Loading...
PC 2002 10 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15, :200:2 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Steven Lillehaug, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh and Bruce Feik STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Jason Angell, Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY GRADE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6690 DEERWOOD DRIVE, TIMOTHY TILLOTSON. Public Present: Name Address Mike Wegler 6680 Deerwood Drive Darin Gachne 6670 Deerwood Drive Elaine Otterdahl 6715 Nez Perce Drive Gary Otterdahl 6691 Deerwood Drive Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Uli, why don't you go ahead. Sacchet: One quick question. The staff report states that the builder is the same person as the owner. Can you just confirm that? Saam: I believe that's correct. I guess the owner can speak to that when he comes up. Timothy Tillotson: ...the coordinator, he was supposed to have made sure everything was right. Blackowiak: Right, we'll have you come up to the microphone when we finish with staff. LuAnn? Sidney: Question about why this came before Planning Commission and why it isn't just an enforcement issue. Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Saam: Maybe Kate can add something to this but we tell people when we deal with them on a day to day basis, if they want to appeal a ruling per se of city staff, that they have to take it to the Planning Commission and then onto City Council. In essence if they want a variance from our ruling, and Kate I don't know if you have anything to add to that. Aanenson: Sure, I'd be happy to answer that. There's two things that can occur when there's an enforcement issue. You have the right to appeal a decision of administrative officer. That would mean he'd have to appeal the interpretation of the 10 percent or the enforcement of 10 percent. Or the right to ask for a variance or relief from the ordinance under Chapter 18 and 20, the Planning Commission enforces those. So that's the criteria in Chapter 18. That's why it's before you. He's seeking relief from that request. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, any questions of staff? Lillehaug: Yes. So obviously there is further coordination before the driveway was graded Class V and paved as far as the non-conformance goes? Or was it strictly he was their building permit and then after the fact it was found that it was steeper? Saam: Maybe the owner can add something but the way it usually works is that we don't see anything that's constructed until as-built survey is submitted to us. Unless the owner would call with a question on you know, how should I be building this or what not, but if you're asking if we're out there in the field verifying the grades before it's paved or anything like that, no. No, we don't do that. We tell them up front what it's got to be. They show us on paper how they're going to build it. We approve that. And then at the end, the final check is the as-built survey, just to verify that drainage concerns and issues like driveway grades are all as per the approved plan. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich? No? I have one quick question, kind of adding onto Steve's question. So when then, in that process, does the Certificate of Occupancy get issued? Is that before or after you look at the as-built survey? Saam: There's two ways you can do it. Prior to the CO being issued an as-built survey has to be given, submitted to the City. If because maybe it's in the winter so the surveyor's can't get out there with the snow, they have the option of giving us a $1,500 escrow as security to say well give me my CO. I'll pay you this money and then after the snow melts or whatever, I'll come back with the as-built survey. Then we give them back the money. Blackowiak: So in this case, I'm assuming we did not get the money. There was no snow on the ground. Saam: I believe that's correct, and again the owner can talk to that but yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, so then even knowing that the driveway was not up to code, we still issued a Certificate of Occupancy? Saam: That I'm not sure of, and did you get the CO? Okay, so did you pay the $1,5007 Okay. So he submitted the as-built survey. We reviewed it. We found that it was in error, so we said to Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 get your CO you either have to correct the driveway or give us the $1,500 and then we'll get it all worked out after. Do you follow that? Blackowiak: Yes. Saam: Okay. So we got both in this case. In lieu of doing the corrections he wanted to come through council... Blackowiak: Right, he just escrowed the $1,500. Saam: Yeah, he just gave us the $1,500. Yes. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay. LuAnn, another question? Sidney: Yes. Let's say we were to say well the driveway can stay as is. Can the drainage issues be corrected given the current state of the driveway? Saam: I think they could be corrected. We would have to work with him and maybe whoever his surveyor is to come up with something acceptable to get the drainage to go towards the street. One, just let me point out one of the conditions in the staff report. While it's mentioned in the verbiage on page 3, it says if the variance is granted, if you choose to do this, the applicant must submit a contour plan and drainage plan to show that there are no adverse affects to the neighboring properties. So that's one of the things we do want to make sure we address. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Tim Tillotson: Tim Tillotson, 6690 Deerwood Drive. I brought a couple of pictures just to let you see what it looks like now. Can you see that? That's from the street. Bottom side of the street there's a real steep hill there. Deerwood's real steep. This is from the top side. As far as the drainage issue goes, I've already talked to the guy who asphalted my driveway who wasn't supposed to asphalt it until after I had gotten the as-built survey back, but I showed up one day and he had already had it asphalted. He said he can run a berm along this edge of the driveway and, 6 inch berm and that will take everything out to the street. And if the driveway isn't approved, this is about my only other alternative because my gas and electric run up the center of the driveway underneath it. To turn the driveway 60 feet up, or 50 feet up from the property line out to this point, and I don't know if you can see the survey, the height numbers. Here and here. And there's one right here, it's 1008. That would bring it right at 10 percent. It would be 60 feet and it's 6 feet drop. And that's about where the driveway would come out. But to have to tear the whole thing up and tear up the gas and electric would be very expensive. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Rich, start at this end. Slagle: I don't. Blackowiak: No? Steve. Lillehaug: Yes I do. Why, is there a reason why the driveway is, was built higher, at a higher elevation than what it was planned? Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Tim Tillotson: Because the asphalt guy showed up before I got my as-built survey back, and tarred it while I wasn't there. And I showed up, he had the driveway tarred and asked him why he tarred it. He was supposed to call me because I was waiting for my as-built survey to come back to see where the elevations were to see if I needed to move anything. Lillehaug: Okay, so you knowingly didn't raise the elevation of your house pad, your driveway or anything? Tim Tillotson: No. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Blackowiak: LuAnn? No? Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. So you actually have an alternative solution which seems to be possibly better also. Would it be an improvement for? Tim Tillotson: No. It would just be moving the driveway. Sacchet: So for you it'd be about the same. It seems like it would be better because it's flatter basically. Tim Tillotson: Yeah, you can see off that picture that I showed you, it's very flat there. I mean the ground is almost at a 10 percent, almost right at 10 percent grade right there. Sacchet: Now with the asphalt guy having done that asphalting without your ordering it, you should have some recourse with him, don't you? Tim Tillotson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. That's all my questions, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Oh sure. Slagle: Quick question for staff, ifI may. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Slagle: Your thoughts on that Matt, any issues? Saam: On the driveway realignment? Slagle: Yeah. Saam: No. If it complies with 10 percent, we're fine with that. Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing, so anyone liking to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mike Wegler: Mike Wegler. I own the property at 6680 Deerwood. The house directly affected by the drainage coming off the driveway. That's my biggest issue is the water running there right now, and it needs to be corrected. If that's taken care of I don't have any problem. He really should change the bottom.., plan basically at 10 percent slope. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Darin Gachne: I'm Darin Gachne. I live at 6670 Deerwood Drive, so I'm one house down. I do have some problems with the whole thing. Frankly I don't believe Mr. Tillotson when he says that the asphalt guy came too soon. It appears clear to me from his written application that he knew of the 10 percent grade and chose to disregard it. This isn't the first time that this type of thing has happened on this property or Mr. Tillotson seems to be okay with disregarding the rules. And I feel like we need to take a stand and say look. You need to play by the rules just like anybody else. I don't own the property directly behind me. Mrs. Otterdahl does but there's a huge stack of logs that are sitting back there that were from the property that he cleared. It wasn't his property and he was told not to push them there. He did it anyway. The whole, this whole house being built there from the get go has been an issue. I feel like we need to hold Mr. Tillotson accountable for the rules, whether he buried his, you know cable whatever underneath his driveway. All this is very convenient but I'm sorry but there are rules and we need to adhere to them. And I think that is all that I have. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Elaine Otterdahl: Mrs. Albert Otterdahl. I've lived in the area for over 50 years. Never run into anything like this before. I didn't realize what was going on down in that property until one morning last October, around the first of November, a big semi, I never such trucks coming down those roads that, they're not made for it. And they made big ruts in my property and stuff. Well I didn't have time to take care of it that morning so when I come home I saw it and I called the sheriff's department and they came out, and he said oh you do have damage. In the meantime somebody was working a tractor or grader or down there where Mr. Tillotson lives. So the officer went down and he says I'll go down and talk to him. He says if he come up and apologize and fix it, will that be alright? Well they come walking up and of course I was still irritated, and he said calm down and he said yes, they would take care of the ruts and that, which they never did. And then a comment was made by this gentleman, he says oh. He said, I'm not building this place, but the gentleman that is knows the gentleman that lives in the little doll house, which is my son. And he gave him a half a lot. I said what? Half a lot. Those lots down there are mine. So I hired surveyors and they came out in November to have it surveyed... 503,504, 506 and he had 501 and 502, which is 40 feet...driveway. And I'd like to know how he can cut in on my property. They pulled out the surveying stakes and I had to call my surveyor on New Year's Eve and wanted to know what the laws were, and I got a letter which he states the laws of destroying the stakes. And also I went down and I took pictures. Wanted to know why they have black, how do I put this so you can see it? Blackowiak: Jason, can you give her a hand? Elaine Otterdahl: Up on this? Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Yeah, there's a camera kind of right above the table so. Elaine Otterdahl: Okay. Can you see right here is the black plastic that's supposed to be at the end of the lot. And it should have been over here .... and I was told that that's where the engineers told them to put it. There, instead of here. So I feel that they were driving, they have to make a big mm to get up in their driveway. I think if you were out there and you saw it, you can see where they have to drive up in there. And they have cut into the property. Left those roots from that big oak tree sticking out. And that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Matt, can you clarify generally when you put up some type of an erosion fencing, which that was an erosion fencing, does it have to be on the subject property or do you generally put it on neighbors property? Saam: No. It has to be on the subject property, and I do have the actual survey that we marked up. I guess I could bring it up there but we dash it in right on his property. So yes, it's got to be on their own property. Blackowiak: So it's supposed to have been on his property? Saam: Yep. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this issue? Gary Otterdahl: My name is Gary Otterdahl. I live at 6691 Deerwood Drive. My only concern is the big oak tree there that he hasn't filled in around and the roots are sticking out. The thing is probably going to fall over on my house. I mean it's, he never filled in like he was supposed to. To mow that, now it's just a big divit there so that's only my concern. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, kind of a last chance. Anyone else who'd like to speak, come on up. Otherwise I will close the public hearing and hear comments from commissioners. Slagle: I've got a big question Madam Chair. Would the suggestion by the applicant to move his driveway off to the right, if you will, would that be another application for a variance or is that something that we can deny this request and approve, if we so decide, that change? I mean we don't have the specifics of the change. Blackowiak: I'm guessing that if it was within code, 10 percent grade, there would not be anything for us to review. Am I correct? Okay. Saam: Yeah, I would think you'd have to deny this. Slagle: So just deny this and let you guys do your... Blackowiak: Administratively, okay. Okay. Lillehaug: Can I ask one more question? Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: Are we okay with the side yard setbacks on a driveway? Or isn't there any for a center lot like that? Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Saam: Well that was touched on earlier this year Kate. I don't think, and Kate correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think there are setbacks for a driveway. I think the only issue was if it was in the easement, then we could require an encroachment agreement. Was that right Kate? Aanenson: I can't remember off the top of my head. If you do choose to deny this, then that gives him an opportunity to seek relief by moving it somewhere else and he'd have to meet whatever those standards are in place, so we would resolve that. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Well, let's move to comments. Uli, why don't I start with you. Sacchet: Well this is pretty simple. I live by a principle that is do what you have agreed to do. The applicant has agreed to do this driveway in a certain way with a certain grade. He was aware of the rules. Whether he did it intentionally or not, doesn't even really matter. I think this variance needs to be denied. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with staff's assessment for the request for the variance. The hardship appears to be self created. The applicant has created his own hardship by not constructing the driveway per the approved building permit, and to allow this variance would allow an improperly constructed driveway to exist which I don't agree with. So I believe this should be denied. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I concur with fellow commissioners. I do not accept the justification for a hardship, based on the owner's claim due to no fault of their own. The owner is responsible for all action on his property, just as well as I am, so I do not support this variance. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Nothing else to add. Blackowiak: Okay. And I agree with my fellow commissioners. It's not just his property that's affected. It's everyone else in the neighborhood. Whether directly or indirectly so I certainly would agree with my fellow commissioners and deny this request for a variance. I would however ask staff, Matt specifically to meet with the neighbors, and I'd like you to go out and take a look at the oak tree issue. The roots and the tree and kind of see what can be done to kind of clean that up a little bit because I don't want to have any further problems, if indeed the driveway's moved or however that gets resolved. Fine, but I want the neighbors to make sure that they're getting some satisfaction out of this as well, and that we make sure that that oak tree is protected. Sacchet: Madam Mayor? Madam Chair. Blackowiak: No, Chair. Thank you. Sacchet: We won't go there. I would want to add also the drainage issue. I think the drainage issue, the tree and the drainage issue need to be looked at, but that's something. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a separate issue but yes, please take care of it. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: Madam Chair, one last thing for Matt. Maybe you can take a look at those logs or whatever that issue was. Saam: Yeah, that's... Slagle: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright. So could I get a motion? Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the request for Variance #2002-14 for a maximum of 23.8 percent driveway grade on the property located at 6690 Deerwood Drive based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for Variance #2002-14 for a maximum of 23.8 percent driveway grade on the property located at 6690 Deerwood Drive based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THER EQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 FOOT FENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6610 POINTE LAKE LUCY~ ROBERT AND DAWN BREZA. Jason Angell presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: No questions. Blackowiak: Rich? Slagle: I've got one Jason that, that agreement, the encroachment agreement with engineering department with respect to the drainage and utility easement. Is there a minimum distance from the lot line that a fence, you were saying 2 inches? Angell: Yeah, 2 inches. Through city code it has to be on your property. The fence must be constructed on your property unless you sign an agreement with the neighboring property giving you permission to build on the lot line. Slagle: And so if I understood your comments, the fence, the retaining wall, the sod, basically everything was done about the same time. Angell: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: Let's see. And regardless of what action we take tonight, it is staff's impression that this restitution of replacements and what not and sand play area getting out of there, that's going to be done anyway regardless of what we decide tonight. Aanenson: Correct. Let me just preface that a little bit. Because we're doing a conditional use for the height of the fence, that's what you're addressing tonight. You can add conditions to mitigate the impacts. So I'm looking at that, we didn't want to just ignore the others because we just want to make it clear that that's still in violation of city ordinance if you were to attach conditions for mitigation. That may be an opportunity to mitigate that, but we just want to let you know that they're still, we're still tracking that issue. Blackowiak: Okay, so tonight is just fence height? Aanenson: Correct. But we're giving the background on the other issues that are still tracking to put the owner on notice and to let you know that there's other issues out there. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn? Oh, sorry. Slagle: Still one question left. I was out at the property today. Spoke at some point with the applicant and I don't know if we can get a picture Jason of one of your photos of the back yard. Maybe just seeing it from the house towards, for everybody to see. Let's just go with, well the bottom right hand side. Yeah, there. To the right would be of course the fence going along Lake Lucy. Has the forester been out and determined whether or not, what I would call evergreens, white pines, blue spruces, can be grown along that area to provide some type of barrier. Have we? Angell: She believes that with the amount of vegetation that has been removed that adequate sunlight would be able to get into that area to allow plants to grow. Slagle: Okay. No further questions. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: A question for staff. Do we have any examples of a 14 foot high fence in Chanhassen in a residential area? Angell: The only fence that would be of similar size, and it's not even quite 14 feet, was approved several years ago for the construction of a chain link fence around a large energy tower with barbed wire fence so it was really, it wasn't for a residential district. Sidney: Okay. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. First of all, the conditional use permit is needed for any height fence or just if it's more than 6 feet? Angell: Anything that exceeds the requirements of the ordinance of 6 1/2 feet. Sacchet: So if it's, what happens if it's 6 foot? Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Angell: Then they would just need to sign an encroachment agreement and work with staff through those. Sacchet: Encroachment agree, okay. Angell: And still do restitution and stuff. Sacchet: So our decision is just whether it can be more than 6 ½ feet tall. And staff report says there was communication, quite a bit of communication with the applicant and one specific communication was a letter to the homeowners stating that restitution would be required and lining out what that would be. Has there been a response to that letter? Angell: To my knowledge I do not have any written responses in the folder. The applicant at that time was working with the forester and one of the engineering staff. Sacchet: Well we can ask the applicant. I assume the applicant is here. Okay, that's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Robert Breza: Hi. Robert Breza, 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy. To answer your question specifically regarding restitution, we agree with the conditions set forth in the memorandum and agree to all that. So that. Sacchet: That's good. Robert Breza: Really quickly, this is kind of a side view of what our property looks like, and what we're proposing is to try to have a 6 ½ foot fence that is above the road line. There's a significant change in grade that is affected on the property and I'll have a couple pictures here to demonstrate that a little bit more in effect. So what we're trying to do is to work with the city to reach an agreement where we can get an approved fence height to not exceed 6 ½ feet above the road. Because of the grade change that requires a high degree of variance, I think the fence would probably be 12 to 13 feet. We put in 14 because we were erring on the side of caution in case it's a few inches over, or whatever. I'm approximately, I'm 5' 11". This is the upper north end of the fence, so you can see it's well within the city limit. This kind of gives you an idea of how the grade and this is basically a 6 ½ foot fence today and how it's underneath the grade of the road, which is the purpose or the reason we're asking for 6 ½ feet above the road line. This is basically what you see when you look from the road into our back yard. There's a trampoline set there, three season porch and such. So pretty plain view I guess. And then here's pretty much the last I guess picture as far as the vegetation here, it does hide the fence at least during the summer quite nicely. In speaking with the forester specifically, to try to create more of a barrier that would exist between the road and a 6 ½ foot fence sight line, probably not much would grow there nor do I think the city would agree to plant additional plantings there. If they would, we would comply with that as well. So that's basically the argument for a 6 ½ foot fence. I would argue that people can peer directly into the back yard, and today given what we've seen in the news with kidnappings of children and stuff, and we've found it somewhat disturbing and hopefully you find it supportive to at least have a 6 ½ foot fence above the road. Thanks. Blackowiak: Okay, commissioners. Do you have any questions of the applicant? Uli, go ahead. 10 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: Did you consider having a vegetative buffer? Robert Breza: We did. The canopy, let me know you. We did talk with one specific tree person. The only one I called, and it was brought up by Rich today, whether we could. There's two large oak trees that would prevent trees from growing in the canopy. In addition, you can kind of see there are some trees there already today, which do not provide an adequate buffer today, but would restrict the tree from growing. Blackowiak: Uli, any more questions for the applicant? Sacchet: I had another one but I don't remember it right now. Blackowiak: Okay, we'll come back to you, if you remember. LuAnn. Sidney: No questions. Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I do. Do you agree with the fact that you were well informed by city staff of the existing easements, setbacks, fence height requirements, etc that affects your property? Robert Breza: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, any questions? Slagle: I don't believe so. No questions. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one quick question. As I went by today, it appeared that on the north side of the property, if you have your 6 ½ foot fence, that the topography is such that if you sit on the outside of the fence, it would be 6 ½ feet. I mean you're not standing above the fence at all. Are you? In other words, if you're standing beside the fence, would it be 6 ½ feet tall? Robert Breza: In most areas I would say it's 6 ½ feet or less. You know just depending on the grade. We tried to keep the top straight and then drop it down straight. Drop it down. Blackowiak: Right. It was kind of terraced it looked like. Robert Breza: So depending on you know whether you're standing here and it's 6 feet. Maybe here it's 6 ½ feet or 7 feet, and that was part of the reason why we asked for 14 feet. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, there's one thing I'm still a little bit struggling with. From reading the staff report it seemed that you must have been fairly well aware that there was a drainage easement, a tree conservation easement, that there was a fence ordinance, and also a height ordinance. There's actually four things involved. What I don't understand is, how you could have gone and built a fence, built retaining walls, cut the trees, put in sod, put in a play area, when you knew that all these restrictions were actually in place. 11 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Robert Breza: Well I would say the restrictions weren't in place for the boulder wall. A permit's not required for any wall that's greater than 4 feet. Sacchet: Along a collector street, there's no fence allowed according to the ordinance. Robert Breza: I'm sorry. Sacchet: According to the ordinance there's no fence permitted in the landscape buffer along a collector street. According to the staff report it seemed like these things were explained to you beforehand. Robert Breza: Your point about the fence is correct. Your point about sod, retaining walls I would say is incorrect. Sacchet: Can you explain? Robert Breza: Well the retaining walls were put in within the tree, without any restrictions. They're not impending on any buffer zone. Sacchet: They're not in the tree preservation zone? Robert Breza: Correct. They're along the tree preservation line. And they're less. Sacchet: Okay. Well if they're not in the preservation zone, then it's not an issue. Robert Breza: Correct. And they're less than 4 feet. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, retaining walls. Robert Breza: And the sod, the question, the I think where the forester is talking about the sand play area is in the upper north comer, which was full of buckthom, which we were told we could remove, which we did. We then put down fabric and put pea gravel over the top of it. We were unaware that we couldn't put ground cover down. We were unaware that we couldn't change the slope, couldn't change the grade, which we did not do. We were unaware that we could not put ground cover down. So that was our mistake. But that was never communicated to us. So the spirit of communicating with staff and going around the staff is purely related to the fence. Sacchet: So you did work around the staff with the fence. Robert Breza: I started out the project myself. I started out less than 6 feet which was in the upper northwest comer. I drew a line and got carried away. Sacchet: Appreciate your honesty. Blackowiak: Thank you. I don't think we have any more questions. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? Robert Breza: No thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 record. Okay seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, I'd like comments. LuAnn, would you like to start? Sidney: Sure. I guess this is a little bit different. We're dealing with the conditional use permit, and we have different findings that we have to discuss and agree with. I guess the thing that I noticed here and I think is of great importance is that this conditional use permit should be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. And I think I certainly agree with staff's finding that the construction of this type of fence, this height fence is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, and is not consistent with our zoning ordinances. And the natural resources section of the comprehensive plan really promotes plantings rather than this type offence be constructed. Also I believe the project has stated in the staff report, is not aesthetically compatible with the area. If we allow this fence to be of such great height, we may be setting a precedence which we don't want to continue in the city. I would vote for denial. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I would second your comments LuAnn. I do believe that this is a very beautiful neighborhood. It's a very beautiful house. I understand your fears about what's happening in the world nowadays, but then on the other hand this house was next to the road before and there are like four aspects of ordinance that are violated than what this fence represents and as LuAnn pointed out, the most significant one is the comprehensive plan which promotes plantings along collector roads and preservation of such areas. It's a violation of zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan in that sense. The elimination of the natural buffer is unfortunate. On the other hand it seems like there's a benefit involved in that it actually allows you to plant some trees that will give you better buffer like evergreens, so I'm going to vote to deny this conditional use permit. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich. Anything to add? Slagle: No, other than this. As I mentioned, I had a chance to meet with the applicants and I want to add that I think their honesty, their sincerity is commendable and I would say that their desires for this, for a solution is certainly evident as Mr. Sacchet said. Understandable given what's happening. I'm going to vote to deny it, but I am going to strongly recommend looking at the foliage as well as a fence. I do believe there is the ability to put a fence in there, as well as having foliage to the south of the fence. That's all. Blackowiak: Thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I have just a few things to add. I'm very sensitive to the needs and your desires to protect your family. Definitely 100 percent, I have family as well as many other people do and safety is of utmost importance. I'm definitely not sensitive to the fact that we're having an after the fact conditional use permit before us here tonight. I'm disappointed in the non-compliance with the city staff direction as well as the existing city ordinance. The fence as it stands right now, it exceeds the height restriction by more than 200 percent, or at least 200 percent. There aren't any special extenuating circumstances that differ from the rest of the community that reasonably persuade me to approve this. The property as I see it is relatively well buffered from Lake Lucy Road by the trees. Much more than a lot of people's properties are. For this, I do not support this variance as requested. Or, not the variance, the conditional use permit. I also would like to add that if we were to support this, I believe there would be just a proliferation of after the facts variances, conditional use permits and I don't think that's the way we want to head here. Thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I don't have much more to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners. Again, it's after the fact and we certainly don't want to start seeing 14 foot fences around every neighborhood in Chanhassen. That's just not the way we want to go. I too am rather disappointed in the fact that trees were taken out within the conservation easement and we've got a lot of other issues going on as well. I would strongly hope that the city would pursue the re-vegetation and that we could look into those other issues as well. With that I would like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit #2002-6 to construct a 14 foot high fence on the property located at 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy and the applicant is hereby made aware that they are in violation of Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1019(c) and that the City will be enforcing the conservation easement and pursuing re-vegetation based upon the Findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit #2002-6 to construct a 14 foot high fence on the property located at 6610 Pointe Lake Lucy and the applicant is hereby made aware that they are in violation of Chanhassen City Code Section 20-1019(c) and that the City will be enforcing the conservation easement and pursuing re-vegetation based upon the Findings in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES FOR A CONCEPTUAL PUD OF 88.5 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR 540 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF AUDUBON ROAD, SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. THE CONCEPT REVIEW PURPOSE IS TO GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION FOR THE NEXT LEVEL OF REVIEW. Public Present: Name Address Connie & George St. Martin Barbara & Richard Palmiter Krista Flemming Mark & Jen Johnson Char Jeurissen Jeffrey Fox Jeff & Susan Lundgren Jill & Mitch Anderson Mark Johnson 9231 Audubon Road 4916 Kingsdale Drive, Bloomington Town & Country Homes 9715 Audubon Road 9715 5270 2855 2853 2905 Audubon Road Howards Point Road, Excelsior Timberview Trail, Chaska Timberview Trail, Chaska Butternut Drive, Chaska Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. 14 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: Any questions of staff? Slagle: I can start. Let's see here. A couple of things Kate. Going back to your comment of the time line. Now the last time we saw this, I'm going to say was in August? Aanenson: August 6th. Slagle: Okay. And at that point there was a tabling. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: And we then had how many days? Aanenson: They gave us a letter for like an extra 30 days, and they gave us another letter. Slagle: Okay. So we've had a total of 60 of an extension in essence? Aanenson: Correct, yes. Slagle: Okay. And the applicant was deemed complete by you, or your staff on what date? I'm just trying to understand where we are. Aanenson: Well the application date that was signed was July. So the 120 days would have been up closer to that first part, in August. So we're way past that. Again, they need to make some decision. We need to make some decision if we're going to go down that path so. Slagle: Now, just help me out here. The one thing that, in some sense it's almost if we had a work session it's easier to ask these questions but we've done the tour. We've discussed amongst ourselves the just education behind the PUD's. Now on page 2 we talk about in Section 20-517 in the Code, what needs to be provided in order to approve the conceptual PUD. Am I correct? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. And so when I look at A and I go 1 through 6, I sort of have some and I don't have some. Aanenson: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. And all I'm wondering as a commissioner who's really approaching their first one, from your perspective is it okay to in essence approve a conceptual PUD when in essence the things that we state, we don't have all of it? Aanenson: Correct. Now. Slagle: And the answer might be yes, and I'd like to know why. Aanenson: That's a good question, and part of the, it's onerous on part of the city's obligation to provide some of the answers to the questions. We need to decide where we want the collector street to go. And when you're looking at that, we need to step back and look at all the properties and say where's the appropriate location to give them direction. Certainly when 2005 becomes available, they'd like to be able to develop. We need to make some decisions to help them. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 They've indicated they would like to be working with us so when 2005 comes and not magically is going to happen at that time. We have to also put some other things in place. Right. So part of it is back to us. What they need to show us is that really do you feel comfortable moving forward with the medium density, and again it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. If you feel strongly about the industrial when it goes to the City Council, and we'd have to put some findings together at the City Council if they also chose to go with the industrial. Slagle: Okay, and let me ask you this. This document that we have here, and I apologize for not keeping everything I had from the first meeting in August. How much different is this than what was. Aanenson: It's the exact same. Slagle: That's what I thought. So what has the applicant done since we last got together? I mean have they brought anything other? Aanenson: No. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: No. They're waiting for direction from you, and from us and from the staff to tell them, that's what the purpose of this is. As we move through this process, and we tell them, one of the things that we need to brainstorm about, is talked about is you know respecting the natural features. Some of those transitions. Some of those trails. Again, we put those in the staff report under the PUD. What our expectations were. Slagle: Where I'm coming from on this question is, is on our tour in the Shakopee I believe it was, there was discussion with one of the representatives about, at least I had a discussion just about common areas and my beliefs and what not on that, and I guess I was just thinking that there would be some movement, if you will, towards perhaps, maybe I wasn't clear enough that I didn't think there was enough. Again you know. Aanenson: It's a good question, and I guess what I'm saying is, it's very fluid. They can show you a buffer but until we say definitively this is where, what we're trying to reconcile right now is where this collector road should be. Until we know that, that's kind of the framework issue that they go back and then respond to that design. So we need to give them criteria on what's to come back with their design. If that makes sense. Kind of a chicken and an egg. Slagle: Sure. Aanenson: So, the guiding principle we stated already is that these two are certainly issues that we've already stated that are very significant, and that's the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. We've already said we want to transfer the density. At least that's what the staffs indicated. We want to cluster the density based on using a PUD. That's a given. Some of the other things yet we still have to flush out, is working with the park department. They may not want the regional park here. They may want some access. We've agreed and we've talked about that, that we want access to these features. That there's a community park, maybe it belongs not necessarily on this piece, somewhere else. Maybe it ties into this piece, but there's some other decisions we need to make so we can give them better specific direction. So kind of marching down this path, coming back between the applicant, the bigger picture and working back with you over the next couple years. 16 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: Sure. One last question. There were, there had been some comments, or there was some comments about the style of the product that we viewed. Has that been conveyed to the applicant? Aanenson: Yes. And also the condition was in here that they come back with, develop a specific plan that meets your expectations and I think if you want to add some specific things that you want to look at, that would be appropriate but that's one of the things that they need to come back with. Slagle: Sure. And is your view that the applicant tonight is at least prepared to talk about those concems? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay, great. Okay. That's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Steve, any questions? Of staff. Lillehaug: Sure. What happened to all the conditions from the previous report? Aanenson: Well I think they were way too specific for this level of detail, and I think that confused everybody. Lillehaug: Yep. Can you briefly explain and summarize the comparable text summary that you provided in that? Not in depth. Maybe just the generalization of the outcome. Aanenson: Yeah, and this was done by the City Manager actually, looking at kind of comparing it. If you had approximate acreage size and there's a summary sheet on the last page of that attachment. That looked at approximate acreage. I believe it was 10 acres. If you took 10 acres of multi-family, 10 acres of industrial, 10 acres of single family, what would produce the most tax. And the multi-family came out pretty equal to the industrial. Or slightly ahead. That was the purpose of that, because that came out in the exercise. And the other thing we said we couldn't equate back out was some of the service costs, and we had that discussion too, so. Just to clarify, because you brought up that point Rich. I want to make sure you understand in condition number 2, when we talked about, and this is on page 9. The medium density shall be created with the following items being addressed, and this was kind of some of our brainstorming that we talked about. That they include landscaping entrances, streetscape and buffering. They would look at possible support commercial. These are your things from last time. Including trails and sidewalks. They come up with design standards, specific material, architecture, details and variety. That they include transit through there. Working with Southwest Metro. That they provide public access to the parks, preservation of natural features and a housing plan. Again those were the comments that kind of, I think kind of were the salient points that we wanted. Again generic, but to give them some marching orders on what our expectations, what the next level of review. Slagle: And I think, if I may. I think the key is just the understanding of expectations. Aanenson: Absolutely. 17 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: Because we don't want the applicant to go further down the path if our expectations are going to be such that, or your's as staff, that they can't meet it. Aanenson: Can't meet it, agreed. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: Agreed. And that's the purpose of this concept level, absolutely. Slagle: That's it. Blackowiak: No other questions? Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: I guess question about rezoning to start. I guess on the staff report you discuss that in the comprehensive plan this property was given two land use alternatives. Residential or industrial. Now we're going to be losing a certain amount of industrial and I'm wondering how that may or may not impact the city in the future in other parcels. Aanenson: Right. Well that was the purpose of putting in that, the one we just talked about. That exercise has come up, kind of give a tax comparison based on kind of equal acreage, so. Whether multi-family would be producing the same amount of industrial. Tax base of say industrial. And again that's based on today's dollars, today's tax rates. Sidney: Okay. And let's see. I guess I'll wait with my other comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a bunch of questions. Rich, you had a good question about this list of what is the 6 elements on the bottom of page 2. I actually was under the impression that those 6 things would be things that still would be worked on. But the way it reads indeed it seems like it says these are the things that should be in place to give a general concept plan. So we have little bit of a disconnect here, because we have a list of things that should be in place for the general concept plan, but it would appear that a fair amount of these things can't really be put in place til the AUAR is done. Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: So but for the AUAR, say that real fast 5 times. For that to be done we need to give the concept plan, yes or no? Aanenson: I guess I would compare it somewhat like we did with Lake Susan. Again, we had someone that came forward that wants to do development, because if no one's going to do any development, the city is going to. Slagle: What's the cost of one of those? Aanenson: There's a traffic component, sewer and water. Slagle: I mean total. Ballpark. Sacchet: How many hundred? 18 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Aanenson: 250, half a million, depending on the amount of acres. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: But this is similar to what we did with Lake Susan. Again, because of the scale of this, and they're not going to lock into the design, we said we want to see something different. I think we've all agreed, and we've communicated that. That our expectation is something a little bit different than what's shown on there. As we move to defining those framework issues, we're going to come back and articulate more about the design, and that's one of the conditions. And I think that goes back to Rich's point. That they understand what, that we've got higher expectations, and that they understand or are willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Then to follow-up on LuAnn's comment about the industrial versus the medium density. It says or. So either or is fine as far as that's concerned. However, in the city plan we had it 50/50. So if we made this all residential, do we basically have that much less industrial? I believe that's actually in the land use amendment as attached. Aanenson: No. Let me just clarify that. Sacchet: Please. Aanenson: The 50/50 was just for calculating certain expectations for housing. So when we did a population projection we made a certain assumption. It doesn't say anything to do with the... We had to make certain assumptions to put together a capital improvement plan, which is part of the comprehensive plan. So certain assumptions were made. So it could go either way, so we took a 50/50 on all of them, and it kind of all came out in the wash. Sacchet: Just hypothetical... Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So we're not really losing in terms of our goal for the city? It doesn't really impact that because that was a general estimate and if it tilts a little bit here, it tilts the other way and then other place, and in the end it comes out, it's a wash. Is that what you're saying? Aanenson: It could be, sure. Sacchet: Ideally. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Ideally. But now, the land use amendment is not related to that you just said. Aanenson: Well again you had to make, we had to make certain assumptions on the land use recommendations in order to accomplish the comprehensive plan. For example the, like I explained before, up on 5 and 41, it was guided low industrial. Westwood Church took all 60 acres out and made it institutional. A school could go in here. A community park, so while we make certain expectations, all kinds of things that could affect the density but we have to make certain assumptions and we will, even with the area wide, you always want to shoot for the 19 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 outside, worst case scenario in looking at population numbers and densities so you can manage your traffic and that sort of thing. Sacchet: Okay, thank you Kate. Then there is the aspect, the possibility of a school site, that we're kind of referring to the school board. How do they get tied into this? I mean how do they know about it? Is there somebody who actually. Aanenson: Yes, there's a dialogue. Sacchet: ...there's a liaison? Aanenson: Yes. There's developers willing to work with that, and there's a couple of different approaches. In the comprehensive plan that was done in 1991, a site was identified as a potential school site and that was the Bluff Creek Elementary site. As it turned out, the city bought that through their TIF district. Now, other examples of working together is you could do density transfer, other acquisitions. There's other things that are out there trying to land on some of this property so, whether it's on this particular site that's coming in now, or we look at the whole 100 acres. That's again the reason why we want to look at the area wide. Where's the collector streets? Where's the appropriate place to land it based on transportation. Based on the creek. Some of the outdoor needs that the school would require, so another reason to look at that in a holistic sort of thing, so I think this applicant or any other site, we have to kind of work as a team to make that happen. And the school's aware of that. Sacchet: They are aware of it? Okay. That answers the question. In terms of the density transfer. One of the driving forces behind this PUD idea is that it allows us to have the density transfer and therefore preserve the sensitive natural areas. Now according to the staff report there are 64 units or 8.8 acres that could be developable in the area that is considered Bluff Creek, primary or secondary. Now, do we have any idea at this point where that density will be transferred to or be shifting? If we make the whole thing medium density, effectively it would make certain parts of it possibly high density. Aanenson: Correct, and that's the same situation... Sacchet: Do we know anything yet more that would be done or is that premature? Aanenson: Yeah, and that comes back to when they put together that specific plan. You know where do you want to see those transitions? Do you want more density close to a collector road? Further from a collector road? Adjacent to transit. How do you want to make those transitions and that was some of the discussion that you all voiced before, and I think that's something that we need to communicate. Where's the appropriate place to land those back on the site? And that's a discussion we need to direct. First of all it all needs to be delineated. They haven't done that yet, so we get a better idea where those features are. Is this an opportunity to, where we'll put low density and maximize that or is it something that will give more people an opportunity to put higher density? That's an exercise we're going to work on with the applicant, giving them direction. Sacchet: So basically that's not really a discussion point at this stage quite yet. Aanenson: Right. And that's why I'm saying if you tell them this is exactly where it's going to be, they haven't delineated the wetlands. We haven't decided where all that's going to land. 2O Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: So that's something we'll address later when we have more information? Aanenson: Right. We need to know exactly where the wetlands are and the steep slopes and how they're going to accomplish that, correct. Sacchet: Alright. Two more real quick questions. On page 8 of the staff report, you have that table and I tried to get an answer to that last time, and I realized that afterwards that I really didn't get the answer I wanted. You have two columns. One is city index. Actually three columns. One is city index, one is benchmark and one is goal. I understand what the goal is, but I'm a little unsure what index and benchmark stands for. Could you just clarify for me what are we saying in the city index and what we're saying with benchmark. Not the numbers, what the term means. Slagle: Everybody understand that? Aanenson: We're talking about these three definitions. The benchmark is the goal that the Met Council wanted us to achieve. The city index is where we were to date when they inventoried this data. Sacchet: So benchmark is where we are? Aanenson: Benchmark is where they want to see us, somewhere in that. And the index is where we are to date. Sacchet: The index is where we are, and Met Council goals is benchmark. Alright. Thank you. Now I got it. And finally real quick question. This is going onto City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn, question? Sidney: Well, I'm wondering. Kate, once we get over the hurdle of saying okay we agree with rezoning, and then we are looking at the concept plan. We're still really 2 years out or more. Aanenson: Absolutely, yeah. The next step that we'll take as a staff, we'll meet with all the property owners to talk about the area wide assessment. Then we'll come back and show you the scoping document and see if you want to add anything else or less. We'll come back specifically what we intend to inventory. We've kind of laid some of that out to give us a little bit more time to look at that. Sidney: What mechanism would that be, a work session? Aanenson: Probably. Sidney: Okay, so when would the next check point be in terms of actually coming back to Planning Commission? Would that be the. Aanenson: Well you're going to have to approve the area wide review, but we're going to give it to you in bite size pieces. So you can look at the wetlands. You can look at the transportation 21 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 system. You're going to look at that in chunks. Kind of the environmental features. You'll look at that in pieces so, and then ultimately you will make a recommendation and then it goes onto to City Council, the area wide. Sidney: So you're saying a lot of meetings? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: Okay. Aanenson: You'll know this project very well. All these people. Sidney: This will all be noticed? Aanenson: Yes. Yes, and this item was re-noticed again too for some of the Chaska folks and all the property owners and I know some had a conflict tonight to get here. Sidney: Did you get any written comments? Aanenson: I just spoke to the Degler's, and I left a message with Mr. Degler. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: I just have two quick questions. Kate, I want to understand exactly what you said earlier. That with this PUD, again conceptual at this point, that there is either the possibility or the likelihood that there could be high density within this development. Aanenson: Well not really. If you only talk, there could be. It could go over the 8 units an acre but the thing. Slagle: I mean I'm with you. What I guess I'm sort of thinking though is, if you have an applicant who is okaying a PUD, and we're approving a medium density PUD within a medium density area, changing to a medium density area, that there could be the potential for high density because they could say well you're asking us to really make this area low density, and where are we going to transfer? Well maybe the answer is you don't have that many units. Aanenson: Right, right. Well, that's a good question, and again this is the project area. The approximate 80 acres. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: So what you take out of that, how we figure out density. There's gross and there's net. You don't count your roads or your wetlands towards your 8, towards your net. So those are taken out. So whatever's left, so while the density is compressed, you still get to count what's upland towards that density. So it's compressed, so there will be areas that exceed that but the PUD allows you to average it. Slagle: I'm with you. I'm just trying to say that as we tour and visit some sites, you know in my mind I'm thinking with the PUD that we're not going to see apartment buildings perhaps. Okay? 22 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 At least in my mind. Now I could be, you know I was going down a different path which sometimes I've been known to do. Aanenson: Well the ordinance, what the ordinance says is you get this many units an acre. How it gets placed on there is between you and the developer how it gets placed on there. They've shown you some ideas that they have, based on some current products that they have, that we've talked to them about. What are our expectations and they've agreed that their product may be changing over the next couple years and they are changing today, and that's why I think we're saying that we want to put our expectations for our community and what we see our needs, our housing plan, some of the products that we don't have in this community, that we want to communicate to them. But as a general rule, whatever those units are is what they get. Our goal is to try and get a product that meets our needs. Slagle: I guess I'm just trying to say at the onset, in the beginning stages of this, that I am hoping that we are not seeing high density, even if we are asking the applicant for some real unique and creative ways to address certain environmental areas and what not. I'm just throwing that out. And then the last question I have, and then I'll be quiet for a while is, on this AUAR, can I ask what is the anticipated contribution from this applicant to that? Aanenson: That's a very good question. That's something that we're working out with the attorney's office. They've obligated to give us an environmental assessment document, so at a minimum they have to pay for that cost. Slagle: Can I ask ballpark? Aanenson: We don't have that estimate yet. They'll have to give us that. And then whatever that is attributed to, will pay for this. And we're working with the rest of the property owners to do that. There's a couple different ways to accomplish that. And then we'll be having that meeting with the property owners. Slagle: I would be interested, just as an individual, I don't know about the rest of the commission, understanding more about those assessments. Aanenson: When we get that estimate we'll be coming back to you with that. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Krista Flemming: Good evening. I'm back tonight. My name is Krista Flemming. I'm with Town and Country Homes. Tonight also with me is Richard Palmiter, Vice President of our Land Development, and I guess in the last, since August, we've had the opportunity to work with staff and I know that you've had the opportunity to have more discussions with staff on this entire area. And we greatly appreciated that opportunity and all the efforts that have been put forth to come out to some of our communities and meet with us and take a look at other areas that might interest you and might influence you for this, for direction to this development in the future. I guess what it comes down to is 6 months ago we began gathering all our resources for a great voyage if you will. And that started out with an idea that had an ultimate destination. In other words, we had a piece of land on a map that ultimately is going to become a part of your overall community. And with all great voyages, there are many milestones that you have to work towards, and some of these lead to some great advances. Some are checking points, and 23 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 sometimes they're setbacks. And tonight I feel that we're at a point where we've reached the first milestone. We've got a lot of input from the staff, from your land use plan, from some of the site itself, and we're at a point where we need to get some more direction to see if we're, if we can commit to going forward and investing a lot of time and commitment into this project overall, and to this entire area. And we feel that your guidance will advance us in that direction. And as we advance on the ideas for this area, you're going to see us a lot. We're going to be here many times with many different pieces of the puzzle looking at all the details that you see in the staff report right now. At this point it's very broad. As we keep working with your guidance we'll come back with more details and more details and get your opinions and your advice on what you'd like to see or what you wouldn't like to see. And that's going to happen in the next 3 to 4 years. So I guess the bottom line is that we believe in the guidance that your staff has given us, and your land use plan, and community and the guidance that you're going to provide us tonight and along the way is going to help us be confident in committing our time and resources to this community and making the best neighborhood in this area that we can. So I guess therefore tonight we concur with the staff report and the staff conditions and we'd like to get your approval to continue working on this property for an overall medium density development. And if there's any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: I have one quick one. What is Town and Country's attitude and willingness to work with staff, to work with the Planning Commission and looking at all the hopefully mostly gains with small concessions with all the conditions that we have, that staff has set forth in the recommendation tonight. Krista Flemming: Well hopefully you can see that we've already kind of taken some of those steps in working with the meetings that we've had with the staff, and with yourself in meeting you on the sites and doing some things that we don't typically do with every development. This development is more complicated than some that we have been involved with, and it takes a lot of finessing to get an ultimate goal that you're satisfied with and that we can invest in and market and have people want to live in. So we're very committed to doing that and this is the very first step of that is coming forward with a concept plan and working with it both ways. We want to be committed to you, but we also need to know if you're committed to where we need to head, and if you are, then we have the same goal in mind. If not, then we have to make a decision as to if we need to keep pursuing this or not. Lillehaug: Okay. And one other one. It is in your mind and plan that you will absolutely not include any industrial, or any industrial or commercial or office in this development? Krista Flemming: That is our intention. As you can see with our concept plan, we want to provide owner occupied housing for this entire area and that's what we plan to go forward with. As Ms. Aanenson has stated with the AUAR, the overall area and our piece of the puzzle being the initial portion, for this area we can take a look at the other parts to he 2005 MUSA expansion area that might have, be more conducive to industrial and commercial uses to compliment the residential area. Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, go ahead. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sidney: I guess I can kind of see where some of the issues might lie. And I'm thinking density is going to be an issue down the line. Is Town and Country willing to reduce the density? Because right now we're, what I would consider it the maybe upper reaches of where we may even consider wanting to be. Would you remove units and reduce the density if we feel that it might be necessary? Krista Flemming: At this point, the way our concept plan is shown, it is based on what's guided out there and it does present a more of a maximum within the zoning district. And as you can see, we don't have all the details that go into the, that come from the zoning ordinance and issues with wetlands and setbacks and lot sizes and different aspects that the park may want and those types of things, and so we anticipate that this number, it's very possible that this density will reduce based on putting those specifics into the plan. And we are committed to working with... If we were to just take a look at what your general guide plan says, this is what it would allow. That doesn't take into consideration all the details. That's what we'll come back with and get more of a definite answer on, as far as densities are concerned. Sidney: And I think that will be our major discussion down the line many, many times and then also the type of products, aesthetics and I can think of a whole bunch of things. Alignment of the buildings. Maybe as a heads-up, I think that's going to be another point of discussion. Krista Flemming: That's exactly what we feel also, and that's why we want to get started earlier than later so that we have this time to work towards that goal. Sidney: How often do you anticipate meeting with the neighbors? Krista Flemming: I guess at this point we need to continue to work with staff to get the direction and they're the liaison between yourselves and us as far as giving us the guidance on what issues come up and how often we need to discuss that with the neighborhood or if they need to have separate meetings. You know what the situation may be, but we'll continue to work with staff on that. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Thanks. Uli, any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: ... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So anyone wishing to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Mark Johnson: I generally don't try to speak at these kinds of meetings but I'm going to try today so bear with me. I live right across the street in the development in Chaska. Realize that I'm not a Chanhassen resident but I want to put input in because I'm one of the guys that's going to be looking across the street at what's put in there. Blackowiak: Excuse me, could I just, could we get your name and address. Mark Johnson: 2905 Butternut Drive, which is the first entrance. Blackowiak: Okay, and your name, just for the record. 25 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Mark Johnson: Mark Johnson. Blackowiak: Thank you. Mark Johnson: I have concern with density. You know I don't know what medium density is, but it seems like 7.6 net seems like a lot of stuff on a fairly small area. And I've got to look at it so I guess it's kind of personal from that point of view. I have concerns about traffic. I have to exit probably the same place where the residents in that section will exit. And I guess one of the things that I was at the August 6th meeting, one of the things that came up there was that there was going to be discussion between Chaska and Chanhassen because it's really a bordering area, and I know there might have been some phone calls. I was curious on you know what the discussions were. And also there's a whole sub-section that's just north of where I am that I'm sure that Chaska has plans for that area as well, so I'm curious on how all that is going. And quite frankly I guess I don't get all the details but it seems like there's not much different today in the discussion than there was on August 6th and maybe I'm missing something because I don't get the details but it just seems like we haven't moved anywhere and a lot of the questions haven't been answered so. Thanks. Blackowiak: Kate, can you update us on any discussions that you've had with Chaska or anything at all. Aanenson: Sure. You asked what was guided. We provided to you what was guided in the Chaska area. Commercial, excuse me, industrial on the most northerly portion. This is guided industrial. Where this gentleman just spoke, low density residential. To the north of that is also low density residential. I'm running out of room on the map. There is some multi-family, and then it goes into the industrial. There's a little bit of park and open space. The city's guided this medium density or industrial. Those are the two zoning options. Blackowiak: You mean Chanhassen. Aanenson: Excuse me, Chanhassen. Those are the two zoning options that we're here to talk about tonight. It does allow up to 8 units an acre. What we're trying to decide here tonight is how we make that work and with the transitions and the buffering and that's part of the conditions that we had talked about, and while there hasn't been a lot of changing tonight, the Planning Commission has spent probably 4 to 6 hours in work sessions kind of going back over the comprehensive plan and how do you work through the complexities of doing a large scale project. And just again tie into what Ms. Flemming was talking about. This project is different than the ones that we toured. If you look at the one that we visited in Chaska Heights, the framework was put in place. The City of Chaska worked through a lot of that. The project that Town and Country was doing there. The larger framework issues were put in place. Also Shakopee had guided that piece so they came in with the zoning in place and just worked through the site plan, which is typically what you've seen. For a lot of you this is the first time you've seen this scale project where you're actually designing the framework. I think that's where your apprehension is, and that's where the staff's saying we've done this several times. Lake Susan, when we started back in the 80's, we just did the last apartments. We're saying we can do this. It's an interesting challenge but we can work together and give them the direction of working with the neighbors. Town and Country's been great. We had, Steve was at that meeting, the 2005 kick-off meeting where we had the neighbors there. The property owners are, they're involved in the 2005. We kept that communication going with them and we continue to play on doing that, and whether it's a meeting just between staff or the applicant or the Planning Commission, we'll 26 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 decide as a group who needs to be at those meetings. We certainly want to keep informed, and we did notify over here of the process. Blackowiak: Right, and have you checked with the City of Chaska at all about what their feelings are or thoughts or do we just not. Aanenson: They commented on our comprehensive plan so. Blackowiak: Okay, but not this project in particular. Aanenson: No, because it's already guided. Right. When the site plan comes in, if they have specific comments but. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mitch Anderson: Good evening. My name is Mitch Anderson, 2853 Timberview Trail. I spoke at the last meeting. I'd just like to reiterate some of the same concerns that I spoke about the last time. One, starting to sound pretty similar. The concerns about the density. I'm afraid that as we start taking into account the density transfer, common areas, bike trails, that kind of things, we're going to end up with something very, very close to maybe having high density. It will be right up against 8 units per acre, and I've had plenty, that just feels high. When you take into account the other neighbors surrounding that, which are mostly single family homes. Our's as well as the... farm acre which is guided single family for Chaska Farms so that's I guess our primary concern. Second thing is keep on including the neighbors in this process. I hope we can find a way to include the Chaska neighbors as well as the Chanhassen neighbors. That's a bit maybe beyond the scope of what you can do, but I hope the developer can continue to include us in the neighborhood in terms of meetings... Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Mark Johnson: Hello, I'm Mark Johnson. I live at 9715 Audubon Road. I guess the scenery isn't as much of an issue to me. I worked on a townhome complex a couple years ago and I think they can make them look pretty beautiful, but one of my main concerns is Audubon can be atrocious at times. I mean you can sit and, well I can sit and try to get out of my driveway for half hour sometimes you know. Cars packed in front of there, and I'm wondering if it's going to come in conjunction with the Highway 312 thing where they could kind of vent it off that way or. Aanenson: That's part of what the area wide assessment's going to look at. Area wide review's going to look at the traffic. And not just this parcel, but while we can look at the bigger parcel. Where those traffic control needs to be placed. Where's the best place for the collector street to go out again looking at how's Audubon going to function. That's all part of the thing. That's why it's going to take a 2 year process to get a lot of those questions, so it's an important issue, absolutely. Mark Johnson: Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Come on up Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Kate, do we have a copy of the land use plan? Aanenson: This one that's on the. 27 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Debbie Lloyd: Well that one's already kind of... Still kind of disjointed tonight. I've got a lot of little things I wanted to point out, but. Aanenson: You're upside down. Debbie Lloyd: You've probably all looked at the comp plan, the land use plan. This upper part here, this whole piece is designated office industrial. And there's a nice chunk here that was designated parkland, and the rest is designated either, I'm sorry, medium density or office industrial. I just wanted to point that out because I'm going to bring up a couple others here. In the comp plan we've, it says that 9 percent of our land should be used for office and industrial, and 4 percent for medium density housing. Also in the comp plan it reads, the city will ultimately have 1,291 acres or 9 percent of it's 2020 land use industrial office guided property. The proposed area for office industrial expansion includes the areas south of Lyman Boulevard, adjacent to the city of Chaska, and north of 169/212 in the southern portion of the city. Anyway it identifies that specific piece of land. In the staff report, on page 4, under background it clearly identifies 40 acres of this land after calculating, how they came up with the numbers for the 2020 land use. Anyway we're transferring 40 acres out of the industrial. However, that number in the back under, well it's this chart. Figure 4. It's showing a net change of 22 acres rather than the 40 acres. And I just think that should be rectified. I'm bringing this up because of the tax element of changing zoning. I guess I'm a proponent of industrial developments in that area. Although the staff report does talk about the tax benefits of the two different types of development, it doesn't address the cost and I think that perhaps we need to do a fiscal impact analysis of the difference between the tax income and the cost of a high density, which I'm afraid it will become a rather high density development. I like the concept, PUD concept in preserving that area, but again I see that as a highly sensitive area was designated as parkland. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Anyone else like to address this issue? Okay, seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, we need our comments. Slagle: I have a couple more questions if it's okay with you Madam Chair, for staff. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: Is that alright Kate? The, simply put. If we did not do a PUD on this, and I'm not switching gears but I just, hypothetical. I'm not doing that. Could they build, in your opinion, those units in this land with it's contours and unique features? Aanenson: Are you talking about the kind of the property to the north and to the south? Slagle: Let's just call it the development. The parcel we're looking at. Everything. Could they put in, and I'm not sure if it's 545 units or 568. Aanenson: It depends on what we calculate as the net so, and that's depending on assuming that we've taken out the roads and the wetlands and unbuildable slopes. Could there be some upland? Yes. Okay. The other thing you have to remember with the PUD, it allows you to put together the specific design standards. Slagle: I'm with you, and I'm a proponent of the PUD. What I'm afraid of though is that the PUD, while we're going to gain the green space and what not, and have some hopefully constructive partnering leverage, I'm afraid that what we're going to see is high density. 28 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Aanenson: It's guided medium density, 8 units an acre. That's what they have a right to. As Mrs. Flemming stated, they have to come in and show us that they can meet all that. They have to meet all the impervious surface requirements. They have to meet parking standards, so all those things come into play, and the design that's driving it is going to tell you how many units they can get depending on the type of product. But they're allowed up to 8 units an acre, pending they can meet all those other requirements. I think again, not just the transfer the density with the PUD but the ability to put together specific uses on design features is also another advantage of the PUD whereas if they come in with a straight subdivision. If they came in and did under the, an R-8 zoning, we would lose that ability to kind of call out some specific and unique architectural orientation or different colors and things that we've done on some of the other projects. Slagle: And then one more question, ifI may Madam Chair. Is I noticed in here some wording that density transfer was not allowed within an industrial area. Aanenson: It's just more difficult to do. Because if you transfer density, sometimes you can go vertical. Sometimes you can compress it. But an industrial building it tends to be more horizontal, it's harder to compress the density. Slagle: And I guess my reason for stating that and asking the question is that one of the reasons that industrial is not a component of this applicant's proposal? Aanenson: They're housing builders. That's why they came forward. That's their nitch. They don't do industrial. But let me just say something else about the industrial. In some circumstances similar to what we did with the industrial park where the National Weather Service is. That's a PUD for the entire industrial park. What it allows is where the Weather Service sits it actually has a greater green space area that they need for their operations. It allows greater impervious surface on some of the other ones, which means they can have more parking and less green space because we average it over the entire industrial park. Having said that, what you can again compress that, you'd have maybe if this one came in and it was 2 or 3 large office warehouse types, then maybe the green space that they would need the impervious surface would actually be those areas, so it could happen. It just gets a little bit more complex. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: Can I add onto Rich's question? Blackowiak: Sure. Lillehaug: In your opinion, I just, I'm trying to get my head straight here too. With density transfers, if you're driving by this development, will it have the flavor, although it's guided as medium density, will it have the flavor of a high density development? Aanenson: I can't speak for what your idea of high density is. I mean that's going to be, that's you know. Slagle: Well let me ask this ifI can. You go further north on Audubon, just before Maximum Graphic. You see those multi-family. Do you know what that is? Is that medium density? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. 29 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Slagle: I would think so. Aanenson: Yes, in Chaska, correct. Slagle: Okay. So that would be the, that would be, well actually we don't know. Is that 8? Aanenson: I guess, the staff's goal is to get a high quality produce that meets the community's desires. That's our goal. Slagle: And I don't think any commissioner here would doubt that. Our concern, I'll speak for myself. Our concern is, is that you've, we vote on this, send it to the council. The applicant does their thing by finalizing the acquisition of the land or whatever. I don't know if you've done that yet or not, but you probably will. And it just starts the process where. Aanenson: We have to have faith in each other. I think you've heard from them they're willing to work. They've heard our comments. When we went out and looked at some of their products, I think they've said a willingness. I think we've communicated the expectations. They've looked at our other products in town. We've given them some other products to look at that we're interested in. And from what I heard from them is they're willing to introduce some other products and look at some of the things that we're interested in, and they can correct me if I'm wrong. But that's my understanding and that we want to get to that point. And we're going to develop the PUD to get what we believe is our needs. Blackowiak: Do you have any questions? Any more questions? Sacchet: Yes. Blackowiak: Well hang on. Let's just finish up on this side. Wait your turn. Lillehaug: I'm done. Blackowiak: Rich, you're? Slagle: All done. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, go ahead then. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd just like to briefly. Blackowiak: Oh I'm sorry, you're right. We're at comments. Sacchet: No, I'm still questions. Blackowiak: Oh you still have a question? Okay. Sacchet: And my question is the comment of Debbie Lloyd. About these percentages. If I remember correctly she said that industrial, we're targeted something like 8 percent medium density, 4 percent or something, or even 9. Slagle: 9. 3O Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: The park designation on the south versus the north, which is actually in the Bluff Creek district as office industrial, could you just briefly put some context around those comments from Debbie Lloyd please. Aanenson: The 22 doesn't reflect the 40 acres. Page 4 is correct. If we change this, based on the assumption we use the half 40 acres of the 80, it'd be less than a .03 percent reduction in the industrial. There is a piece right adjacent to this that's also guided industrial which we need to give some thought to. Sacchet: So we are potentially reducing it by .3 percent industrial, which could be made up in another place. Do we have other places that are guided or, we put something or industrial? Aanenson: Correct. The comprehensive plan does show green space through that. In order to get that green space we either have to buy it or acquire it through the density transfer, and that was our goal and that's the other tools through the Bluff Creek. The other goal that we're trying to achieve through this is to preserve this feature right here. All this open space right through here. That's the objective. Sacchet: And really the part that is not.., according to Debbie Lloyd that is industrial is in the Bluff Creek area, isn't it? Aanenson: Part of this does show up as green, but we'd have to acquire it. Either pay for it or give a density transfer so we can acquire it through some compensation. We can't just take it. So that's the tool that we, remember we talked about this last on the tour that we have is to do the density transfer to acquire, or we could take park and trail fees or pay for it and let them not do the density transfer. That's another option. Blackowiak: Okay so Kate then, I guess the question is what is the actual zoning of that portion? Aanenson: It's guided. Blackowiak: Okay it's guided. What is the actual, what is it guided? I mean is it? Aanenson: The piece that we're talking about tonight, Town and Country's piece? Blackowiak: Yes. Aanenson: Industrial or medium density. Blackowiak: So that entire piece has both those designations? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: There's no delineation between. Aanenson: It shows some green, if you look on the map that's right behind Uli, it shows some green but this underlying underneath it, either one of those districts. We can't use, unless we own it. That's representing what we want to preserve, correct. 31 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: ... and then the finger reaching up here into the industrial, that's the Bluff Creek piece. That's pretty much it right? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Alright so. Aanenson: But we don't own that yet. We have to compensate in order to get it. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: So I guess we're still on with questions, LuAnn do you have questions at all, or would you like to start comments or should I start elsewhere? Sidney: I guess maybe I'll pass right now on, and no questions so let's hear some comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve, why don't you start. Lillehaug: I strongly support a PUD for this area. I'm comfortable moving forward in support of the concept PUD as medium density. With the understanding that an AUAR has to be done. We will need a traffic study. We need to analyze the utilities for that area, and I'm sure you guys are certainly aware of that. This area, it does fall with the present guided land use so it's hard for us to say no to go ahead with the concept PUD. I think a PUD is one of the best tools for this area, to preserve the existing wetlands, the wooded areas, and I think it will opportune the city to get a high degree of a good development in that area. And I guess I would also like to extend, when we go to moving a motion forward here, I would like to make it clear that part of that AUAR that we have to ensure that we're taking into account any design or concept changes with 312 or 212 and the design of that. To end my comments, I look forward to working with the applicant to get the best development possible for the city, as well as for Town and Country. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, are you ready to make comments? Slagle: I am, sure. I'm not going to add a lot new other than to reiterate that I do think that the conceptual PUD is the way to go, so I'm okay with that. I think it's been clear by my comments that we have to really be on the same page because as the representative of the applicant stated, that there are milestone. There are points in the road that move forward, stay the same, move back. I hope we don't run into the ones that move back. But that is there as a safeguard for the city at those points. I've seen some of the development by the applicant, and I appreciate you guys taking the time to let us see those. We've also just for the benefit of the audience, we have also forwarded to staff things that we have seen in the area that we believe to be attractive and so forth, so that is in their hands if you haven't seen it in the report. I guess in the end, I'm willing to approve this, but I guess I just wanted this to be on the record that in case we 2 years from now come back and go, you know what were they thinking, which I don't think is going to be the case. If we can see that they were thinking so. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a couple of comments. First of all, this is the first project this size that I'm dealing with on the Planning Commission side so I have some, what do you call it, trepidation based on the fact that we have this list of 6 items. We're asking that the following should be in 32 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 place. Overall gross and net density. I think that's somewhat in place. The identification of each lot size is not really there, or lot width. Location of major streets and pedestrian ways. There's only very high level concept in place. Location and extent of public and common open spaces. That's even more high level. Location and type of land use and intensity of development is totally open still at this point. Staging time and schedule. Well, we know it's going to be in 2 to 3 years. Having those lined up here and they're not really all that much in place, I feel some trepidation but I hear you say Kate that we have to base this on trust and I think you from having experience with these larger projects than some of us here of sitting, a couple I think have been here long enough to have dealt with some of those. I'm willing to go the trust route, and I don't have any reason to distrust. On the other hand in terms of the commitment level, there is also a statement in here in the report that says approval of the concept statement will not obligate the city to really go that route. I mean it's a trust both ways. I mean it's based on trust. We're not really making any firm commitments. We're expressing intent. We're expressing direction. We're expressing the willingness and the commitment to want to work together, but that's basically where it's at. We're not committing to do anything specific at this point. I think it's important to be very clear about this. And through the process that's going to happen over the next year or two, the details will start being worked out. That's my understanding. Now having said that, I very strongly feel that this needs to be a PUD for the reason that we can preserve the natural features. I do think medium density is acceptable. It's what it's guided for, and so that decision has been made quite a while back. I do believe that the AUAR is extremely important, and I like to emphasize some additional points in the AUAR in the context of the environmental features we specify Bluff Creek Overlay District, wetlands and bluffs. I would like to add in there open space and trees. And then also as part of the AUAR, I wanted to ask whether it would make sense to have a fiscal tax element in there? Does that fit in there Kate? Aanenson: Yes because there will be some infrastructure improvements and some obligation on the city for over sizing roads and the like so I think that would certainly be a component. Sacchet: So that would be okay to put in, okay. Because I think that's an important component to look at in this context. Then I, like everybody, I have a concern about the density, but I think it's too early to really address that. I mean it's guided as medium density, that allows up to 8 units per acre. And yes, with the PUD there is that aspect that we talked about, there is a density transfer for a certain amount of units that could potentially be considered. Would have to be negotiated, discussed. I mean there has to be a balance found but we're way premature to really be specific about that at this point. Of course I want high quality and low price. I mean who doesn't. But I would say the balance is, in terms of the units we've seen in Shakopee, I really wasn't that overwhelmed with the apartment size types. The real low ends. However on the other hand I would like to see some affordable components in there so we'll have to find a balance with that. I think the conservation easement aspect of this project is exceptional in that basically all sensitive areas with the concept that's in front of us will be preserved, so I think that's an extremely good thing. The aspect of transitions. Is that mentioned as part of the AUAR? Aanenson: Which? Sacchet: Transitions. Aanenson: I made that condition number 2. That's part of the PUD. Try to separate AUAR and then the PUD. 33 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: So transition, oh yeah. Specifically say transitions. I don't see the word in there. If you could add transitions, because I think that's a very valid concern from the neighbors across the street. The aspect of traffic I think is included in the AUAR, and I just want to emphasize that again that this is definitely very important. On the other hand, personally I believe that with the 312 coming in, and Powers going to go through, and Powers actually being the access point onto 312, that Powers will off load a lot of the traffic, through traffic that's currently on Audubon so that there should be a considerable improvement when that happens. And then finally, when we discussed the Bluff Creek Overlay District aspect in condition number 6. I would like to specifically add the 3 aspects that are listed on the page 7 of the staff report that preserve and manage the high quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak woodlands to extend the high quality systems of the Gorge Region. 2. Restore impaired ecosystems and their natural conditions. And 3. Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek corridor. I think those should be specified because they're important goals and they should be guiding elements in terms of the environmental preservation that we're striving for there. That's my comments, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Go ahead. Sidney: I guess it's my turn. I guess I've been on the Planning Commission, what is it close to 6 years. Is it coming up on 6 years? Blackowiak: I think so. Sidney: It's been a long time, and I guess in this case, well I've seen a few concept plans and in this case I guess I feel the least comfortable of the various, with this concept plan compared to the other ones that I've seen in my tenure. I guess it barely, in my book, meets requirements and Uli touched on some of the things that are really things that should be included in the concept plan that may be included in the next stage of discussions. I think the developer is aware that we have many, many, many questions, and I hope that they understand that we have certain expectations for this potential development. And obviously we have expectations that are quite high. I hope we have given you some guidance in that respect, and again I think density is going to be a major issue and the developer, potential developer may wish to evaluate what is the least dense that would be financially acceptable to them and decide if that is doable or not because that issue will come up. We had a number of questions from our last meeting, and I chaired that meeting and I wish to kind of just touch on these briefly and then have that included in the next staff report or actually it should be included in what's going to City Council. The reason being is that again we had lots of questions, which may not be appropriate for a concept plan but things that I'd like on the record to be addressed at some point. First off, really the Park and Rec input from Todd Hoffman and his group, to be included and a discussion about sidewalks. School district input from the School District directly. Notification of Chaska residents. Kate did a good job on that, and certainly we need to continue that in the future. Discussion about land use designation of the Wagner property. I believe we addressed that, and the adjacent Chaska land uses so we're aware of that. Product types and general layouts of streets. If we can catch that one early, that would be good in discussions. And really I think again the density is going to be a big issue and how that compares to other areas within Chanhassen. Nature of amenities, tax implications, delineation of transition areas, additional options for a mixed residential industrial I guess is off the table actually and not being considered. Impact on Degler property, and that may be addressed in the area wide review. Again, reduction in density, affordability of residential units, location of conservation easements and cost of services, and I have this in a list Kate I can give you so. I'm willing to go forward with this. Certainly you know it's going to take a lot of work and probably many, many meetings with Planning Commission, but I can see that you know if Town and 34 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Country's willing to work with us, we could really do a good job on this PUD so I'm willing to move this forward. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I just have a few comments. I too have struggled, and I know Kate and I said this last meeting, with the idea of what constitutes a complete application. And we've got the 6 points. This is what you have to include and I remember when we had our meeting and City Attorney Mr. Knutson was there, and I asked him specifically if an, what constitutes a complete application. In other words, did we have to have all components. He said yes. I don't think we have it. And I just, I just want to state that for the record. I am willing to go forward tonight on this concept but I'm not comfortable and I think the City Council should really look closely because we do not have a lot of the requirements that are set forth in the Chanhassen City Code, and nowhere in the City Code can we as a commission, or planning staff, no one can waive any of these requirements according to my reading and according to what the city attorney said the night we met with him. So I'd just like to state that one for the record. I think an AUAR should be done first. I think that we're putting the cart before the horse in this case, and we're talking about major roads, common, public and common open space. Things like that that really I think should be put in place before we start looking at specific developments, even in the concept. I mean is the idea good? Yes. I think a PUD is definitely what we need for this property. Should we be starting to make promises that before we even do an AUAR? I don't think so. I think we need to make sure that we get, that's the building block and that's the main tool that we have to look at this entire area. Over 800 acres. This is 1/10 of that area. So we've got a very small piece of the pie here before us this evening, and I think we need to look at the big picture before we start getting too specific on any little picture. I'm kind of disappointed in the lack of additional information. I was glad that LuAnn had her list again tonight. We had asked for a lot more information. We didn't see. Aanenson: I'm confident all those are either in the area wide review, or the PUD standards so I've addressed every one of them except for the mixed use development and I think they were all addressed. Either as a condition of the area wide review or the two work sessions. I believe they were all addressed. Blackowiak: Well there were certain information that we requested, specifically input from Park and Rec department, which we did not get tonight. Aanenson: Park and Rec report was in there. They've identified a regional park in the area that is not in this application and it's part of the area wide review and Todd's commented on it in a staff report. Blackowiak: That's fine, thank you Kate. District 112. We asked for input from them. We did not get that. Information on 312 connection. How can we possibly fit this in? And again, this may all need to be addressed in the AUAR. I agree with that, but I'd like to see that first. Tonight I wanted to hear more from Town and Country. I wanted to be sold a little bit more. You know what have you changed? What is going to make this application more complete because last time we tabled it because we felt that it wasn't complete. We have the same maps. I really didn't hear much more new and that's kind of disappointing to me. That being said, that's kind of my frustration with this. But my feeling is that we work in effect, Rich do you want to say something? Slagle: I do want to say something, ifI may ask. Kate can you address the Chair's comment regarding the City Attorney and the 6. I don't remember that but. 35 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Blackowiak: That was at our meeting with City Council. Aanenson: I have a different opinion but I'm not going to. Slagle: Okay, but I mean are you, was his comment that yes you needed to have these 6? Aanenson: I didn't hear that. I asked Roger about this so. Slagle: Okay. Because I mean it's an important question that if the City Attorney has told us that we need 6. Blackowiak: Well I asked him specifically that night what constituted a complete application, and he said you had to have all components. And it's unfortunate we didn't have that recorded that night but I wanted to make sure that I understood that correctly because this such an important piece. And such an important project. Aanenson: I believe the question was asked, when is the 60 day comment started, when you have a completed application. The staff did, who determines a completed application? The staff determines it's a completed application. Again, some of the things on here are not, we can put a sidewalk on there. The staff told them that it didn't make sense to draw a sidewalk on there when we know that it's going to change. Until we know exactly where the road's going to go, what's the point of drawing sidewalks? It's kind of esoteric and again the point is here, at what level we're going to have the discussion? This is the first scale project we've done where we don't have the roads in place. When we looked at 7 and 41, the city, with the State of Minnesota up- fronted that money. The other large PUD we did, which was Villages on the Ponds, the road system was in place. This is the first project of this scale that we're doing in this, and the developer is up-fronting some of that money to start the process so just again, the two need to work together, but we need a project to go forward to start the study so, if you're not ready to go forward and think it's premature, then we stay until someone else comes forward and is ready to say, I'm ready to go forward. Let's start the process because that's how it works. A project comes forward, then we start the process. Unless the council authorizes to expend those kind of dollars or if you have them allocated so. School District 112 is aware. They're looking at this site. We've talked to them. They have not made a decision. Council is aware of the discussions between the two parties. Blackowiak: And I understand Kate. What I'm trying to say though is we had asked for a lot of information and I don't feel that we got anything, or very little new tonight. So that's kind of my real frustration is that we asked. We didn't get it, so you know what are we here for? I mean what are we looking at? I get the feeling that we need to move this forward tonight and I will certainly, I will actually vote to move this forward, but with very serious reservations and, especially what Uli and LuAnn stated. I think some of those concerns are extremely valid and need to be flushed out before we even see it again. So with that I'd like a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD for the Town and Country on the Bernardi property as outlined in the staff report of October 15th, ~02 with the following conditions 1 through 8 with the following changes, l(b) will include also open space and trees. Adding a l(f). Talking about the fiscal tax study. Number 2. I guess it falls under, where does the transition fit? Neighborhood connections maybe or where would you put that Kate? Aanenson: I had buffering but if you want to add buffering and backslash transitions. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 Sacchet: Okay, buffering and transitions. Now, the understanding is transitions is not necessarily just in the sense of landscaping. I mean it can also be transitions of densities for instance. Aanenson: Different uses. Different. Sacchet: Uses, yes. I mean it's transitions also in that context, just be clear about it. And I would put in a bunch more commas actually in that condition number 2. I think it's 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 comma deficient. Then condition number 6. I'd like to specifically spell out the 3 Bluff Creek Watershed natural resource management plan goals. I won't repeat them. I think I've stated them before. And that's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: I second with a friendly amendment. Sacchet: Please. Lillehaug: To l(c). I would like to add onto that to include the ongoing considerations of the existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of 312 and Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: That's acceptable. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion and a second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conceptual PUD for Town and Country Homes on 88.5 acres of property located on the east side of Audubon Road, south of Lyman Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall contribute to the preparation of an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR) in lieu of an EAW for the 2005 MUSA area. The AUAR shall study the following issues: f. Public facilities-schools, parks, utilities, fire station. Environmental features-Bluff Creek Overlay District, wetlands/bluff, open spaces and trees. Transportation system-traffic/road plan and the ongoing considerations of the existing studies and reports, the design and the construction of 312 and Powers Boulevard. Utilities-sewer, water, storm sewer. In addition, the AUAR shall address the following issues: i. Potential school sites, fire station, water tower, and creek crossing. Collector road systems as well as traffic, infrastructure requirements: sewer, water, storm sewer and natural resources, including wetlands, trees and slopes. Fiscal tax study. A medium density PUD shall be created with the following items addressed: landscaping, (entrance, streetscape, buffering and transitions), possible support commercial, neighborhood connections, (trails, sidewalks), design standards, ( materials, architectural 37 Planning Commission Meeting- October 15, 2002 details and variety), transit (slip off lanes), public access to park areas, preservation of natural features, (bluffs, wetland, trees), housing plans (range of product and price). 3. The applicant shall petition the City for city services (sewer, water, etc.). 4. The applicant shall develop a housing diversity plan. All wetlands on site shall be delineated by a qualified wetland delineator, checked by city staff and surveyed by a registered land surveyor prior to the development of more detailed plans for this site. The applicant shall keep the following goals for the Lowlands Region of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in mind as a plan is developed for the site and work with staff to achieve these goals for this property: Preserve and manage the high quality wetland complexes, riparian areas and oak woodlands to extend the high quality system of the Gorge Region; Restore impaired ecosystems to their natural condition; and Re-create natural links between major natural features within the Bluff Creek corridor. The applicant shall arrange for the Bluff Creek primary and secondary zone boundaries to be field verified by staff prior to the development of a more detailed plan for this site. The Building and Fire Marshal comments shall be incorporated into the next level of review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Krista Flemming: I just want to thank you for your time and consideration and we hear all your comments and your concerns and we are definitely going to come back the next time with more information in the AUAR study, so I believe more of these questions will be... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 1, 2002 as presented. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38