This is the plan we just received a few days ago from MnDot that has been completed by their consultant Barton-Aschman. And this conforms to what we always have understood to be the right-of-way for Highway 5, except for the small dip in this area which is for slope easement. But primarily we're still working with MnDot to coordinate their needs for right-of-way, both on TH 41 and on TH 5, grade considerations and access and We'll continue to do that. The actual plan that we have developed shows our Planning Commission Meet'lng October 7, 1992 - Page 45 collector street, frontage road that will access the properties to'the east. The property to the east is mixed. There are large wetlands and there are areas that are out of the wetland and there are lots of woods. This is a transitional piece of property. Transitional in the sense that it is heading towards more residential uses as you get. to Salptn and 117. This frontage road system then will connect to 117 and Service. those developable pieces as it goes through that area. What we're proposing the is all along the eastern edge as shown in this green area. To have this area be park. The dark green are the trees and the wetlands ate in there. We proposing a pond. It doesn't have to be there but we' thought parks to have water and this was our presentation that we also made to the Parks Commission. We've been before them and we have a number of issues I think to really work out with them on what is'the direction the City wants to take with parks and we have some ideas. I'll show you a sketch of it later. Also, within this development we're showing, right at the corner, this area that we want to hold for a very good development. For a very good piece of improvement that can really be a landmark for the city. And we will work with the city staff and develop some scenarios to see what works and what works best. Obviously we're going through the PUD process to get some flexibility. To get some of the things that have been addressed in your PUD ordinance and we're looking for that mixed use type of development where we really can't, pull" in a variety' of uses into an area. And we're looking at the potential of institutional, commercial, industrial, office, corporate office, whatever works there the best. we're willing to wait for that. Obviously getting utilities to this area is the critical part of the whole structure because utilities really are sort of the end of the extension as planned by Chanhassen at this point. There is this opportunity to get some utilities through the city of Chaska and that would allow us then to start development on the southern edge, directly adjacent to the industrial that's there today. And we have been working with the exception along Highway 41 and we'll continue to do that. To work out a reasonable way or incorporating their property and this development or attaching and selling to them a parcel that would then give them full access to $2nd so they could develop their parcels independently. $o we would include then in our planning so that the whole area is consistent with access and other treatments. Water tower site. Things like this we will obviously continue to work with the city. Overall, we're trying to prepare a concept here. It isn't really the buildings or the parking that we're illustrating on this. It's basically the land. uses. The road alignment. The park and open space and how we're generally going to treat and work with this property. And the details we'll work out with city staff and we'll be back obviously with a preliminary PUD with a lot mote information. Our scoping EAW. Traffic studies and so forth as we proceed on. We'll have a lot more detail about the kinds of building standards and so forth that are typical for an Opus park. Just to help illustrate some of the things that we're trying to do that we want to have be part of the focus of the park. This is an aerial photo. This is the exception along Highway 41. And part of the buildings are not actually along the exception of the out buildings but the two homes are. It's a single parcel that happens to have two houses on it. Then this is $2nd Street and this goes down. This is down into Chaska. These are the woods that are really nice upland woods that we're proposing then to be a focal point as you come in on 82nd and then this park area would extend on to the east. How this works, if I can get these to line uP. Our proposed road Planning Commission Meeting' October 7, 1992 - Page 46 would come off 82nd Street, start looping through the land to the east and this area is the area of park that we're proposing... With the park, at the present time we're proposing approximately 10~ of the land as park and that is without the, we have 56 acres of upland out of the whole 178 acres. 22 of the acres are wetlands and so when we subtract those things oat, our net land, if we take 10~ of that, it gives us about 15 1/2 acres and we have about 16 acres here of upland park that we're creating in the park atmosphere. The wetlands of course we're not counting. The parks' department is considering acquiring or additional land for other activities. We think that it may not be.wise to take land that with an industrial base that creates a fairly high tax value and employment for the city, to consume a great deal of that for park purposes. We don't know if' the city wants to head in that direction and that's why we want to look at some other ways the park area may really be expanded without taking too much more of the industrial property. So what we've shown on this graphic is the extension of the collector road all the way through to Galpin and here, this area, there are wetlands through here.. This is a DNR wetland on the south side. Here's the wetland up on the north side. This is developabIe and this area in here is not wetland but it's marginal soils but it is very suitable for baseball fields and so forth.. And what this does then, it combines all these woods together with a field and other activities and connects that all the way out to Galpin where you have a proposed school just on the other side and residents. And this system then will also attach to Highway 5 so it preserves and gets parkland right up to Highway 5. It preserves the very large area of the woods and then it connects with these kinds of activities, both the residential areas and the industrial. We think this combination will really work out well and is the kind of planning and vision that we would like to work with the city to see if this can take place. So it's this combination of working together and looking at potential of adjacent properties to really make the whole industrial park, business park work for the community. We'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. This is, did you have more? I'm sorry. This is a public hearing. If there's anyone else that would like to address the commission, please come to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Paul Paulson: My name is Paul Paulson. My address is 3160 West 82nd Street and my 10 acre parcel was indicated on the map earlier this evening. ! have one question and several comments. First of all the question. On page 3 of the staff report. The first paragraph and the section labeled site characteristics. I'll just read the last few sentences and then I'll ask the question. The other residence is owned by the Paulson's and is 10 acres in size. Staff is recommending that these excemptions be included iln the proposed layout of this project. Future street and utility access to these sites needs to be assured. If possible, they should be acquired. The question I have has to do with the last sentence. If possible, they should be acquired. It's not clear to me what's to be.acqu£red here. Whether it's the city and street access or our property. I guess I'd like clarification on that. Aanenson: Well our first choice would be that they be all planned together and not separate because as we're doing the PUD zoning, we'd like them to Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 47 be uniform in architecture and control and that sort of thing. So that would be a first choice. That that be all part of the same development, understanding yours is a larger piece and you have separate access. But obviously the next thing that we are concerned about is that your piece be not excluded from this as far as how that road is, how they have access into that off of West 82nd and the same with the Wrase's. That they not b4 excluded as far as access and those sort of issues. Paul paulson: Speaking of access to the property, in looking at the concept plan, it appears that the southern portion of my current easement appears to be proposed to be a private drive. ~nd I have a concern. Well I would prefer that to be a city street rather than & private drive. Batzli: Where's he talking about? Aanenson: He's talking about this. His property is right here. He's got an easement. 60 foot easement that comes out... Paul Paulson: Now the staff report indicates that the city would prefer that that be a city street. But it appears to be a private drive in the concept plan. On the map here. ~anenson: That's one of the issues that when we look at the traffic study that these are some of'the things that we'll have to, we're just raising these as issues. These are things we'll have to do further investigation on and see which is the best way to serve that property. As I mentioned before, that piece that's adjacent to you, this piece right here. It's a dififcult piece to be developed and we'll have to go through the wetland alteration process to see even how much, because that's a significant wetland there, how much buildable area and where that access is going to be coming to because they're splitting the parking lots. It's a tough piece to develop. So we have to look at where their accesses need to be and so. Paul Paulson: One of my concerns is that the plan doesn't seem to take into account the surrounding land use on Lot 19, which is the lot directly south of my property. To the north of my property is the ~rboretum. My property has residential use. To the west of Lot 19 is the Arboretum. And also to the south of Lot 19 is also residential use. To the south of 82nd Street is the city of Chaska and the City of Chaska comprehensive plan calls for property to the east of their ravine trail system, which you can see on this plan. It starts j~st at the sourthern most point of the easement and extends south. So the Chaska comprehensive plan shows commercial development to the east of that line and residential development to the west of that line. So Lot 19 has'residential use both to the north and the south and the Arboretum to the west and it doesn't seem that it is a consistent use with the surrounding property. So that's a concern. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that. Your property is guided for commercial industrial so if you were to come in tomorrow and propose something~ I think what we stated in the staff report, we don't know what their timing is on that and as things develo~ and we look at access, that we look at what type of use goes in there and how it's laid out and the height and the impacts and those sort of things. We look at that.more carefully. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 48 Paul Paulson: It may be that it's guided for commercial use but the'fact of the matter is, it's residential use. Aanenson: Certainly. And you may be there 20 years. Exactly. That's what we're saying. We'll look at that when they come in and as this develops. Krauss: 8ut the concern is raised that the site plan or concept plan does not reflect the surroundings very well, we agree with. We've said 'that in our report. That's one of the things we want them to look at. Paul Paulson: Okay. So it sounds like you have maybe similar concerns bu I just wanted to make it clear that I believe the plan that produces commercial use between two residential areas may be in conflict with the current use. In regards to Lot 19. Also, I believe given that the comprehensive plan calls for my property to be guided towards commercial use, that even so the plan does not take into account my property and in fact I am to become a captive of the development. If I'm landlocked without consideration for my property in the plan, my property has been severely depreciated for future use consistent with the City of Chanhassen's comprehensive plan since my property will be precluded from visual access from 82nd Street, traffic coordination within the plan and also signage issues. And so this is a problem if in the future my propertl is to become part of commercial development in this area. Given that Lot 19 does not appear to be a consistent use with the surroundings, I'believe that the plan has a natural Stopping point along the eastern part of my property, including the easement. And my easement would make a natural western boundary for the development. This would be normal and consistent with the Arboretum property north of my property. My property, the Arboretum property west of Lot 19 and the residential area south of Lot 19 Given the existing land use on the north, west and south sides of Lot 19, Lot 19 I believe should not be included in the PUD but should rather be used as a natural or creative buffer or transition zone between the existing uses and the PUD. I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to any development west of my easement under any circumstances. Any considerattoT of the PUD west of Highway 41 should be mixed use taking into consideratior possibly multi-family residential for appropriate b~end and transition of use and higher commercial use along Highway 41 corridor and east of Htghwa) 41. I guess the problem I'm having is partly a matter of transition. I believe that there should be a transition from'the western edge of the project into the higher commercial uses of the east. I request the staff not to give concept approval to the portion of the plan west of Highway 41 since I believe some of the investigations underway and including wetlands review, site design and park areas are not sufficient at this time to justify approval of that p~rt of the PUD west of Highway 41. Also, two parties directly affected by the plan were not given notice of this meeting, namely the Landscape Arboretum and the City of Chaska. I request of the Commission continuation of this meeting and at this point I cannot be supportive of the PUD as it is iN regards to that portion west of Highway 41 but am supportive of the overall concept of commercial and light industrial development in the general area. Specifically east of Highway 41. In general I think it looks like a really nice project. I am impressed with some of the sentivity I've seen to the quality of the project. How it fits in with the interest of the city of Chaska and Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 49 Chanhassen. But I do have problems with the western part of it. The west side of Highway 41. Batzli: Your name was again, sir? Paul Paulson: Paul Paulson. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Bruce Perkins: My name is Bruce Perkins and if I can'use this for a second. I live at 125 West 82nd Street with my wife and again, I am also addressing a problem with Lot 19. On page 4 of the staff report it says West 82nd, everything south of West $2nd Street is a business park. That's 3/4 true because from here over, it is designated as business park but this portion is Chaska city park-and that runs down that whole ravine.- And this portion of course is residential. So the staff report really didn't cover or look at close to...82nd Street. Also, I guess I would like to ask whoever's in charge of this, these two buildings were removed about 2 years ago, yet they show on the drawing. And Paulson's house, which is directly effected by this, isn't even on here. And it seems too easy to look at this property and say, well there's nothing there. Not to worry about it. I guess I would ask whoever's doing these drawings to include the Paulson's house and to remove the buildings that are no longer there.. 8atzli: Sir, do you know is your house and the house I guess directly to the north, in Chaska's long range comprehensive plan, are you aware of their plan document and whether they have included you in their park? Their office industrial park. -Or whether your long range zoning is that, does that stay residential? Resident: Yes it does. Batzli: It does stay residential? Okay. Paul Paulson: Excuse me, I do have a coyp of the Chaska Comprehensive Plan with me tonight if anybody wants to look at it. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Bruce Perkins: In our residential, and I know this is-growing and I don't have a problem with that but currently we have 11 acres of property and during the summer it's nice and secluded. In the wintertime we can see the security lights on these properties across TH 41 and I'm also concerned, if this were developed, it brings a lot of light all night into the residential area, which I think degrades the area. I can see we may have some problem here but my concern really has to do with Lot 19. I guess the other recommendation I have is to include Paulson's house there and remove the 2 buildings that aren't there. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address this Commission? Peter Olin: My name is Peter Olin. I'm Director of the Arboretum. I would like to make, if possible, some general statements and then some specific concerns. First of all I was real pleased to find that Opus was Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 60 to be developing this because they have a record of quality development and we're obviously very concerned about what happens on those corners. The Arboretum is a major state and regional resource. We have visitorship now of 200,000 people and that's on an upward trend. It's qualities are it's unique plants, research in trees, shurbs, fruits and vegetables. It's diverse native sites. It's spectacular beauty and it's prominence as a place of human refuge and.respite for visitors are it's qualities. The Arboretum is concerned about any and all development which comes to it's borders and the impact of that development on the Arboretum's qualities. The potential impacts from any of the developments is in general, the goal of the Arboretum is to preserve it's integrity and that's the integrity of the site by ameliorating any negative impacts of adjacent development. And in particular our concerns are visual impact, and that's with any commercial development, especially fast foods, gas station type development. Or whatever commercial might go in there. It's also a concern I think as a gateway to the Arboretum and as well as the gateway to Chanhassen. We're concerned about air and perhaps water pollution impact from the concentration of cars on that site and on Highways'5 and 41. Certainly the air quality will be effected and it will effect our research and it could effect our collections of plants. The water we're not sure' because we don't know exactly how that's going to work. We haven't seen any grading. Noise and possibly light 'pollution impact. Greatly increased noise, especially from the commercial areas. Come and'go traffic will work to destroy the restorative aspects and the solitude of the Arboretum's character, especially when it's right up on it's borders. Commercial development, parking lots, and the like will denegrate the edges of the Arboretum which will essentially begin penetrating in both a visual and physical sense further into the Arboretum. The edge of the development if not treated carefully, both at the land use scale, this conceptual scale, as well as the detail design scale, will be detrimehtal. And it's going to be detrimental to both the Arboretum and the gateway to Chanhassen. There could be some adverse impact on the current and proposed apple and other tree research along Highway 41. By the roadway cuts that are probably going to go in there, parking lots and building construction. Further 'and lastly the pressure to sei'l off our corners of TH 41 and TH 5 becomes all the greater as these high intense uses occur on the other corners. There's already pressure to do that. We have some specific concerns about'this plan. On the west side of Highway 41, I'll Just reiterate some of the ones that were said but there's a visual impact of development on the Arboretum. Of the buildings and the parking lots, especially Lot 19. But also Lots 19 and 20 and 22 is an intrusion into the residential development along the Arboretum's boundary. The impact of grading these sites on the Arboretum property and the potential runoff impact again we don't know, because we haven't seen it but that could be quite dramatic given the condition of that particular site with a depression in there. The impact of parking lots, as I mentioned right on the property line. We find that to be' without any consideration of buffering. Then the lack of buffering considerations throughout the site.' The impact of commercial development proposed for Lots 20 and 21 on the Arboretum is they are obviously not serviced to the major portion of the industrial development as it's stated, because if they were, they'd be in' the center of the development. We recommend that again there's no conceptual approval of anything on the west side of Highway 41 because even conceptually there's simply too many questions which have not been answered. On the east side of Highway 41, we Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 61 are very concerned about the city's proposed water tower which will be visible from most of the Arboretum. And that's a major visual impact and it is our concern. Maybe that can't be helped but it's certainly something that was news to me when I received this package. I did get it yesterday afternoon. T~e fact that the parking lots are all in front of the buildings, which they could creatively be clustered behind the buildings, again at a conceptual level but nonetheless an indication that this is sort of a development as usual. The location of the proposed entry to Highway 41, which we had talked about perhaps lining up with some future entrance to the Arboretum, is actually in a location which makes it very, very difficult to make a reasonable entrance into the Arboretum there. So we probably would not consider that in the future if that were to be the location. Again, if the commercial development's to support the industrial development, it's not located to suggest that. It should be more central.' What it suggests to me are fast food chains that's right there on the highway. Which brings me to the lack of, it's already been mentioned, the lack of any indication of what happens on the corner of Highways 5 and 41,. which it says in there is going to be, in their letter, institutional- educational office/industrial or commercial which to me means it could be a nice big commercial development. Strip development or anything else because that's going to pay a lot of money.for it. I'm glad that the city is asking that that be some indication of what'happens. The proposed park, which I think is admirable, and it is preserving the wetlands and the wood lot, and again when John showed this expanding into the next property it's not really what might happen there because it's someone else's land. It does make sense and it makes my comment perhaps not as valid but it doesn't have much of an opening to this particular development. It's sort of a back lot and not much of a park or a focus to the area. I think if it's considered in a broader contexf, it does make a lot more sense as a park. There was a comment from the staff about removing the treed islands and I guess I would object. I think the more trees we can get, especially in wide expanses of paving, can only help to ameliorate some of the negative effects of all that paving. Do you have a little campaign on with that? In the concept, I think in general really could be reworked to reflect the kinds of quality development that Opus does and hopefully in the details we get that but I think even at the concgptual level it's important. I guess just to summarize, the Arboretum is a unique and regional resource. It happens to be located in Chanhassen, Chaska and Victoria. In order for it to continue as a valuable and unique resource for' research, education, beauty and a place of refuge and respite, it must be guarded by not only the.University of Minnesota and the Landscape Arboretum but by the cities in which it lies. The Arboretum must, I can't read my writing here, continue to be a large tract of land and it has to be defended visually as well as buffered from noise and air pollution.' If it's not, we'll soo~ lose this valuable resource and I think it's something that absolutely has to have a lot of consideration. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? David Dungey: May ! just briefly? Batzli: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 62 David Dungey: My name is David Dungey and I live at 105.West 82nd Street which is, may I? Batzli: Yes. David Dungey: I'm this guy here. As you may have already guessed, I have a concern with a large parking lot being perhaps directly acros~ ~rom my home where my wife and I moved 18 1/2 years ago because of the Arboretum and the agricultural nature of the area. I agree with Dr. Olin and the rest of my neighborhood...more eloquently than I ever could express their concerns that Lot 19 I think is thrust into 'an area inconsistent with the intent of serving Chaska, which I'm sure'you may not have a~y concern about at all but. I don't know how you guys get along with Chaska but. I just think it would be real difficult to remain living next to a light manufacturing plant say with perhaps round the clock shifts. Cars coming and going. A driveway that empties onto a gravel road that is intended to remain gravel for quite some time. The area to the west of the ravine system again is going to stay residential. It just seems like you"ye got a finger of industry pushed into rurality Just because you can so I ask that you consider...concerns too. Thanks a lot. Batzli: Thank you. Harry Adams: I'm the last one. My name is Harry Adams. I live on 115 West 82nd Street with my wife and youngster. I live between. David Dunge¥ and Bruce Perkins and it sounds like we met before this meeting. All of us started considering this plan today, or yesterday. I would just move to se6ond the good recommendations of the earlier speakers for the neighborhood use and I would hope .that, I would second the good things said about the Opus people and I would hope that your staff and the Opus people would keep us in the loop and I think things would go a lot 'better if you could do that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Paul, are the people in Chaska on our list to be notified of the various meetings? Aanenson: Some of them are. Krauss: Some of them are but we can certainly expand the list to make sure. - Batzli: If any of you did not receive notice, please give your name and address to Paul before you leave tonight so that you do get-notices. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Matt, we're going to start with you. Ledvina: Okay. Well I think that-this site lends itself to a PUD and agree with that approach. I really don't know what would constitute an acceptable concept plan for us to approve tonight. I don't have a good Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 63 feel for that. I understand that we'll be seeing this a number of different times as it goes through the preliminary plat and the other steps but I am uncomfortable with some of the things that have been discussed by the residents in the vicinity of this project and primarily the concerns as it relates to the development west of TH 41. I think that the transition is a very important one to me and there may be a way of doing that in this area but there's going to have to be some well thought out plans to really reduce the impact of the proximity of residential and light industrial office, if it can be done at all. $o let's see. I had some comments about just generally, I was a little bit confused as to what the direction or what staff really thought about the proposal. They indicate I guess in the proposal summary, one of the last paragraphs indicated that the proposal or we do not believe that the City's many goals have been met by the concept plan and then three sentences later it says staff is recommending the PUD concept be approved. So I'm confused there. Aanenson: Well the purpose of the concept is to try to outline all the issues that need to be addressed. You need to have a starting point and so this is a beginning and we reflect, as Michele mentioned, we sat down with them Monday for a couple of hours and we said okay, before this can go forward this kind of causes the rest of the things to happen. We've outlined all the other issues. All the ones you just heard tonight. The EIS. The traffic study. How this is going to be serviced by the-sewer. Ail those issues are the next step and it won't come back. It may be 6 months. It may be 9 months before you see this back but they needed a direction to know what needs to be addressed to go foward so they come foward with a concept plan and ask for some direction. The comments you've heard tonight are some of the same concerns that the staff has and they're aware of that and they need to know what direction to go to proceed. That's why it's a concept. Ledvina: Okay. I have a concern about the location of the water tower. I know it was discussed in the report regarding the engineering considerations of'locating it in the highest elevation. That's fine but I also have concerns as it relates to the.visual impact of that. We're attempting to focus this as a gateway...so to speak and I-look at the situation with the water tower at, by Ridgedale and you see that water tower on 394 as you go by Plymouth Road there and it dominants the whole landscape there. And I think that the water tower should be located in another site. Well, it could be in this area but just off the road a bit. It can't be right on the road here so I would very much like to see an alternate location there. I guess in general, I feel that this does represent a good concept overall and I think it's great that we take a large piece of property and not be afraid to put it together as a comprehensive type of development, which this very much is but at the same time I'm very concerned about the residents' opinions and also the Landscape Arboretum's opinion and I guess at this point I don't think I would support approval of the concept plan. Batzli: Okay. Steve Emmings: Let's see, where to start. This should be a' PUD. There's no question about that. I frankly would probably be almost be happier if this was blank because what's on here is very difficult for me to accept even Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 64 though ! know it's a concept stage. There's some things ! like about it but it's scarey when you know the most-valuable piece of the property has nothing on it. That's just, I have to know more about.the corner before could even approve a concept plan. So while ! think they've done some things that are nice things. I like the park area. It makes some sense. like the road that comes down from 41 ahd you come into a T and you see out into that whole park area you know. That's kind of a nice thing. But I'm not voting for a concept plan on thls piece of property without seeing about what's in that corner. ! think it should be tabled and it should come back. Just as an example. If we look at Lot 7, there's a building drawn on there and a parking lot and'there's 7, what do you call the little lines that show grade? 3ohn Uban: Contours. Emmings: Contours. There's 19 of them in that building and it's not even that big a building which means, I don't know, does that mean there's a of grading going on there? I thought one of our goals for this piece of property when we went on t~e bus tour for the Highway 5 study area and everything else. One of the. big goals was to not do too much with that topography. Really somehow, and I don't know if it's possible to do anything there without doing a lot of grading. I don't know but when I set that, that seems to fly right in the face of the kinds of things that we were looking at that time. I've also seen .a plan for this piece of property that was done by, as part of the Highway 5 study' that had the buildings arranged more in a, it was almost in tiers that was all oriented back to the wetland area which made a lot of sense to me. That plan I think did go out of it's way not to, to leave the topography that's there in place and orient itself more inward than outward which made some sense to me. And I don't know if Opus has those plans or is aware of those plans. Mtchele, were you aware of the fact of the presentation that we ha~ from the Arboretum where they were proposing an entrance to 'the Arboretum out there? Okay. That's an opportunity that ought to be pursued exhaustively. It seems like a tremendous opportunity again from the standpoint of having this system of roads that would go' around Highway for local trips and to have the Arboretum on the end of that with an entrance is an opportunity that shouldn't be lost. I agree that that piece of property that's on TH 41, that's an exception now has to have internal access on this thing. At least to 82nd Street, if nowhere else. Lot 19 i. incredibly inappropriate. There is no way that that should be sticking ou there like that. Everything west of TH 41 looks kind of inappropriate but especially is 19 and close on it's heels is Lot 22. That building, is jammed in there in a way that just' looks ridiculous to me. I don't know what you can do there but that looks just awful to me. Peter Olin mentioned the parking lots all in front of the buildings and' again, I know this is a concept plan and I assume this stuff is just thrown in there but it does feel like just more unpleasant development without much thought and I don't like that. The way the whole thing is laid out, the fact that it should be a PUD, I have no quarrel with whatsoever. Batzli: Are you on the Highway 5 Task Force? Emmings: Yeah but I haven't been getting notices of meetings. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 65 Farmakes: Neither have I. Emmings: And I didn't get notice of, the last one they held I never got a notice. Farmakes: Or if I did, I didn't see it. Emmings: I found out after-that it had been held. .' Krauss: Well we haven't had any since then. We're in the process of finalizing the Phase II contract and we expect to have another meeting end of October, early November. We're going to set the date in the next couple days. Emmings: Please. That's something I'm real interested in. Krauss: And one of the concerns we had was that we very much wanted'to include the Highway 5 Task Force, get them involved in a project of this magnitude. You can't ask people to sit and give their evenings to plan for the corridor and then take one of the most important pieces out of that context. So in essence though, I think it's got to be recognized, we're asking Opus and their planners to do sgmething that's very difficult. We're asking them to design to a plan that doesn't exist yet, to a set of policies and standards that we haven't agreed on yet. Emmings: But. Krauss: But there are some general concepts. Emmings: You bet there are. There's a lot out there and as a matter of fact, like I say. Tell me the name of guy from the University. Aanenson: Bill Morrish. Krauss: Yes, they've been given Bill's. Aanenson: Yeah, they've seen that. Emmings: If they're talking to him, then .they're talking to us because Bill's been a real significant-leader i.n that regard .and so if you're talking to him, I think you're talking to the right person. And he is the one who drew that initial plan which may not suit their purposes and I understand that but well, I've said my piece I guess. 8atzli: Thanks. Jeff. Farmakes: I'd just be repeating myself. Most of the item's were just touched on that I have listed on my little page here. 8ut again I'-ll just say that that corner of that highway to the north and south is certainly just fundamental to all the work that's been done up until that point. The Highway 5 corridor plan. It's an extremely important piece of property. Just overall for the aesthetics of the city and I couldn't agree more that where our thinking is and the work that's been done up until that point, I don't know how it applies commercially, which is also an important point. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 66 I don't want to beat up Opus because I think that they're really a fine developer. I'm glad they're out here working on this piece of property but a lot of the design considerations took in what I thought were the sensitivities to the Arboretum and to the adjacent area to the-west of TH 41 which is definitely a concern. And again, I'd just be repeating myself to call out these lots or repeating Commissioner Emmings here. But I too think that actually the direction that he had wa~ more focused.on the drive that came in from the east and for some reason the parking or, I don't know if it was developed where it was realistic commercially but the way that that was structured was much more pleasant and much more in line with an overall effect of taking into consideration of the adjacent property and uses than just maximizing the property at hand. That particular piece of property. It seems kind of almost punitive to take the position to punish the existing landowner of that particular piece because it happens to be there but it is an enormously important piece to the city. And the Arboretum and I'm sure Chaska, if they were here tonight. But going back to the effect of I think we should table this also but I agree that this should be a PUD, if that's any. headway at all for anyone'. Batzli: Is that it? Farmakes: One more comment. When they bring in a concept plan, it would be appreciative if, particularly because of the sensitivity of the area to' the west, if we could move the chart over a little far,ther and see more of what's actually to the west. The comment that one of the individuals made here, I think that that's a necessity to see more specifically of what's happening in the surrounding areas if we're going to develop the property to the west of TH 41. 8atzli: Okay, Joan. Ahrens: I too agree with just about everything that everyone has' said so far. Including the comments Matt made about the water tower. I remember going on that bus trip with Bill Morrish a long time ago-and looking at the site from the bus and he had this vision. One of those vision things. Emmings: Our guru. Ahrens: For that corner and this isn't exactly it. And I don't even know what it was but I think talking to him would clarify what we're trying to say to you tonight. I don't like any of the stuff west of TH 4'1. It kind of reminds of the controversy that's going on now around Yellowstone Park. The ranchers who want to...to the border of the park and they're saying you can't do that because the health-of the park doesn:t stop at the borders. You have to be sensitive to everything that's going on around the park and I know that unless we go in and buy this-land or-the Arboretum buys it, maybe they should do that. Emmings: Just ask the Legislature for it. Ahrens: But you know, realistically it's tough to dictate that someone should leave their land vacant because we just want them to do it because it's the right thing to do. AlthouBh I do think it is the right thing to do. I think that that area should be preserved. I think this has to go Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 67 back to the drawing board. There's some-things that I like. I do like the park areas but they seem a little isolated over there. I don't understand what this looks like. I don't understand the buildings and, it looks like a lot of stuff is real close together in here with a lot of pavement. And so this .has to go back to the drawing board. That's it. 8atzli: Thank you Joan. I think one of the, well I mean there's obviously several issues that have been touched on. Not the least of which is some of the treatment of the development west of TH 41. Issue of the gateway. Potential gateway into the Arboretum. Whether this jives with our corridor, Highway 5 corridor study vision. Some access issues into some accepted lots. And I think maybe one of my biggest problems, the Lot 1 which is kind of vacant and nebulous. And I know that, I don't know that the recommendations that are there right now give us comfort that these things will be changed and I don't know that we can draft them right now. For example Kate, I know you made, you discussed at great length and very nicely that they would have to give us some more concrete thought. Aanenson: What we asked them to do Was plat it. Show how the road can go through there and maybe be lot in 5-10 acre lots like they show on the rest of it. If they do want to leave it out for a bigger use, they come back and tell us specifically so we can run that past you. What specific uses they're looking at. We feel the same uncomfort level and we need to know what's going to be there. What we're asking them to do is tell us more specifically, or lot it out so we can bring that back to you. Batzli: But where is that in the conditions? Aanenson: It's in the report. Emmings: There's a lot of stuff in the report that isn't in the conditions and we do that a lot of times on concept reviews. We tell them these are our concerns and they're not necessarily in the conditions. So I don't think that that's unusual really. Batzli: But in this case that's half the development. Emmings: Yeah. Aanenson: It should be, right. Batzli: The other thing I think is' just the overall sensitivity to the site and maybe that wouldn't normally be in a condition but here I think it has to be. Steve pointed out Lot 7 which looks like it has about a 30 or 40 foot drop over the length of the building. That's serious grading. There's parking lots over similar contours and I doubt they're going to have a parking lot with that kind of a substantial hill in it. And these things concern me from the standpoint that conceptually PUD makes sense. Some of the alignments may make sense other than the fact that they don't do what we want it to do with respect to the Arboretum. So maybe it doesn't make any sense at all. And I'm wondering I guess what concept I would be approving if I voted for this tonight because clearly the overall concept doesn't mesh with what we've thought of for this site. Yet the PUD, the park, the general types of uses do make sense. I'm kind of Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 68 wondering if this is salvagable tonight or if the applicant doesn't want to table it and come back, I get the Sense that the Planning Commission would recommend that the City Council not approve conceptual approval. So I'm at a loss here as far as would the applicant like to kind of take a second shot at it or, because I get the feeling that 'the Commission isn't going to be in favor of approving it. We~ve had several people say that they would move to table it or would like to see it come back. Michele Foster: I'd like to respond directly to'that. And if the feeling of the Commission is that they cannot support the plan this evening, then we will certainly agree to continue the item until we can come back and better address some of the issues that have .been raised this evening. I do want to make a couple of comments, one of which is that the property is guided for industrial and office use and I was not Dart of the discussions that the city went through at the time that this property was considered for that designation. I do think that it's only fair to say that yes, there is going to be some significant grading that needs to occur on this site regardless if an industrial and office park is going to occur here. Now I understand we may not have addressed that very well. We're also not at that stage of the development process to be able to show you grades and grading plans so we have a little chicken and egg problem here of trying to come up with something that clearly you need to feel comfortable with at a stage where we don't have a lot of very clear-direction which is why we're going through this process. And' I understand that there are a number of visionary things that the City would like to see happen here but I'd also like to say that there is some boundaries in which an office and industrial park can function. And it does probably mean that the property can't stay in it's current state and there are going to have to be some significant modifications to what you see there today. But I also understand that obviously we need to go further in addressing some of the concerns that we've heard this evening and putting as much detail to that as we can and we would be, not pleased but if the Commission so chooses to postpone any action on this until we come back, that's acceptable to us. Batzli: Rs a general conceptual thing, and I don't mean to tie your hands on this. Are you dead opposed to putting some sort of buffer where Lot 19 is? I mean are you opposed to doing some of the things you've heard from us tonight? Michele Foster: No, and in fact that's partly why we sat down with the staff on Monday. We sat down with representatives from almost all the city departments to try to understand those issues. I think we'd probably be the first to admit that the property on the west side is very challenging given the numerous objectives that we need to try to accomplish there regarding buffering and the Arboretum and access and wetlands and we probably don't have the perfect solution there. $o no, we understand the issues that are raised in the staff report and that's why we've not objected to any of those. We understand that this is a starting place from which we have to go to the next level of detail and try to incorporate those kinds of concerns. That's what we thought the process was about. Not that we were trying to get some kind of approval that tied your hands in terms of getting the kind'of development that you want to see there. This to us is a starting point and the kinds of comments that we've gotten, while challenging at least tell us where we need to head and what we need Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 69 to deal with. But like I said, there are some boundaries around which even the most creative among us and I'm a developer, not a planner or a designer but we are dealing with a number of very complex and sometimes conflicting goals that we're Just going to have to try to sort out as we go through this and balance them as best we can. FaFmakes: As you understand the Highway $ study that was done earlier from the city, do you feel that the marketplace wouId keep the city from,, and Opus, from producing something that is special there? Something that's different. Michele Foster: I'll be honest with you. I can't, I mean I have not myself spent a great deal of time analyzing what was in that document so really can't address that. Ne will go back and do that and look at it and be in a better position to ~espond to that question the next time we come to see you but I'm not really prepared to answer that very Nell tonight. Farmakes: Perhaps there's something we can do to, are you comfortable Paul that they've taken in the information? Krauss: ...I'm sure Bill would be willing to come down and'kick some things around. Again, we laid these things on the table. Ne weren't exactly sure which way to go. Ne do view this as the start of the process and we'd just like to get as many opinions at this point on the process as we can do that when they dO go through and make changes, they're the right changes. Farmakes: It would certainly seem to me from that plan that the whole crux of this thing would be where that road would enter from, coming from the east. Krauss: But see there's responsibilities on several sides of several of these issues. If a'road's going to be aligned to provide a new entrance into the Arboretum, which is a .fine idea, there needs to be a commitment from the Arboretum to build their side of the road. And again, we wanted to get these things on the table so that people can start looking at the need to make these decisions. Farmakes: And for that to really, sort of the back bone of what his desigr for that concept area was, that if something lik~ that was altered too much, you'd lose a lot of gas out of it. There'd be, you'd lose a lot of the effect. Like you said but it's the egg and the chicken. It would see~ to me that if we could keep getting a type of communication; maybe even more human communication involved it's their understanding of what we've come up with. Where we're thinking so that there'S,.. Aanenson: I guess where the staff was coming frbm too, we can't really lock into a design until we've looked at some of these other issues. I mean we need to look at the traffic. We need to do the EIS. We need to look at the wetlands before we know what some of these butldable lots are and some of the topography issues so they kind of, all these issues need tc kind of run parallel. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 70 Farmakes: My concern would be the valuation of what the realities of the marketplace would be comparatively to what aesthetically we Nould like to do. Because I don't know if we're terribly familiar. Michele Foster: Ne'll make sure that you hear that so I don't think you need to worry. Farmakes: It's sort of a two way communication' thing. Batzli: But I agree. I think with Chaska's planning comments in a broad sense and apparently that's all really, give the opportunity to look at it in kind of a broad things to look at it. Consider it and I think those are some of the same things we're looking at for better or worse. I hate to agree with them but he's right. No, I'm just kidding. Ne like Chaska. So I would, as long as the applicant doesn't mind, ! guess I'd like them to go back and review it a little bit more with staff. Is there a motion to table? Emmings: So moved. Ahrens: Second. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded that the Planning Commission table the Concept PUD for Gate~ay Nest Business Park for further review. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO T~ CITy COpE CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION/SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIRENENTS. Public Present: Name Bruce Buxton 401 Golf Course Dr, Baxter, MN Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. Bruce Buxton: Can I get a copy of the schedule? Batzli: You can if you want one. ... Emmings: I don't know why you'd want to do that to yourself. Ahrens: You can have my copy. Emmings: And mine. Bruce Buxton: The reason I ask is because I'm an engineer and... Emmings: I don't think that will help. Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 71 Batzli: The minute we approve this, you can have one. Emmings: You can have 5 of them. Krauss: Well actually, feel free to give yours out 3can but.I'd like to keep the rest of them to give them to the Council. This isn't the final printing. We do have some corrections. Batzli: I'm going to keep mine. Emmings: You're asking us to vote on something that I have no idea what the hell it is, you realize that? Krauss: I had to write a report on something I had only the foggiest idea. Krauss: Okay, there's no one else in the crowd that wants to address the Commission. Ledvina moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. ~11 voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: I just have one question. Dave, should we do this? You're an engineer, shou.ld we do this? Hempel: Yes. We have put together. Emmings: That's enough. Hempel: Okay. Emmings: Nothing you say is going to help me understand this.- Batzli: Does anyone else have any comments in regard to adopting this in our ordinances? Ahrens: No, I think it's a great idea. I've been waiting for this for a long time. Batzli: This is actually fairly significant from the standpoint I think, that it goes hand and hand with the wetland alteration permit process and setbacks and things that we're going to talk about. Because we are I thin~ now on the verge of shrinking the setbacks and things like that and we oeec something to enforce and to make sure the wetlands are protected as we move closer to wetlands here so, this is actually a very important part of that process. So it's something the wetland, the swamp committee has been working on in connection with these consultants. ' So I think it's a good step. Is there a motion? Ledvina: Ah yes. I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend that the amendment to Sections 18 thru 62 and 20 thru 94 referring to the Chanhassen construct site and erosion and sediment Best Management Practices Handbook be approved. Batzli: Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 72 Farmakes: I'll second it. Batzli: Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded 'that the Planning Commission recommend approving the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the City Code concerning construction site erosion/sediment control requirements as presented in the Best Management Practices Hand3ook. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE TREE PRESERVATION BOARD. Ahrens: I'd like to nominate Tim to the Tree Preservation Board. Emmings: Absolutely. Second. Batzli: I don't know that Tim really wants to preserve trees, from what I've heard. Emmi ngs: Batzl i: Tim and I share a lot of opinions about that. You're not a tree hugger either? Emmings: No. Not if they're on my property. I don't want the City telling me what to do with any tree on mY property. Ahrens: Oh one of those. Emmings: I'm taking down three oak trees you can't get'your arms around. It's costing me $500.00 a tree. You ask why .I do that to myself. Batzli: Why? Emmings: I have to. I have too damned many trees. I can't see anything and there's a lot of reasons you might want to take down a tree. I still have 20 you know. Ledvina: They're not dead? Emmings: No. One is dying and the top fell off a second. But I sure w6uldn't want to have to come to the City and ask if I can take these trees down because I don't want them where they are. Ahrens: Did you write that down what he's planning on doing to his trees? Krauss: Yes, we'll send the police out there. Farmakes: The tree police. Emmings: I welcome you to come to'watch. is hear the chainsaws and I'll be running. When you get there ali you'll d< Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 73 Batzli= Paul, how often does this Tree Board meet? Krauss: We have no idea yet. ~'m assuming it's goinglto be monthly. Batzli: What are they going to. do exactly? Krauss: It's going to be a 7 member group. One Planning Commission, one City Council, one Park representative and four residents. Batzli: Is this why we haven't, bare we even talked about Tim's proposal on the tree conservation easements because of this or because we're runnin~ out of time? Krauss: Well, sometimes we run out of time and sometimes we run out of Tim. I mean it's been on the agenda a lot. Batzli: Yeah, and we keep on not talking about it. Ledvina: It's always continued because he's not here. Ahrens: Is that why Tim left tonight? Emmings: Yeah, he's mad. Batzli: Is there someone that would like to serve on this Board here? Present? In the room? Joan? Okay. Well', why doesn't.everybody think about it. Let's do this next time. When is this going to fire up? Krauss: Within the next, I honestly don't know. Probably within the next 30-40 days. Batzli: Okay. We can wait one more meeting then. Krauss: Yeah. Batzli: See if somebody steps forward. Emmings: Well, he has strong opinions. Batzli: He has strong opinions so he may want to be on it and so let's wait for next time to see if he does want to be on it because I would rather appoint somebody that wants to be on it than. Ledvina: I might want to be on it too. Batzli: We'll wait for next time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 16, 1992 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Do you bare a 30 second report from the Director, Paul? Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 74 Krauss: No. I mean do you want one? Ahrens: No. Emmings: No. Batzli: Unless there's something we really need to know, because I didn't look at this part. Krauss: Well yeah, I mean things, real visible things. Target is moving ahead. Emmings: How's Target going? Krauss: Well it's got a problem. The site'plan's been approved. The Rezoning's been approved. The issues outstanding concern the final configuration of the street and it's supposed to be resolved at next Monday's City Council meeting. So that's.going ahead. The-Bluff Creek sewer project should be going ahead', we hope. It's all been, an issue of getting some final easements. Normally. sewer projects aren't important bu this one is because it's the major pipe south of Highway 5 so, this is wha ultimately reaches out to the project that we talked about a few minutes ago. Apart from that, I guess that's about it. Ledvina: Who's Don Buckhout? Krauss: Don Buckhout is a fellow with the DNR who Bowser asked to manage this wetland rules. Ledvina: Okay, that's fine. Emmings: On this thing, our work list. Number 14, sexually oriented businesses. Krauss: I thought we finished that. Emmings: Well yeah, I don't know why it stays on here'. You know it's at the Public Safety Commission and is going to the City Council so why don't we get it out of there. Ahrens: Is the only thing you were concerned about? Batzli: 'What did we do on that? We said we couldn't come up with an ordinance. Krauss: Well we determined that it wasn't really a matter of zoning. It' more a matter of licensing. The only, there were two approaches. One is the designated combat zone. The other was to define it and then regulate it, license it and say you've got to be so many feet away from sensitive land uses. The licensing approach was t~ one that seemed more likely which took it out of the purview of the Planning Commission. It's not a zoning issue. So it was bumped over to Public Safety and Roger Knutson wrote an ordinance, I guess pretty similar to, a standardized ordinance Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 75 that's been adopted. In fact it makes for rather interesting reading. I mean the definitions. Emmings: No, I read it real slow and several times. Did i~ include tree huggers? Satzli: To make a comment. I recall that, well I don't recall the discussion going quite that way so I guess I'm interested that the Public Safety Commission not only looked at 'it but they came up with an ordinance when I thought it was our ·position that we didn't want that kind of ordinance. I think it does effect the public land use and $o I disagree from the standpoint that because it's licensed doesn't have anything to dc with use because it will significantly impact a lot of uses if you license one. · . Krauss: Well, the context was, I mean I think we all agreed-that we had some First Amendment sensitivities and had some difficulties with the process. We also had difficulties with, I mean this was not an issue you brought up. It was an issue the Mayor brought up and it was one that we were being asked to come up with something and then move it along. The only zoning based option you have is the combat zone designation. You can't ban these things so you're then forced into allowing them someplace that's a legitimate commercial site. So what are you going to do? Are y( going to say between 78th and 79th Street, between Market Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd. That's our combat zone. That's where these things can go. Well I don't think anybody was ready to consign over any part of Chanhassen's downtown to this kind of stuff. And I really don't remember the exact discussion at the meeting but Il remember that it was considered not to be a zoning approach and that if anybody's-going to do anything about it, the Mayor really wants something done, it ought to be put into the hands of Public Safety Commission because the concern is more one of social impact I guess. And they took a look at it and.they were somewhat hesitant to do much with it at first. But the ordinance was developed an, refined a little bit and it's-one of.licensing. What you actually wind ul doing is you require these uses to get a license and some of the obligations of the license are that you don't have a criminal record and all those kinds of things. The same as the liquor license that they administer in Public Safety. The other thing is, the only thing that has any relationship to land use is it establishes $00 or 1,O00 foot separatil between those uses. Emmings: And other uses. · Krauss: And other uses and then uses such as schools, churches. Farmakes: As I recall though, the second part of that discussion was tha legal opinion that you got. That just seemed to back up what our concern were in the first place. At least that was my interpretation of even reading that and you people are the lawyers but, that seemed pretty vague to me still. How many possibilities for hourly billings there so I couldn't make anything out of that. Krauss: That ordinance that ultimately came out of the Public Safety, an it hasn't gone to the Council yet. Scott Harr's got to take it to them, Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1992 - Page 76 virtually identical to the one that Bloomington's adopted. Minnetonka's adopted. A number of communities have adopted. It gets rid of the worst. abuse. The situation I think was up in Ramsey where you had a pornography store open up next to a daycare center. It gets rid of that. But no, there's absolutely no way to prohibit it in total. Farmakes: It's pretty late here but I have one quick comment. When I was out getting water there, the designer who's working with Opus. Emmings: Uban. Farmakes: Yeah, he made a comment to her that he was asking, what vision? $o you might want to follow up. Ne might want to follow up closely with that to make sure, because I firmly believe that Morrish did enough work there that you can see a direction that's happening, the interaction between that frontage road coming in from the east and the Arboretum itsel and what he worked out there I think was pretty outstanding so. Batzli: The amazing thing to me though, even beyond that, is that Shardlo gave us a presentation on behalf of the Coalition of Highway 5 owners 2 years ago that did a much more sensitive job all the way along. It was at least better than what this, this thing just looked like a bunch of roads with big buildings. Krauss: Actually I've got a copy ot: that original one... Batzli: Maybe over time it's soften. Krauss: I think so because when I first saw John 'Uban's plan, geez I've seen this one before. Batzli: Okay, so was it that one? Krauss: Yes. Batzli: Okay, so they haven't changed it at all. Krauss: They just took the shopping center off the corner and made it a blank spot. The road alignment changed a little bit. Farmakes: Is the Arboretum moving on doing their work on their end for other there? Krauss: To the best of my knowledge, no. Emmings moved, Ahrens seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favo~ and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 21:55 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim