PC 2000 12 05CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 5, 2000
Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner;
Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE, LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER
BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON, TWIN CITIES HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Hall
Dennis Schilling
Matt Jacobs
Wallace R. Christensen
Robert B. Nelson
Kermit Austad
Keith Peterson
Wally & Cheri Schwab
941 Western Drive
941 Western Drive
921 Western Drive
1001 Western Drive
970 Carver Beach Road
980 Carver Beach Road
921 Hiawatha Drive
950 Carver Beach Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff'?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair. Bob, can you talk to us a little bit about the front setbacks for the two
neighboring properties, both on the east and on the west.
Generous: I tried to look in the building permit data. The houses are too old so we don't have a
Certificate of Survey so I had to base my calculations off of an aerial topo. And the one to the east is
approximately 30 feet and the one to the west would, is significantly more than that. It's 50 or 60 feet
back.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Generous: And then from the side lot line the property to the east is about, approximately 10 feet. It's
hard to tell because I don't have the exact lot line configuration and the property to the west is
approximately 30 feet off`the side lot line.
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Okay. And then a second question. Were any other styles of homes explored for this small a
lot or are we just looking at the standard Habitat home at this point?
Generous: It was specific to this request for the Habitat home. I imagine that you could go with a two
story and have a smaller pad.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. You state there have been many problems with non standard lot size developed there.
And you state there have been several that were 10,000 or below. I'm actually curious, was there any
significant number of that small a size? I mean 6,000 is more or less half of 10,000 and you make a
statement, many properties that do not comply with the current city code have been developed in Carver
Beach area. My question is well, how many were as severe, because we're looking at a very severe
variance request here.
Generous: I tried to look at some of that but I tried to also limit my search. I did go to GIS training today
and leamed to make some maps up and I did a query to determine lots that are less than 10,000 square feet
in the general area. I don't know if it shows up very well. I just did this quickly before staff`meeting but
they show up as the highlighted spaces on the map and that is, the property in question is right in the
middle of that. It's where the road is.
Sacchet: So in other words there is a significant number?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: So that would lead to a second question then. How many ofthose little ones have been
developed recently?
Generous: The one just katty comer was developed within the last 4 years? 3 years?
Audience: '94.
Sacchet: So like 6 years, okay. Yeah, I have more questions but for now I think will suffice.
Burton: Any other questions for staff'?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob? If the applicant had a 1,000 foot footprint, would it fit on the lot without
setback variances?
Generous: I was trying to figure out ifa 960 square foot...
Kind: Well 960. I was just rounding up but yeah, 960.
Generous: It'd be tough with the garage addition. Because that's what kicks it over on the one, at least
the one side.
Kind: So it's your opinion that a variance is required for this?
Generous: Yeah. There's a variance necessary, well minimum for the lot area, lot width and impervious
surface.
2
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: But the house size.
Generous: It could be, possibly it could be shrunk down. But then the living area gets smaller, then you
need a separate variance for that.
Kind: But a two story with a smaller footprint would get you enough square footage for a living area.
Generous: That sounds very feasible, yeah.
Kind: Okay. That's all.
Burton: Any other questions for staff'?
Conrad: Yeah, the code dictates the size of a house. How do we do that? There's a code that does say
that huh?
Generous: In the supplemental regulations.
Conrad: No kidding. And what's the point of that? I've never heard that before.
Aanenson: We haven't had too many problems with that. Actually housing in Chanhassen tends to run
well in excess of that. But we do have a minimum that was put in a number of years ago with the original
ordinance and that's to protect, and we do require two car garages.
Conrad: Yeah, I know that.
Aanenson: Right, and that was the same, part of that.
Conrad: Code is dictating the size of the house?
Aanenson: Yes. Depending on style. There's a different square footage for rambler, two story.
Conrad: Second question. How does this fit into the neighborhood, regardless of setbacks and whatever.
How does this fit into the neighborhood? Does it look right?
Generous: I think so. It's oriented differently from the neighbors homes. They have ramble styles that are
long, lengthwise in their lots. This one is diagonal within it's lot. They've tried to, I call it a split entry
but really it's not. It's a ramble with a basement because they have, they don't have the entry where it
splits in at the foyer. The sizing's about right. Unfortunately again there's not a lot of data for the older
Carver Beach neighborhood to look at.
Conrad: Does it look odd or does it fit?
Generous: Well I believe it fits in.
Burton: Other questions? Okay, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission. Could you please state your name and address please?
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Ryan Carras: Yes, I'm Ryan Carras. The land development manager for Twin Cities Habitat for
Humanity and I can speak very briefly to a couple of the concems. We're co-applicant with Ms. Benson,
the current owner of the property. The need for the variance occurs having only 40 feet ofbuildable area
and the requirement for a two car garage. Minimum size for a two car garage would be 20 to 22 feet wide,
and on the width then you're left with only 20 feet ofa buildable area. Minimum, even on the two story
would be about 24 foot wide house, therefore we would still have side yard variance necessary, even if we
were to manipulate some of the other dimensions of the proposed structure. We did propose in this case a
house that has been built by Habitat in several Twin Cities suburban communities again to meet the
requirement of the minimum square foot of living space and the two car garage requirement and virtually
any configuration will require a variance, side or front, back setback. As has been stated in the staff`report
we feel that this proposed style of house and structure that we are planning to build will fit in the
neighborhood, which is predominantly rambler and split entry style houses. Again looking at achieving the
finished square foot space, you could go to a two story that is not the dominant style in the neighborhood.
We would prefer to stay with what's in the neighborhood and go with the split entry. And because of that
we feel that this is a reasonable use and consistent with the style of housing in the neighborhood.
Burton: Any questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah. Do you have houses with smaller footprint that you build?
Ryan Carras: The house that we are proposing, the living space is 26 wide by 44 long. We do have one
model that's 24 feet wide, but again added to the required garage that is not limited, it does not change the
need for a side yard variance in that particular configuration.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter may approach the microphone.
Go ahead. Can you please state your name and address?
Wally Schwab: Good evening. My name is Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road, directly
east of this proposed anomaly. Needless to say I'm the one probably most directly impacted by this
proposal. We would like to state that when the property went for sale I inquired in the Chanhassen
Planning Commission whether or not it was a buildable lot. After doing a little bit of background work I
reported back to the Planning Commission, the person who's name I can't remember. I was told by this
person that it was not a buildable lot. In conversation with the seller, Floyd D. Osmundson, the previous
owner, he was also told by the Chanhassen Planning Commission that it was not a buildable lot. I referred
to the proposal earlier as an anomaly. That is what I feel it is. A deviation from the normal. If you look
into the plot size of the upper end of Carver Beach Road, the planning people initially set out there to
make spacious lots with reasonable setbacks. The entire area is laid out that way. This proposal would be
a disruption to the continuity of the neighborhood. The one version of the layout that I saw shows my
garage being 25 feet by scale from my property line. In actuality it is 10 feet. That means I will have this
property 17 feet from my garage. To put a house, of any size for that matter, in such a small lot smacks of
stuffing them in wherever we can, ala Minneapolis. Have we in Chanhassen come to that point? Thank
you.
Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission?
4
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Keith Peterson: Hi. My name is Keith Peterson and I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive, Chanhassen. I'm just
kind of kitty comer to this lot. Basically what I was going to approach tonight is variances are approved
because of undue hardship, if I'm not mistaken. That's what Bob told me yesterday. And basically that
means a property cannot be put into reasonable use because of it's size. I was reading through city code on
another one that was denied back in '96 and city code, Section 20 through 58 provides that a variance may
not be granted if all of the following criteria are met. And number 4 that was listed there is that the
alleged difficulty or hardship is not self, a self created hardship. And Anita Benson, I've never met her but
she knew before she bought this lot. She was a City Engineer from what I understand. She knew before
she bought this lot that this lot was too small. So I would presume that would be a self inflicted, or a self
created hardship. The way I look at it. And then number 3 in that same thing is, that the purpose of the
variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land. She bought this
property for $4,200 in Chanhassen. The person that sold it is a realtor. If he thought it was buildable, do
you think he would have sold it for $4,200 in Chanhassen? And I understand that right now she has an
offer from them for $27,200. So to me that looks like an income and she's not living there herself so to me
that looks like potential for income. So I would think number 3 and number 4 are not met. And I didn't
have time to get detailed any others and I know on Westem, which is, or I could throw a rock from this lot
to the lot where it was denied because of income. The variance and that was a 14,000 square foot lot that
was denied because it was 1,000 feet too small so. And then another thing. You know the profit here, it's
over a 2 year period and the city employee never once mowed that lawn. The neighbors had to take care
of that property so we should have just let it go and let the city come in and do it but so. And then another
question on this map that you had here. What was the qualifications for those lots? Was it under 10,0007
Generous: Equal to or less than 10,000.
Keith Peterson: Equal to or less to, okay. So anyway, that's what I have to say.
Burton: Thank you. Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Please state
your name and address.
Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road. I have the property that is
directly west and directly north of this property. My property line to the west is 124 by 200. I also own
the property directly behind this which is 60 by 100, exactly the same size lot. My question is with
integrity. Two parts. Integrity of the neighborhood with the size of lots that we have. Wally's lot and
Keith's lot are both at least 10,000. Actually they're both 12,000 now. All the lots behind me are in the
15 to 20,000 square foot. I have about 26. So the integrity of that area, and all the lots to my west also are
at least 100 by 200 foot so I disagree with Mr. Generous' assumption that this fits right into the
neighborhood. It does not fit into the neighborhood. It's a small, small lot. 6,000 square feet when
everybody else is at 12 to 20,000. And the second part of my integrity question is with the information
that we received by inquiring with the City of Chanhassen. In a chronological timeline, Wally had
questioned the buildable, or buildability on this lot and we were told no, it's not buildable. The lot went
up for sale, we questioned it and the realtor who owned the property bought it evidently for some
speculation or whatever, decided to sell it at much less than what the current offer is on the property. So
my question is, we have somebody that's employed by the City purchasing this lot. We were told it's not
buildable. Now after this person has purchased it, it goes up for sale and now we find out it's a buildable
lot. So I do question integrity, both of the neighborhood. The continuity of the neighborhood and I also
question the integrity of whoever's giving these answers. I was told it was a commission. I don't know if it
was people before me here, but somebody is telling the wrong thing at the right time so to speak. So I'd
like to take that into consideration. I know this is just a preliminary action here but I can promise that we
are going to continue our discussion on this. I'd like to get a show of hands of all the neighbors that are
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
here that disagree with this proposal. Any neighbors on this side? No? That's a different story there.
Well there is a considerable number of people here that disagree with what the City is finding or what the
Planning Commission so we are asking that this is denied, not only the variances. We do not want
anything period built there. I don't know if anything can be done about that but that is our quest. Not just
to deny variances. We want nothing built there at all. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Wally Schwab: May I re-address the commission?
Burton: Very briefly. We've got a lot.
Wally Schwab: Very briefly. May I ask if any of you or some of you have actually seen the site in
question? Okay. For those who haven't, may I submit some pictures that I took of my lot, Bob's lot, the
lot that is in question and the general area in regards to the setbacks, the existing setbacks.
Burton: Why don't you just give them up here and we'll pass them around and then we'll move on.
Wally Schwab: Then also may I inquire, have you all need the absentee letter from one, Mr. Dick Roe?
Burton: It was in our packet.
Wally Schwab: Alright. Then I would just submit my pictures and be done with that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody else like to address the commission on this matter?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Commissioners comments on this? Want me to pick someone?
Sacchet: I can start.
Burton: Okay.
Sacchet: Bob, I have a question for stafl~ I mean there is this letter in the packet that states that the City
has at one point declared that this lot is unbuildable and we have heard it from somebody different now
that it was actually known at the time this was purchased that this was unbuildable. Do we have any
information about that from the City side?
Generous: I don't.
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: We don't? Okay. In all respect to Habitat for Humanity, I do have a problem with this variance
and I think it's important for me to separate it into two types of variances. One is the variance for some
setback variances, which is one thing. But the big thing to deal with is the variance for the lot size and the
frontage. And I'm well aware that there have been lots of variances in the Carver Beach area, but the
examples that are given in the report at least are for lots that are 10,000 feet. I mean there's no example
that is that severe as we are looking at here. And to me it looks like we're trying to shoe hom something in
there and I personally am opposed to that. That's my comment.
6
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Burton: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I didn't raise my hand. Two quick questions. They may have a right to build, but I guess I would
have, I'll start at a different place. Variances are severe and it doesn't look like it really fits. And the
neighbors, and a variance you listen to neighbors. I think if the neighbors said that this is comfortable, then
I'd pay attention. In this particular case they're obviously not thrilled with this. The owner may have a
legal right to do this but I guess I'd force them to exercise that proof, whatever legal matter, methods they
have. Right now, so that may go with the property and probably does but at this point in time, I think the
variances are too severe for the lot. I would tum it down.
Burton: Alison.
Blackowiak: I had a discussion with Kate yesterday I believe about lots of record or was it today? I'm not
even sure. And according to what Kate said, any lot of record is a buildable lot, and that kind of surprised
me a little bit. So regardless of how small a lot it is, I guess legally you have a right to build something on
it as long as the zoning is consistent with what you want to build. Having said that, I do not like the
variances on this lot. I think that there might be a possibility if it were a different style house. If it were
tuck under garage or something so the variances wouldn't be quite so severe, but it does look like it's shoe
homed in. That was part of my reason for asking the question in regards to the setbacks for the two
neighboring homes because I was wondering if we could do something in terms of splitting the difference
on the setbacks of the homes or something and that doesn't even seem possible. So based on a lot of
things, I just don't think it really fits as presented to us. And like Ladd said, whether or not they have a
right to build is really not my questions right now. The plan before me I don't think fits and I think that
something different may change my mind in the future but I'm not convinced that the plan we have tonight
is appropriate for this lot.
Burton: Thank you. Deb.
Kind: I don't really have anything to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners.
Burton: Okay. And I agree also. I like going through the variance analysis and looking at the different
elements. I question whether there's an undue hardship and I don't know what other reasonable uses there
could be to this property but perhaps there are other reasonable uses and I don't think that's been fully
explored. I question whether this is a project designed to increase the income value of the property, and I
also question whether this was a self created hardship and I think that also this may be injurious to the other
land in the neighborhood, so for those reasons I agree with the comments of my fellow commissioners. So
with that can I have a motion?
Sacchet: Yeah, I can make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14
for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and so on.
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for a
9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development on an
existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, a 15
percent variance from the 25 percent site coverage to permit site coverage up to 40 percent, a seven (7)
foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback and a three (3) foot variance from the 10 foot side
7
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
yard setbacks for the construction of a single family home at 960 Carver Beach Road. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: This matter does not pass and the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the City Council by
filing an appeal, my notes say with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the Board's,
our decision, and it will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Which may be when?
Aanenson: Probably January.
Burton: Probably in January. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED IN
AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT 8170-8190 MALLORY COURT,
ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff'?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions. Bob, parking. Are you happy with the day to day
traffic parking requirements? I realize they're taking almost half the building so I'm assuming what's there
will suffice, but.
Generous: ...their peak hour usage is complimentary to the other uses...
Blackowiak: For the worship services but for the other uses, they sound like they're fairly 9:00 to 5:00. I
mean I could be wrong but.
Generous: Yeah. It's a minimal part of their actual occupancy.
Blackowiak: Okay. It just, there was a fairly long list. I just wanted to make sure you're okay with that.
And secondly, the applicant is, I'm assuming okay with the limit to worship services evenings and
weekends?
Michelle Underdahl: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, those are my questions.
Burton: Any other questions? Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. For stafl~ One thing that I kind of found interesting is
that in the administrative area, which by my account accommodates something in the neighborhood of 20
people, if they're all there. There's only one men's room and one women's room. One stall each. I mean
there's a lot of bathrooms with the sanctuary which is way on the other side so I wonder, does that fulfill
the requirements to have one for each sex? I mean that sounds like a little small for 20 people office. I
don't know. I really don't know. It's a question.
Aanenson: It has to go through plan check so I'll leave it up to the inspector.
8
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Sacchet: Okay. And then the other question is, in the condition you stated that their worships would be
restricted to evenings and weekend momings. Is there a reason why we wouldn't want to let them have
worship service on a Sunday aftemoon, if that's what they want to do?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Okay. So anytime weekends or.
Generous: The only prohibition we'd want is not during the weekday momings.
Sacchet: Weekday during the day, okay. That's my questions.
Burton: Okay, any other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning
Commission?
Michelle Underdahl: No. Our goal is to...
Burton: If you're going to talk, you've got to go to the podium. And please state your name and address.
Michelle Underdahl: My name is Michelle Underdahl and I'm with Andreas Development Company. Our
office address is 7525 Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie. Suite 110. And there's really nothing for me to say
other than we feel this is a good use for us. Our building pad's been vacant for a couple of months now and
we think this would be appropriate for the area and the parking is just, is enough to accommodate them and
as I said before, the hours are complimentary to that neighborhood so we don't feel we'll be causing
additional traffic issues.
Burton: Okay. Go ahead. Have you got a question?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. I'm kind of curious. I mean this is a request for an
Interim Use Permit for 5 years. You're saying they have a 5 year lease. What's going to happen after 5
years?
Michelle Underdahl: We hope to find another tenant. The church group is looking for a permanent home.
A home where they can build their church facility. More of a campus setting. So our goal would be as a
developer, of course to build them that church. Keep them as long as we can, which would be the 5 years,
and in the meantime find another tenant.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? If so, please approach the
podium. Going once. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Comments? Deb do you want to?
9
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: I think the proposal seems very reasonable. I agree with the staff`report. I like Uli's idea of
clarifying the worship times by just saying, shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Something like that but I think it's a good use and a good interim use.
Burton: Okay. Any other comments? Then if somebody would like to make a motion?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use
Permit 00-3 to allow a church in an lOP District for the "The Life" to be located on Lot 1, Block 1,
th
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8 Addition and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on the plans dated
Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions 1 through 8, with number 4 being re-
worded to say worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Conrad: Second.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use
Permit #00-3 to allow a church in an IOP District for "The Life", to be located on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on plans dated
Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an interim use permit agreement with the City.
2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
3. There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the church or the auxiliary uses
associated with the church.
4. Worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
5. The Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council.
6. Plans must be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and building permit approval.
7. Meet with Fire Prevention Division for Fire Code requirements.
8. At any time if issues of parking arise, e.g. parking in public right-of-way, conflicts with other site
users, the City will re-evaluate this application.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Okay, it passes and goes to City Council for their next meeting I assume?
Aanenson: Yes. It's going December 11th.
Generous: Quick tum around.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW
10
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO
MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (393 UNITS) CONSISTING OF
CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL
TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HYVY 5 AND HYVY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brian Evans
Leah Hawke
Shelly Christy
Laura Papas
Steve Hanousek
Susan Cohoon
Anne & Mike Ryan
Mike Zumwinkle
Michelle & Kurt Oddsen
Allan Vargas
Kathy & Tony Larson
Scott C. Rile
Bill Naegele
Peter Prosen
Bruce Buxton
Ton Green
Dave Sellengren
Dan Cook
Susan McAllister
Dennis R. Griswold
Tom Standke
Kevin Farrell
2585 Southern Court
7444 Moccasin Trail
7377 Moccasin Trail
7434 Moccasin Trail
7501 Bent Bow Trail
7525 Bent Bow Trail
2595 Southern Court
7250 Hillsdale Court
7325 Moccasin Trail
2596 Southern Court
2631 Longacres Drive
2665 Longacres Drive
3301 Shore Drive
2701 Longacres Drive
Brainerd, Minnesota
Mills Property
Minneapolis
Eden Prairie
7461 Hazeltine Blvd.
Pulte Homes
Pulte Homes
7336 Fawn Hill Road
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Questions for staflk Deb.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Let me find my place here. The primary benefit for doing a
PUD is this concept of density transfer and preserving these large stands of trees in that Bluff Creek
primary zone. Our city code does not allow clear cutting of trees so if they develop this as a standard
subdivision, they would not be allowed to cut down all the trees. So are we really saving that many more
trees by doing this a PUD?
Aanenson: That's a good question. We've walked, there's a couple of subdivisions that were heavily
wooded. One is the Woods at Longacres. Another one would be Stone Creek. Heavily wooded. When
11
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Stone Creek came in we recommended doing large lot in the treed area and clustering outside. The
Planning Commission and the Council at that time had recommended no. There was a lot of trees lost in
both those subdivisions. It happens when you grade. Even when you custom grade. There's just, the clear
cutting says you can't go in and cut down all the trees and then come back and alter the terrain. The
purpose of saving the trees is it forces the maintenance of some of the natural topography, which is one of
the other goals we're trying to achieve, but yes you will get a lot of tree loss if you did a straight
subdivision.
Kind: I know I have other questions. Oh, on page 9 of the staffreport it talks about that it appears it will
be 41% owner occupied units. I was at the City Council meeting. I was the designated Planning
Commission person at the meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved unanimously by our
City Council, and it was 30%. I'm assuming that the reason this is 41% is that we, this is the only type of
area where we are going to get affordable homes so we need to have a higher percentage here. Because the
30% is for all new units built in Chanhassen. Is that how it works?
Sacchet: May I jump in here? Because the 41% is not accurate anymore. It's actually between 20 and
25 % now because the price of the coach homes went out of the range of affordable so only the village
homes are considered affordable and there are 82 and 82 out of 383 is about between 20 and 25%.
Kind: So we're not even making up anything with this?
Sacchet: So yes.
Aanenson: I don't think that's a right number. The village homes is the predominant use and that's the
most modestly priced ones.
Sacchet: Oh excuse me, there are 160 village homes.
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Yep. So it's 41% about.
Aanenson: It's 41%.
Kind: But the reason for the higher percentage is because it's for all, well go ahead.
Aanenson: It'd be nice to accomplish it, you know our goal would be to try to accomplish it in any
subdivision. Economically it's impossible to do a single family detached home, in a traditional
subdivision, and make it work because the economics are such that when you have a three car garage, two
story home, you're not going to get one under 134. We haven't built one under 134 for a number of years.
So the only way to accomplish some of the affordable owner occupied is to do some other type of product,
and that tends to be townhome or condominium type product. The only product that we've done as single
family detached, that's affordable, is the North Bay one that the City participated in. That's been the only
one that we participated owner occupied in a number of years. And that's olT of Lake Riley, Lyman
Boulevard and that's a detached type home. And the City participated in that.
Kind: So with the 41% for this project, does that put us on track for meeting our overall 30% goal?
Aanenson: It moves us towards it but we're still quite a ways from it.
12
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: Okay. On page 10 of the staffreport it talks about setbacks and I'm curious, I think elsewhere in
the staff`report, I couldn't quite put my finger on it, it talks about the distance across the wetland to the
neighboring homes. What is that distance?
Aanenson: 700 to 1,000 feet.
Kind: And then how about across the smaller wetland to the new proposed.
Aanenson: That's also approximately about 600-700 feet. Let me just, as long as we're on that topic.
That was another one we looked at this, doing the density transfer because this neighborhood is isolated.
You're not connected, as I showed on Walnut Grove, you had two neighborhoods that are connected,
which is much more sensitive to the traffic pattems. This neighborhood is not connected to another
neighborhood in that way. They won't be able to get, except for the West 78th Street extension, to connect
to another neighborhood. And they're at the end of a line. Looking at access onto collectors.
Kind: On that same page, under the commercial development standards it talks about under point number
2 that curtail walls would be allowed on office components. Standing seam curtain walls. Do we really
want to say that?
Aanenson: No, we want it as a support material. I think if you're talking about a long, where we don't
want it as a long unadomed wall. If it is standing seam siding, it could be monotonous so, I mean if that's a
concem I would recommend that you strike that language out.
Kind: It's a concem so I agree. Next staff`question. Oh, on page 12 where preliminary plat subdivision,
where we're talking about conservation easements and the common spaces and the outlots and that sort of
thing. It brings to mind that these conservation easements are, are they, who owns them when they're
dedicated? Is it the City?
Aanenson: Well it's stafl~s recommendation that we put, that we put them in a conservation easement but
if they're left with the homeowners association, there's only so much density. This has come up in other
PUD's, with this project. If they wanted to put additional units, they'd have to come back and ask for a
rezoning because a fixed number of units goes with the project and that's the beauty of the PUD. They
can't make alterations without coming back and asking for amendments. As far as the Wetland
Conservation Act, I mean they're bound by law as far as what they can do to that, and those also have
utility and drainage easements over them. That they cannot alter those either. That's based on the
Wetland Conservation Act. If you wanted another level of assurance, you can speak to the applicant about
if they wanted to put the conservation easement in the name of the City or something so they make sure
that the homeowners association didn't decide to put a gazebo in that area or something like that.
Kind: I think that might be a good idea. So that dovetails into my wetland question which is, are they
being dedicated to the City as well?
Haak: Yeah, I knew you were going to... Yes, what the proposal is and what typically happens with
wetland issues is that the existing wetlands are dedicated to the City in drainage and utility easements.
Any replacement wetlands are under separate drainage and utility easements and there are some other
restrictions and covenants that go along with those replacement wetlands. They will be replacing it 2 to 1
as is required by law.
Kind: Okay. And the large wetland, what if it becomes not so wet anymore and basically dries up and all
of a sudden could they build on that?
13
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Haak: Well that wetland has existed for quite some time. I wouldn't anticipate something like that. if
that were to happen, there's a number of exemptions that could be applied, if the Wetland Conservation
Act stays the way it is right now. But like I said, with a historic wetland like that, it's part of the Bluff
Creek Watershed. I wouldn't anticipate anything like that happening.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that question? It's a good question. Again, that's the density question so any
alteration of that, they would still have to come back and ask for one, any exemptions of the wetland act if
they use them. Then they'd also have to ask for additional density because you've given so many units.
So it would take an amendment to the PUD.
Kind: Brings to mind another question which is, I know in Longacres some of those home's properties
actually go into the wetland so that's counted as their square footage, their 15,000 average or whatever. In
this development, are we giving the applicant any credit for any of that wetland?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: Anything that density transfer...
Aanenson: ...taken out of the net density.
Kind: Okay, so the net densityisjust upland?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have another question. Oh! On page 19, there's a park and trail section and this
is an area I don't think we should get into. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to direct planning staff`to
take a look at what we've done with other multi-family home projects as far as totlots and prepared some
sort of document for City Council. Just not even get into that discussion.
Aanenson: Well yeah, the Park Commission's recommendation goes directly to the City Council. In the
past the Planning Commission and Park Commission may not always have been in agreement where the
Park Commission may have wanted something more active. Maybe the Planning Commission wanted
something more passive. The Planning Commission has asked to see what the Park Commission's looking
at. You don't have to be in concurrence. You don't have to review what they're doing. Their
commission, their recommendation similar to your recommendation, goes up to the council and they'll
consider both of those in the evaluation of the project. So you don't have to be in concurrence or review
what they're doing. It's just really for your edification.
Kind: What do you think about preparing something relative to what we've done in other multi family
housing developments?
Aanenson: Sure. That seems like a reasonable request.
Kind: Okay. Page 22. Street. The traffic analysis and the EAW, on page 19, shows a C and D level of
service as acceptable. Do we agree?
Saam: Yes. Yeah, I agree with that.
14
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: I just had never thought ofa C and D as being a good grade, but for streets it is huh? For traffic it
is?
Saam: Well acceptable, yeah. I guess it's better than what was it the Gateway EAW. Kate and I had
discussed this before the meeting. I wasn't around when the Gateway EAW came about so.
Aanenson: The C or D means it's adequate. It's not performing but Highway 5 is functioning at C or D
and it will with the upgrade so.
Kind: How about if this parcel is developed as commercial or as a standard subdivision, how would that
affect the traffic?
Aanenson: We had put that in the other packet. Matt's new here. We had put that in the concept, the
different scenarios under based on what we estimated for trip generation. We kind of review our math,
what we had put in there. It's one of the attachments.
Kind: It's one of these attachments?
Aanenson: One of the attachments at the very end. Under the original concept you wanted to look at
population projection for students, tax capacity and population for...
Kind: Excuse me Kate, but what page are you looking at?
Aanenson: The last page. The estimated students on the top, that was the name of our thing but it's
actually trip generation rates. The top heading's going to say estimated student projections. Right under
trip generations.
Kind: Yeah okay.
Aanenson: I can go through those with you but I think if you look at what the EA projected and if it was
industrial and commercial, you're over by 1,000, a little over a 1,000 trips a day from what, so our
estimate was pretty close.
Saam: Yeah, the EAW had predicted 4730. What Kate modeled for what Pulte's actually petitioning or
applying as is 6176 so that's about 1,400 more. If it was all commercial it'd be even higher. 7,700 so.
The traffic would definitely increase if it was all commercial.
Kind: Let's see ifI have another one. Oh, speaking of streets. There's one dead end street in the proposal
that abuts up to the McAllister property. Will that road be posted as possibly being extended in the future
or something like that for clear communication purposes?
Saam: Yes. That's something we typically do. Put up a barricade and say this street will be extended in
the future.
Kind: Do we know that it will be? Should the language say maybe or?
Saam: Yeah there's no, we don't know for sure. It's not set in stone but that's what we're planning for.
15
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Right. There's two anticipated access to the McAllister property. One would be directly off`of
West 78th. The other would come through that street. She is requesting sewer and then possibly for sewer
and water, way may come through that way too so.
Saam: Both we'd want through.
Aanenson: Right. So it gives you two options so it's probably, that may be a good idea to post it.
Saam: Yeah, it's dependent upon development of course. If she never wants to develop.
Kind: Then it won't happen. Well and there's a few streets like that that the roads never did go through
and I can think of one in Stone Creek where it abuts Timberwood where the street never did go through,
even though it could.
Aanenson: The staff`recommended approval. The neighbors didn't want it tied in.
Kind: Right, and so it didn't happen. And then there's another one in Chan Estates abutting the Brookhill
development too, yeah. Where that road never went through either so a couple examples. They don't
necessarily go through, but the possibility I think should be told.
Aanenson: I think for the Stone Creek one, staffhad recommended approval. It's still posted there. If for
some reason some future council changes their mind, so the bus can go through.
Kind: We won't get into that tonight. And speaking of Miss Rosie's, I'm wondering if it makes sense
again under the heading of clear communication, that if this proposal goes through, that the future buyers
all sign some sort of disclosure statement saying that they're aware of Miss Rosie's petting farm and also
we're not sure what's going to happen with the Gateway. You mentioned that they are selling but maybe
disclose that there's a Gateway group home there and then the possibility that that road could be extended
in the future. The next thing on that page talks about the EAW. I'm still on page 24 guys. I think they're
trying to keep track. It talks about the EAW and the plans that are shown in the EAW are different than
the current proposal. Is there any problem with that?
Aanenson: It's less intense so we scope for the maximum. This actually has less units and it's been
modified so. And we'll comment on that when we send it.
Kind: Okay. And in the EAW it also talked about noise abatement and it recommended that air
conditioning, it recommended that there be year round climate control which.
Aanenson: I believe all the units are air conditioned. So that issue has been resolved.
Kind: Sorry guys, I got a lot of questions. Oh, on page 26. Under the fifth finding it talks about, staff
report talks about the code does allow for a density bonus for affordable. Are we, does this proposal
include a density bonus?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: No. And then there's also a couple numbers in there that that are different.
Aanenson: Those are the older densities.
16
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: The older. It should be 8.3 units on the, let's see. On the south side of West 78th Street and then
5.6 overall.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: And that's it for now.
Burton: Other questions for staff'?
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a lot of questions but I feel a little tom. I mean we have a lot of people
here that want to give input to that and I have at least as many questions as Deb had so I would want to ask
whether it's acceptable that we can ask more questions as we move along because we have people with
small kids. I think it'd be fair to them if we moved this thing along.
Burton: I think we've typically asked questions as we go anyway so I don't have a problem with that.
Anybody else want to ask questions?
Conrad: A couple. Questions before you open the public hearing?
Burton: Or the applicant.
Aanenson: I think the developer would like to finish his presentation.
Conrad: Kate, would you just...developer, give me a history of this. We saw it in concept form. Tell me
what's happened since that concept.
Aanenson: Sure, I'll go through those changes again.
Conrad: And then, so that's one thing I need to know. And then two. In the staff`report it appeared that
there were two issues that City Council brought up. That were of concem to them so I'd like to know the
history, public involvement and then I'd like to know the major City Council issues. If you could
summarize them based on your memory.
Aanenson: Sure. The council had an issue regarding the density on the north side. At a minimum all, my
understanding is a minimum of all twin homes along the perimeter. And that wasn't able to be
accomplished on the eastem side of the property where the rental homes was. They had Pulte didn't have
control of that. The applicant...Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental.
Audience: Could you speak up please.
Aanenson: Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental. To date it appears that Mr. Deannovic won't be doing
the rental. That has been dropped from the project and Pulte is trying to acquire that piece and it's their
desire to put the manor homes, which is this product, along that perimeter property. So it will be all owner
occupied. So that was one of the concems that council also wanted to see the twin homes along the entire
perimeter was one of the issues. Also the open space and some of the density transfer, how that worked.
I'm not sure that was clear so we tried to show that in the staff`report. How that worked. Again we treated
it like Walnut Grove where we gave them again Pulte is dedicating West 78th. If this project does not go
through, it's a separate letting project. West 78th would terminate at Century Boulevard, which is this
street right now. That's where the project right now contemplates. The water is running along West 78th
Street, which goes over to 41 which would service the future Westwood. Sewer's running along the edge
17
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
of that wetland so this project provides the mechanism for the next project to go. So that's the history.
Neighborhood meetings. A neighborhood meeting was held last week. I'm sorry.
Conrad: Go back further. When did we see this?
Aanenson: Over a year ago. Over a year ago.
Conrad: And we've seen it once?
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: And then it went to council for their concept so they saw it and they gave those recommendations,
they gave them two or three recommendations. And then since then.
Aanenson: Right. And they also said it didn't have any legal standing. It does take, it does a rezoning
does take, you have a lot of discretion as far as changing the comprehensive plan. And I think it was clear
that the concept didn't have standing but they wanted to give them some direction on which way to go.
Conrad: And then the neighbors were brought in at what point in time?
Aanenson: Well we've been in dialogue on the, I'm not sure there's been always a lot of concurrence on
some of the issues but they did meet last week, been a bit of dialogue.
Conrad: So you've got City Council input a long time ago and now we're back.
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Okay.
Burton: Alison, do you have any questions?
Blackowiak: No, not at this point.
Burton: Alright, we'll move on then, unless there are other questions. Would the applicant or their
designee and if they'd like to address the commission, please approach the podium and state your name
and address.
Tom Standke: My name is Tom Standke. I'm with Pulte Homes, 1355 Mendota Heights Road in
Mendota Heights.
Dennis Griswold: Dennis Griswold, the Director of Land for Pulte Homes. If you'd like I'd like to just
make a few comments about the site and then we'll go through the product in more detail and show the
elevations and then answer any questions you might have.
Burton: That's fine.
Dennis Griswold: Just to start. We are very proud of this proposal that we have before you tonight. We
feel it's a planned unit development that is a perfect use for a site that has many things happening in it and
around it. And the aerial photo that we took earlier this year indicates the different areas as they exist
now, and I'd like to just point out so you can see in photo form how it does relate. Kate did have an aerial
18
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
map but this is a little bit at an angle and I think shows the vicinity. The Longacres property is to the
north. We have the generous wetland immediately adjacent to that in this area. The area that will be the
primary development area is the tan colored open field area through here, and the dashed line that you see
through here is the northerly extent of where our buildings will occur. So you can see we are backing up to
the wetland. We're not violating that wetland. We're backing up to the wetland on the north and the east,
but we're respecting that buffer and we're not violating it. The two little white rectangles that show up,
these are the locations are actually the dimensions that we are from the, where the back of our buildings
will be and the path that is along the back side of the homes in Longacres. You can see on the map, the
path kind of coming into the right. That continues through the trees. We're 658 feet at the closest point
diagonally across here and we're about 1,317 feet through the balance of that buffer area. The property
west of 41 is about 11 acres and you can see that, where it's, the tree mass through here and the open area
on the north. The other tree masses on the main part of the site are down along Highway 5 and then up
north of the McAllister exception up along the wetland. And part of the proposal here of using the PUD
concept again is to save those natural areas as much as possible and to make sure they are saved from here
on. In doing that we have proposed the site plan that you have seen tonight and as part of that, thanks.
Part of that site plan and the platting is that the wetlands and the property west of 41 will be saved within
outlots. And I know it's been stated either in a conservation easement or whatever to convey that so
there's an assurance that those will not be developed in the future. Those will be dedicated as outlots and
they'll be dedicated to the city. So it will be under city ownership defined within an outlot and therefore it
will be your responsibility and great effort to maintain those as is. That is a common practice in many
cities so the city does have the right to go in and do any small maintenance or whatever on the boundaries
of the wetlands and do what you need to do there. The development then, the proposal again is planned
unit development. That allows us to work with the natural features. It allows us to put our density in the
right areas of the site. It allows us to work with also the other features such as the 78th Street, Highway 5 to
work with how we will have access to those and how our buffering would work. And again we have
worked extensively with staff`and I don't mean to go through each detail of the site but we are providing
an ample interacting open space or green space throughout all of the different products. Most of them with
a path system so you do have good circulation through. Just for scale, the open space down in the
southwest comer, right in this location is 1 V2 sizes of a football field. So you can get the sense of scale
that that is a large open space that we are providing. We actually have about twice that much up in the
open space up in the manor home area of the site. A little bit different character because it has trees and
wetlands and a little more undulating. All of the open spaces have the play features that we are proposing.
Totlots, half court basketball, volleyball courts, horseshoes, shuffle board, all of those types of things.
Again we're trying to provide a plan that integrates the life cycle community aspect of homeowners in
different stages of their housing needs. To work together not only with the natural corridors but also the
transportation corridors and we feel that this particular site plan is an excellent site plan for this particular
site. It's a very intense site with 41 and 5 and 78th Street. Those are all very major streets. We are
integrating the density out in the area where the density should be according to comp guide plan. And
we're transitioning for the more intense density on the south to less intense on the north. And that's a
transition that works well with the man made and the natural features. So with that just a couple quick
things that the planned development gives you that a straight zoning would not. First of all MnDot would
not have to pay for 78th Street right-of-way. We're dedicating that. We are dedicating the 11 acres west
of 41 that will be part of your natural corridor through there. We're providing the tree buffering along 5
and 41. We're not only saving the tree mass in this area, but we're also planting about 1,200 or so trees on
the site that are primarily along 5, 41 and 78th Street. From the City's standpoint also, with the association
owned green space that we're providing these recreational amenities and path system, those are not park
dedication. Park dedication will be approximately $275,000 cash dedication per your per unit dedication
requirement. So the City is getting a definite advantage from that standpoint. I think that the bottom line
from our standpoint is the site and the uses fit with the area that we're dealing with. With that I'd like to,
19
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
with Mr. Standke, do a quick run through on the units themselves so you can see what they'll look like and
what they will cost and so forth.
Burton: Okay.
Tom Standke: Thank you. I believe we'll start with just leaving the plat map up there. Talking a little bit
about the prices, the sizes and the basic demographics of the specific products. As Denny had mentioned
on the south side of the property is the village homes. These are the 160 units that was mentioned before
as far as the affordable housing. Down in the, again in the south and the westem portion of the site. This is
the fourth community that we will be building village homes in. We redesigned this particular product.
You may have recalled, it was in an L shaped building before. It is now in a different characteristic. Our
estimations are, and again based on our history with this product, of approximately 21% children. That's
33.6 or 34 children. They are two story homes with tuck under garages. The finished square footage range
is from 930 to 1,000 square feet. And the approximate selling prices go from $110,000 to $120,000. The
piece that you see covered up is the L shaped portion of the building, which is why we put that there.
Obviously you will now have just a straight run as we have shown on the plat map. This is the front door
on the garage for the homes. We do have a rendering of the rear of the home that is a black and white.
Here you see a typical four unit building. The entrance to the homes on the side comes in through the side
of the home over in this area. Each of the home has it's own patio onto a green space as was indicated on
the original plat. Here you see the side elevation of the drawing of the building where you have the side
entry for the home that would be on the end of the building itself in it's totality. The next product is the
coach home which is in this area. IfI don't take all of our things down. And again that is a coach home.
It is a product that we developed for here. It is an off shoot of something that we called a court home. We
have been building this product probably 15 different communities in the Twin Cities area. This particular
product has all two car garages. These are back to back buildings meaning that there's a mirror image of
the product that you see there. The coach homes, there will be 82 of them that are planned, again with
approximately 21% children which comes out to 17.2 or 18 children. Finished square footages are
between 1,200 and 1,350 square feet. Approximate sales price range, $135 to $150,000. And again the
other side is a mirror image. The next product is the manor home which is in the center portion of the plat.
These particular homes are a front to back townhome. They're all two car garages. As a matter of fact,
they're all oversized two car garages. With the inclusion we're looking at as far as the rental homes going
away, and this particular product being added to the east side of the property, we would go to 105 manor
homes. Here we're looking at approximately 18% children, which is 18.9 or 19 children. These are split
level townhomes with basements. Finished square footages range from 1,200 to 1,600 square feet and the
approximate sales price from $150 to $180,000. The architectural drawing that you see on the bottom is
the end units and then the rear elevation of a typical building. And then the last product that we have is on
the north end of the property. These are club homes. Club home is a product that we have built in the
Twin Cities for the 10 years that our company has been here. These are all two unit buildings, front and
side loaded garages. They are all one level homes. They do have basements and the next drawing you see
there is a walkout basement. The rear elevation of a walkout basement of a two unit building. That is a, as
I say, a one level townhome. Active adult are the typical buyers. Finished square footage goes from 1,400
to 2,200 square feet. The approximate sales price from $185 to $220,000 and again for the last 10 years
we're finding approximately 12% children in that. In the 36 homes would be 4.32 or a total of 5 children.
So what we're really looking at in the 383 homes would be a total of 76 children, which is about 1 child
every 5 homes. There were some questions at the neighborhood meeting about the impact on schools.
Obviously if it was a straight single family community you'd probably have approximately 2 children per
home. Here you have 1 every 5 homes. So this is a basic of the plans, what they look like and the price
ranges. We do have some exhibits here for the exterior color packages and we can certainly send those
around. I'm not sure how good that shows up but what we have here is on the top left is the siding color.
The middle is a vinyl shake. Then the roofing material. On the bottom right we have either stone or brick
20
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
and then the accent color would be for shutters and front door. We do have, and that will be passed
around. This one shows the brick and Denny will pick up the cultured stone and I don't think we'll pass
that around because it's a bit heavy.
Aanenson: We'll pass them. Do you want to see them all? All the colors?
Burton: Why don't you just quickly hold them up. Why don't you go through and show them to the
audience too so people can see them.
Tom Standke: All of the homes are maintenance free exteriors with vinyl siding and vinyl shakes. As was
mentioned before, there's a homeowners association that handles the lawn care, the snow removal,
sprinkler systems, trash pick-up so it's a combination of things that we have done in the past quite a few
times and if I've missed anything please let me know. Otherwise I'd be more than willing to take any
questions.
Burton: Questions for the applicant? Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would like to ask you a few questions. I don't have too many issues with you. Most of
my issues are more staff`issues but ifI can just clarify a few things. The one thing, I want to clarify, in the
staff` report it says if Pulte Homes is to off`er it, then the rental units will be manor homes. So is that a done
deal or is that if? Are at this point, is that a done deal that instead of rental units you are proposing to have
manor homes there and they will be owner occupied or what's the meaning of the if in there? Or is that
just a remnant from previous times?
Dennis Griswold: IfI may address that. That has changed primarily because of the input last week from
the neighborhood meeting and we found that there was a lot of concem on the rental component and so it
was decided by Mr. Deannovic that he would give up that particular item and would sell it as owner
occupied .... with Mr. Deannovic. It's my intention to pursue that very heavily and I think he is receptive
to negotiating that with us. So we would like very much to purchase that part too and have the manor
homes there.
Sacchet: So that's not a done deal but it looks like it should go through?
Dennis Griswold: I would hope so.
Sacchet: My second point was the coach homes originally were proposed in the price range of $112,000 to
$130,000 and now it's gone up to $135 to $150,000. Can you just briefly give us an idea of why.
TomStandke: Well first of all the, pardonme. The initial application was over a year ago. So there's the
increase in costs with both building materials as well as some additional changes and adjustments that
we've made to the product. There's also building code issues. We have changed all of our product to
meet the energy code that was supposed to take place 3 or 4 different times. It was a moving target. It
never did happen. However, all of our homes are built to that design which added several thousands of
dollars in cost so. With all of those things and passage of time, that's where they're at.
Sacchet: Okay. In our package we have a letter from the Lundgren Brothers where they're hope, they're
expressing their desire to have some buffering also on the east side towards the area that they're planning
to develop. Is that something you're planning to accommodate to any extent?
Tom Standke: Well there is a wetland inbetween the properties that Mr. Griswold is showing you now.
21
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: We do have the wetland which is again about 600 feet. There are trees, our side of the
wetland and on the Lundgren side. The 78th Street location is approximately through here so the primary
interaction between our residential pond and their's would be essentially across that wetland. The area
down in the southeast comer of our's and southwest of their's would be a commercial component.
Sacchet: So your answer is that there is a natural buffer in place that fulfills that requirement. Okay.
There is some discussion in the wetland context that in some areas you're actually proposing a 20 foot
buffer where you could get away with a 10 foot buffer. And then there are some lots that are mentioned
that are actually encroaching. I assume those are issues that you're working out with stafl~ And there was
also talk about the northem cul-de-sac being moved in that context. Are those issues that are being worked
on?
Dennis Griswold: Yes. Those are minor site plan adjustments.
Sacchet: Okay, so we don't need to spend time on that. And then finally in the context of the petting farm
next door, I saw on your grading plan that by putting the road all the way to the lot line you actually do
some grading on that property. That it goes about 20-30 feet onto their property. Is that something that, do
you have agreement from the owner there to do that?
Dennis Griswold: At this point we don't have any written agreement to that effect. If blending such is that
is very technical and I would hope that we would be able to work that out...
Sacchet: Okay, it shouldn't be a major issue.
Dennis Griswold: If not we would have to deal with a small retainer or something right at her property
line, but it's very difficult and you are stubbing a street right to her property line. To not actually encroach
into that property on a very minor basis.
Sacchet: And then my last point real quickly, and I don't expect to get to the full bottom of that because
it's as well a question for stafl~ Our city ordinance for petting farm has setback requirement I believe of
300 feet from the closest stmcture, and I would assume if it works that the petting farm has to be 300 feet
away also. Your buildings have to be 300 feet away from the stmcture of the petting farm. Is that
something that's being looked at at all?
Dennis Griswold: I think staff has reviewed it and feels that we comply with that. From our point of view
we did not have a problem with the location of our townhomes relative to the activities on the petting zoo
area. Now I know there was setback issue of how many feet from the bam and I guess...
Sacchet: We'll address that with staff further to see how that exactly is supposed to work but that's my
question. Thank you.
Burton: Okay. Other questions for the applicant?
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Could you explain why there's a dramatic price change from the last time that we
saw this? He did that?
Sacchet: Yeah he did.
Tom Standke: But I'd be happy to do it again.
22
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: No, I don't want you to do it again. Where was I? I'm sorry.
Tom Standke: The passage of time as well as changes in the way we build the homes as far as energy code
was the main reason.
Kind: I'm sorry. I really apologize.
Tom Standke: That's quite alright. I hope all questions are that easy.
Kind: I was hoping you were going to say they were dramatic architectural improvements or something
like that.
Dennis Griswold: IfI may. I would say that the improvements to the site that the community is benefiting
from, our portion of that as well as what Mr. Standke had indicated but the 11 acres on the west side of 41.
All the different items that we've talked about do get included in that bottom line price.
Kind: I'm sorry. I obviously was out listening as in not. I do have some concems about quality of
materials and the elevation that we were shown recently. The manor homes, the back elevation, you might
want to put that up again there. I think the amount of windows is great. I have a concem about the back
elevation. The roof being one continuous line. Would you consider adding gables or maybe cantilever
some of those windows out and put gables above them to create a little more architectural interest on the
back elevation?
Tom Standke: Well I think it's difficult for you to see the true effect of the rear elevation because the
homes are staggered. Okay, so and again, yeah. Denny's pointing it out. You can see it more on a side
elevation how you've got the roof lines moving and so I think again, a flat perspective does not really do it
justice, just as our colored elevation of the from.
Kind: How dramatic is the stagger? How many feet are we talking?
Dennis Griswold: There's 4 foot horizontal at these two points. And then you have the decks projecting
out. So there are quite a few things happening.
Kind: On the back side of that.
Dennis Griswold: The other point ifI may add is, typically those are oriented within...
Kind: Which leads to my next question, which is the back elevation of the village homes, which is
exposed to that intent intersection that you talked about of Highway 5 and 41. That back elevation
appears to me to be one continuous roof line as well.
Dennis Griswold: Our intent from the site, and point ifI may just talk a little bit about that first. Is first of
all some of the things that we're doing from the site here, we're preserving the tree stand which is a buffer
for these units. Both for people looking in and people here looking out. Through here is probably at least
half of this 1,200 trees around. Those are primarily evergreens and omamental trees such as crab apple.
Kind: Will there be a buffer that they're on top of? Or a berm I mean.
Dennis Griswold: On a berm that undulates 4 to 8 feet.
23
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: So it will hide the garages perhaps or?
Dennis Griswold: Well the garages are basically intemal. The garages are facing each other in these cases
and that back elevation you were talking about is out toward this patio court in most cases. So it's, when
you're looking at it from different directions, typically you're oriented more toward the end of those
buildings and that was the concept in doing that. You don't have in any of these village units paralleling
the street so you get the width of the building if you will.
Kind: And the end unit has entryway for the end unit and is there an overhang for that door? I went and
looked at the village homes that were built in Apple Valley and I'm assuming these are very similar to
those and I did not see any sort of protection from the elements, that sort of thing. On the sides.
Dennis Griswold: The horizontal shift is at this point where this total area is shifted out. There's not a
roof over the actual entry itself.
Kind: Is that something you'd consider adding?
Dennis Griswold: I guess one reason we haven't in most of the areas is because that also deals with setback
issues so you're, in addition to the building you're tacking that onto the building envelope for setbacks.
Kind: To me, and also in the front elevation those entryways, they're all just kind of flush. There's no
overhang or pillars. Nothing like the charm of the manor homes which I think are quite nice. I'd like to
see some of those kind of details on the village home. It seems to me it seems quite easy but I'm not the
one doing it so.
Dennis Griswold: We do have on those, and again the elevation here is flat but we do have the base jutting
out. We have the horizontal shift at these areas. Whether it's 4 unit building or 6 or an 8. And each of
the entry areas juts out and has a roof, either this style or a gable or a shed type roof so there are three
different styles of that roof over the entry.
Kind: In Apple Valley none of them offer any protection though if it's raining. It's got the roof but the
doors are flush with the, they're on the same plane. I know a shadow is drawn but it doesn't cast much of a
shadow. There's not much of an overhang there. It's just an idea for how I think it could be made a little
nice. I also have a concem with the product of shingles. In Eden Prairie the club homes have much nicer
looking shingles than the village homes. I can't tell from that flat little piece there. Is that the higher
quality shingle that's on the club homes in Eden Prairie that will be used throughout this development or
what is the roof material like?
Dennis Griswold: This is an upgraded shingle from what you saw in Eden Prairie. So just the overall
aspects of the village buildings. I think about everything you would look at in the Eden Prairie village
home has been upgraded.
Kind: Good.
Dennis Griswold: ...doing it there and leaming from what the buyers would like and what we want to
provide.
Kind: The Apple Valley one looked much better. I was relieved when I saw that. I had some concems
about the shingle quality. I know in the summer time the flat shingle tends to kind of buckle and
24
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
something that's a little bit more textured like on the club homes is something I'd like to see in all of the
units. Are you proposing using the same shingle products on all of the units?
Tom Standke: Frankly I don't know that. We also have to remember something that, first of all the
shingles that we use are a national manufacturer. They're warrantied for a minimum of 25 years. You
know it's a typical building shingle. As far as is it the same shingle that we would use on a club home?
Club home might receive a totally different shingle because you're selling a product that's up to $220,000.
Here we're looking at affordability. It's not an inferior product. It's a product that is again, 25 plus year
warranty and.
Kind: I just want to make sure it looks good. That's my, that's where I'm going.
Tom Standke: Okay.
Kind: Oh. Also, on the...it's difficult to tell. The original coach homes, let me see. Could you put the
coach home visual up? I don't know what they were called a year ago. They weren't called coach homes.
Tom Standke: Court homes.
Kind: Court homes, thank you. The court homes in Eden Prairie have a ship lap siding, and just so you
know where I'm going. I hate that stuff. So I'm hoping that none of this siding is going to be ship lap.
Dennis Griswold: No it's not.
Kind: Good answer. Tip my hand a little bit here. Oh, the side entries of those village homes have an
awful lot of foundation showing. Are you proposing to put some sort of brick facade or some sort of stone
to cover up that foundation?
Dennis Griswold: We do have retaining that works around the comer of that building that brings the grade
up.
Tom Standke: And there's also landscaping that goes in that area. As you go up the grade.
Kind: It'd be nice to have mles to only so much of the foundation can show. Just quickly checking to see
ifI have any more questions. Oh, the air conditioning. You said that that was included in the base price?
Dennis Griswold: Yes.
Kind: Because out in Apple Valley it's not. It's an option.
Tom Standke: It's standard here.
Kind: I think that's it for the applicant. Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? No? Ladd?
Conrad: Diversity of color choices in the project is within a housing type, the product. The colors are the
same? Exterior colors.
25
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: There is a range of colors. Kind of the range we've seen here. They're not drastically
different but they are different.
Tom Standke: I believe we have 10 color packages.
Dennis Griswold: And you do get the differences in color on the buildings too. You know from the siding
to the shade area and so forth.
Conrad: But the buildings won't look alike and they're sitting next to each other in terms of coloration on
the outside?
Tom Standke: No. We choose the different color packages and we do not put them next to each other.
Conrad: A year ago I had one point and you probably remember what it was. I have more than one point.
I was concemed with sort of the entry feel to Chanhassen on the intersection of 41 and 5. And was curious
what you were, we were talking some gazebo look or some fountain look or something at that intersection
to kind of signify that the site, that it fits in the project here. Right now I'm not sure what that is. What
are you planning?
Dennis Griswold: What we have planned is basically the berming and the landscaping for screening and
really continuing this plant mass around the perimeter for that we're providing screening. In terms of, and
then there is also a wetland down in the comer. We explored that potential of a pond and we also were
trying to explore other elements and I think it was talked about what could that be and quite frankly I
didn't get enough of an answer to put it into the plan. I really just went with the berming and the screening
and felt that that in itself and making the different housing units that we do have here, blend into that
comer and have the screening not only for the people living in the units, but for the people driving by.
And I think that's fairly comparable to what you see in a lot of different developments or communities
around.
Conrad: So that comer you're under highway grade, right? So what's the berming going to do? Is that
just, does that bring it up to highway grade? What is it doing?
Dennis Griswold: No. It won't be that high. It will give you undulation and eventually when the plant
materials get up to a bigger size, you will get screening that way. But I think you know, that is a very
intense highway there and I don't want to try to say that we're going to have total separation because we
won't. We will have I think probably better separation from that standpoint than if we created a pond
which we would want to develop relatively on elevation and a view across the pond obviously would be
open to the highway.
Conrad: So right now it will be a wetland at that comer? It will be a pond? What will it be?
Dennis Griswold: We're leaving the wetland that is in the comer. If it gets disturbed it would be by the
Highway Department and I don't know where they're at in the details of that part. The major feature I
think is going to be the larger pond here with the tree mass. I think that's really where you're going to get
the most impression from the highway.
Conrad: Okay. Into the different recreation areas within the site. The common areas. It looks like you
have one trail coming through it. Are there other access points? Is it really intended to be a community
park or, it looks like on the plan that I'm looking at, which is old, it looks like there's one trail going in.
26
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: Into that area?
Conrad: Yeah, into that area. Yeah.
Dennis Griswold: Well there's a perimeter walkway that connects to the 78th Street pathway. It comes
along this public street out to 78th Street walkway again and then from that walkway we connect through to
where the half court and the volleyball and benches and so forth are. And there's also plans for a totlot in
this area. And that connects out to this point which would give access to these units.
Conrad: So what is that space? It's green space and it's got some recreation value. What's it's intent?
Dennis Griswold: The intent is that it is association owned green space that is at a size that it's useable for
various recreational needs for that neighborhood. It's not meant to be a community park. There's a
community park in this particular case... And we do have this same path connection concept going through
this area of the site, and that also crosses the road here to the public path along that wetland that goes this
total length along the wetland. So that's where the public would be.
Conrad: Have you done other sites with this type of common area? Other projects?
Dennis Griswold: We've had common areas with paths but quite frankly not to this extent. This is quite a
bit more than we proposed in many communities. One of the, ifI may just add to that. One of the major
recreational needs in a mixed use community like this is a path system for jogging and for walking. And
for the active adults up on the north, they like to be able to make a loop walking and same with the
younger people. They go out for a jog and not have to be in the street. So that is making a big loop there.
Conrad: Okay. Just a footnote for stafl~ I think it'd be, and it's obvious you went to Park and Rec and I
read their notes and their notes talked more about totlots than they talked about some of these other things
in the public comments so. I wish we would have had their comments for this meeting because it does
affect our recommendation. How we move to the City Council but that's going to take place next week or
sometime so I guess that will be an independent process. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.
Burton: Any other questions? I just have one quick question. On the site plan, there's the totlot in the east
comer kind of it by itself. Is that still in the plans?
Dennis Griswold: This is still on the plan. At the time we talked to the parks commission, they were
concemed about whether that was the appropriate kids and size and so forth for rental housing because
their estimation was that's where you have more kids. Now that that's owner occupied, it's really down to
about 10 kids instead of the estimate of about 60 or 70 in there so we would still be proposing that but
there would be more of a connectedness over to these other features here through the path system. And
there's also the walkway along this whole road up and connecting to the public path to the north.
Burton: Okay. That's the only question I had for now.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more question. You mentioned that there were 10 color pallets. There are 6
here. Do you have 4 more in there that I could take a peak at? I'm reluctant to approve color pallets I
haven't seen.
Burton: Do you want to do more than look at them?
Kind: That's it.
27
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Burton: Okay. Question? No? Let's move to public hearing. Okay, any other questions for the
applicant?
Blackowiak: Not right now.
Burton: Okay, we can ask them if we have them as we go somewhat. Thank you. Open this to public
hearing.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Okay, anybody wishing to address the commission maybe after these guys clear out a bit.
Approach the podium. State your name and address and we've got a lot of people that want to comment so
try to, I ask that we try not to be repetitive and keep things moving here.
Kathy Larson: My name is Kathy Larson and I live at 2631 Longacres Drive. And I'm relatively new to
this area. My husband and I chose where we live after checking with zoning here in Chanhassen as to what
would be built behind our home. I feel like this is becoming more like Brooklyn Park and with some
association in the northem suburbs. I know the properties at the Edinborough Golf Course have been in a
drastic slump for years and Brooklyn Park is just digging out now from their crime rates and their property
values that have been slightly depressed due to all this high density housing and I'm just wondering why it
has to be at that location. I also have somewhat of an issue with the whole affordable housing piece. I
sometimes think by neighbors feel that it's maybe the affluent versus those that don't have wealth and I'm
an individual that lived in affordable housing. Was a single mom that was never, ever zoned by the
government and I really take issue with the fact that people who worked hard and are paying the taxes that
Chanhassen provides in this location are now being asked to pay taxes for some agenda that the
constituents haven't necessarily approved. And that's all I've got to say.
Burton: Okay, thank you. Anybody approach. State your name and address please.
Allan Vargas: Yes, my name is Allan Vargas. I live at 2596 Southem Court. And I'm here really for two
reasons. One of them is because my house is right on the buffer and it's my understanding that was to be
low density housing behind that. I'm obviously in favor of low density versus... I think one of the concems
I also have is as a citizen here of Chanhassen is that I'm really concemed about the, it's one of the things
you have in Chanhassen. One is problems with the water. We were on water rationing most of the fall
and...and you know if you don't have a sprinkler system, you know what's going to happen to your lawn if
you don't get up at 3-4 in the morning to go and water. And apparently that's going to be happening again
this year and the question that you have is why is that in a growing community. What's going to happen to
our services? The other thing that I have to ask too is about our taxes. I also understand we're probably
one of the highest property taxed communities in the State. And the other thing, I don't know whether a
lot of people saw your bills yet or not or if I'm the only one, but my taxes or my city taxes are proposed to
be increased 15% and I'd like a show of hands here, how many here got a raise of 15% in their salaries this
year. There's another little item there that it just says, actual...goes up 25%...as far as the growth and
everything we're going to have. The other thing that we talk about is what's going to happen. You know
we're saying about what is our community going to look like and we're supposed to be having an
impression as people are coming in, as they're going out. If you take a look at it on 5 and Dell Road, what
is the first things that we see. We see the townhomes and then the next thing that we see is industrial.
Going out you see the four comers of 5 and where 41 is, you'll find you see a lot of townhomes, Galpin
Boulevard and also in the proposed area and the question you've got to have is what... Is there going to be
one anywhere else? Let's see, I've got some notes here. The other part that also speaking about the taxes
28
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
and one of the things that I really don't understand is on, it hasn't been explained to me, is on the
affordable housing. How does that really work? Okay. And apparently the rental units have been taken
out. Things like that. One question that I have is, if the market value of property, say it's $1,000. Okay?
And with a life style home you can now rent that property for $700, okay. Who makes up the $300? The
value of the property. Does that come in in taxes, either directly or indirectly that we're being taxed?
Now I think these are the things that we've got to ask as a city government. You know if our taxes are
going to be going up 15% per year in city taxes and are being just under 6 years, they'll be doubled. I
thought one of the things that city government is supposed to be doing for us is really kind of protect us and
protect our lifestyle. And I guess that's all I've got to say. My recommendation is no on the medium-
medium.
Burton: Thank you.
Mike Ryan: Hi, my name is Mike Ryan. I live at 2595 Southem Court. I've got a lot to share and express
with you with respect to this project and I'll try to be fast. I'm not sure I can be brief but I'll do my best so
please bear with me. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission my first time before all of you and for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of many of the residents adjoining this project. First we want to, many of us
want to immediately address the impression that may be out there that we are against affordable housing,
and I can say that that is not the case. What we've got here is what we need to do is talk about the facts.
And there is a perception and I think a valid reality here that there is an unacceptably high percentage of
affordable housing that is being located at our westem gateway. And until a couple of the neighbors
commented that's not really being addressed I think properly. Secondly, we genuinely want the best
product for our westem gateway. What we'd like to review tonight are some of the ordinance and issues
that affect this product at our main entrance. I have spent a great deal of time with my neighbors trying to
understand our ordinances and our comp plan and the housing guidelines. It's not an easily digestible
subject and frankly at times appears to be a house of mirrors, and I know you guys live this all the time.
We, many of us, we moved in over 5 years ago and we did our due diligence and we did do that Pulte. We
looked at the property. We discussed this with Lundgren about that property at length and understood
fairly clearly what that property was guided for. North of the frontage road, low density, single family
detached, residential PUD. Minimum lot size 11,000 to 15. South was the medium density, multi-family
cluster with up to 8 units per acre. We moved to Chanhassen understanding the comp plan and the plans
for that property. We believe that the zoning guidelines are a covenant with the residents and we honestly
planned and purchased based on the comp plan. What city staff and Pulte are proposing is in conflict with
that covenant and the neighbors and all that enjoy the westem gateway potential. Excuse me. I'd like to
address some of those ordinance and issues that need to be addressed productively. First, the current guide
and zoning which I just listed. Pulte and city staff`would like to imply that the net densities are in line
with the guide, but the building structure and the land square footage allocation is out of alignment. The
building structure does not allow cluster homes north of the frontage and does not allow high density of
these 9.5 units per acre. And there is some need for clarity as to what in fact really is the amount of units
on the south side of the frontage. It is important to note the PUD is allowable for that property as is
guided. I have the application of Pulte where they specifically acknowledge the current land designation,
and I'd like to share this. And on July 30th you'll see here, ifI can use this fancy... Not once but twice,
okay can you zero in on that? The present land use designation, low, medium and density residential
requested. Low, medium density. First time. Second time. Same thing. Low and medium requested land
use designation. Low and medium. All this change though it was never demonstrated right from the
beginning from the original concept plan. Again, we did our due diligence and I'm confused and it
appears Pulte has not done their due diligence and with the aid of the city staff`has made convenient
changes, I think at the expense of the neighborhood and of the city. Also, there's been discussion tonight
about the somewhat magnanimous offerings that Pulte is making about this land that's up north. This 11
acres. If you look here, again Pulte knows however, this request does not require, Pulte's request does not
29
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
require any density transfer from the property west of Highway 41 for their tabulation. The other aspect to
that is that that's in the Bluff Creek watershed. They can't build on it. So they should have done their due
diligence with respect to that property. So it's baffling that the city staff seems to accommodate and
enables the developer at every tum then respecting the current comp plan. I realize there has been a need
to make changes with the staff report but there are many discrepancies in the staff reports that I'll do my
best to outline that this has been a moving target. What was noted tonight with respect to the affordable
housing guidelines, that the city has just acknowledged the importance for all new construction to be at a
maximum of 30% for affordable housing. Two, I think it was 2 or 3 weeks ago Pulte was supposed to be
before you and I got a call the day, I think the day before they were to be before you saying that there's
been all these changes. There's been a change with respect to the densities and as I tried to peel the
onions, the layers of the onion to find out that they raised, they just simply, it's the same product, they just
raised the prices. And this was I believe from my side, and this could need to be clarified but about 48
hours to 72 hours that they were supposed to be before you. That's why staff says tonight that it appears
now to be 41% simply with this price raise. Well, so I called the Met Council to find out when is the next
time that they're going to be raising the threshold for affordable housing. In February they're going to
raise it again so what they say is that now it's been dropped down to 40%. Come February it'd be 70%.
Right back up to where it was 3 weeks ago. So when we talk about affordable housing, not so long ago I
guess it was 1999, November, Maple Grove was acknowledged for their winning strategy using your fan
dangled thing here and what they're receiving awards for and accolades from the Star and Tribune is
working with properties that are in the 5 to 20% affordable housing range. Not this 51%. This 59%. This
40 to 70 percent that is being offered to our community. So what we have here is the third affordable
housing project in Chan. I thought this was almost in as many years, and they all exist within 5/10 of a
mile on, all on the Highway 5 corridor and as Mr. Vargas pointed out, now we're book ended by this look
of row housing and affordable housing look. It's all in one concentration and if you go to page 31 of the
Chanhassen guide lines, it clearly says the City will promote the integration of life cycle housing
opportunities throughout the community. That's throughout. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not
be overly concentrated in one area of the city. I think this is overly concentrated with the last two and
now we have three projects and it's basically bang, bang, bang. All within a half mile. We have to ask
ourselves, if this is the westem gateway, is this the best Chanhassen can do. It's the main entrance. It's our
first and last impression of Chan. This is built for conception, this is a very poor view scape of Chan. Now
I could go in great detail, I'm happy to, to list all the ordinances here. I don't know, that I see are in
challenge here. Do you want me to?
Kind: Go for it.
Mike Ryan: Okay. In our current PUD in the intent. Number 1, preservation of desirable site
characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, blah, blah, blah, mature
trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. High quality of design. Higher quality of design than is
found elsewhere in the community. Sensitive development along significant corridors within the city.
Development which is consistent with our comp plan. Consistent with our comp plan. Such park and open
spaces shall be consistent with the comp plan and the overall trail plan. Fast forward. The city, well I'll
skip that one. Moving on. Next issue is park and land dedication requirement. The Pulte project is
severely deficient with park and land dedication. As noted tonight by Mr. Griswold, they're paying cash
for parks. They're basically selling out the future residents of that project and you know, cash for parks.
With the estimated, and at least at the neighborhood meeting there were 700 estimated residents. There
should be 9.33 acres. There appears to be, if you include that central area, and I need this to be confirmed
but approximately 2.5 acres and I don't know if that falls under the park category, but the question is, is
this right? To me it seems very short sighted. People will have to cross the major thoroughfare on 78th
Street. They will potentially place demands on Longacres parks and, ifI was Lundgren I'd be very
concemed about this with any parks that they want to put on their property. It's going to place demands on
30
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
their's. So ifwe can we should do better for these residents. So as we take a look at the ordinances for
parkland and dedication requirements, 1879, land area conveyed or dedicated to the City shall not be used
in calculating density requirements of the city's zoning ordinance and shall be in addition to, not in lieu of
open space requirements for PUD's. Now, if we fast backwards here to Mr. Griswold's comment of paying
cash for the parks, it appears here, if we do calculate those 2 ~2 acres that he's allowing for that center area
and for the totlots, that is 6.8 acres and if you, I'm trying to do a rough calculation of what the value is of
those acres, and it's $36,000 of acre that he may be paying out. This is calculated based on his $250,000.
The City I think is being chumped here and more importantly again I think the Pulte residents are being
chumped as to what is, to me I think a great motivation for any developer to pay out and put more density
on a piece of property. Next is the Bluff`Creek Overlay District. This famous document that is very
important to the city and the watershed and what takes place and building in that project is a lot of natural
site management. It's taking care of the trees and the forest and I do want to share with you, sorry. Is that
an interesting discrepancy here is, if we look at the city staff`report going back to September 1, 1999,
Pulte is being allotted saying to their credit the developers are proposing to preserve the larger wooded
area near Highway 5 and the tract across 41. This would benefit the area greatly by providing natural area
within an intensely developed one and some buffering and staff strongly recommends that the applicant be
required to maintain these preserved areas when their preliminary plans are submitted. That's September
st
1, 1999. Moving to October 21 staff`report saying this plan proposes saving the large stand of trees as far
as the gateway vision of the comer. Moving to November 14th. The plan does, excuse me. The plan does
propose preserve vegetation of the two significant areas on the wooded on the site as well as providing
perimeter landscaping and it goes so far as saying that, allotting them and saying that they are retaining
50% of those wooded trees. So from being strongly for it, all of a sudden that was now being watered
down to being 50%. Again, all on the behalf of the developer. Not on behalf of the city. Okay. The
Bluff Creek overlay district states very specifically, the development within the corridor must be designed
with utmost sensitivity to the environment and development pattem must be of quantity and quality other
than what might occur in the absence of specific standards. Protect the Bluff`Creek corridor wetlands,
bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design. Development in the
corridor should be ecologically designed, built around natural features such as the trees, wetlands and
bluffs. Significant natural features should impact development rather than development impacting
significant natural features. Promote innovative development techniques such as cluster development,
open space and I think they're doing that to excess in the southem part of that frontage road. Okay. The
other aspect here and I've heard various different numbers of how many students are going to be
introduced into the school system. I thought I heard at the neighborhood meeting that there was going to
be 150 students. Tonight we heard 76 students and the staff`report I believe it says 50 students. So what is
it? And it keeps moving all the time. And I know that there is this supposed profile of what this life cycle
housing is but if you guys can't get it right in trying to factor and determine what this profile is and the
planning, what this is going to be on the city, how can we have faith in this whole process? And again
there are discrepancies with the car movements. It's anywhere from 6,000 in one report and it's 5,000 in
another. Mr. Vargas mentioned about the concem about water. The projection is about 118,000 gallons of
water use a day. And we're at this point severely deficient with our water supply and coming off`a water
ban and shortage at this point in time, can we believe that we're going to be in good shape with the project
of this magnitude. And lastly is, too many papers. But if we go to your staff; the staff`report finding 5. I
think that there is a very general and liberal use of wording here. Number 5 in the finding. It says
development which is consistent with the comp plan. It is not consistent with the comp plan. And they go
so far as saying here the development is consistent with the comp plan if the city and the Met Council
approve a land use amendment. How does that work? You know. If it's consistent with it if they approve
it. It's not consistent. So with that you can see, Ithinkmyfmstrationandthefmstrationsofus, the
taxpaying residents, stakeholders, shareholders in the city. There is a feeling of very disingenuous
information approach tmly dealing with the facts and it's very hard to have confidence in a product that is
31
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
as important as this is for our westem gateway and we think that the city and we hope that the Planning
Commission will do a very good, thorough analysis in understanding of this project. So thanks.
Burton: Thanks. Go ahead.
Kurt Oddsen: My name's Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. You know kids are great. They
get fmstrated with a meeting, they mn outside and scream. We have to sit here and listen to me. But I'm
sitting here ready to explode because I have to say something in listening to all this so I appreciate your
patience. Is this what we want in our neighborhood? That question was asked earlier and I thought it was
very significant because I'm not sure this is what we want on the westem side of Chanhassen. The
comment was also made on that particular zoning ordinance, are we trying to cram too much in a small
area? I believe on this site we are. And I think we need to take a real serious look at how we plan these
developments. Staff`has already said there's two other projects in very close proximity to this. It's been
stated that we should take the housing and spread it out throughout the community. It doesn't appear to me
that we're doing that in this situation. A lot of discussion is made about wetlands, and boy we love them
here in Minnesota. They're not swamps. They're not marshes, they're wetlands. And they're great. I
love them. And they're talking about 600 feet clearance and people are talking about buffer zones on the
east side of the project. Lundgren is even saying gee, maybe we want a buffer zone. Maybe they're
concemed about what's going there too. They have a lot more pull than I do so they may be able to
accomplish that. But 41 and 5 is a major intersection. In our meeting the other night with the developer I
asked him what the setback was going to be from the right-of-way and it's 50 feet. The comment was
made earlier how high will the berm be? 4 to 8 feet rolling, but the grade is below highway grade.
Comment was made about earlier, a year ago I believe, because I think I was here too in front of the
council, talking about putting a pond in that comer. Setting those units way back. Making it look more
like an entrance to a city rather than bringing buildings, flat side of the buildings that don't appear to be
very attractive. There's been comments made about that tonight. That's not my opinion, but I do agree
with it. And they're going to be 50 feet from the right-of-way with a 4 to 8 feet berm. And yet we're
worried about 600 feet on another side and other buffers. I'd like to ask the Planning Commission to think
about that and maybe talk about making that wider. Maybe it makes the property unfeasible for the
developer. So be it. We have to go back and ask the question, what do we want in our neighborhood.
Traffic is a big concem to me. You look at the map, ifI can use their map. You've got approximately two
major exits coming out of here. A possible third one and I know there are traffic studies and all that but I
don't think that people are going to get on this road, mn all the way down to another highway, maybe
Galpin Boulevard, maybe one of the other boulevards closer to the city before they get onto Highway 5.
These are going to be major exits. And somebody brought up the amendment. It appeared to me if you
look at the amendment and the traffic pattems, on the low density and medium density, you're looking at
numbers of 1,200 trips a day, 1,400 trips a day. I don't have the document in front of me but I'd ask you
to refer to it just for clarification. But they're looking at the development of, I think it was 6,176 trips a
day. That's a lot of traffic coming out of there. I live up in Longacres. Most of the residents don't go out,
exit on 41 unless they're heading north, because trying to tum left is dangerous. I don't even come down
from the north side to make a left hand tum because I looked in my rear view mirror and I see people
coming at 60 mph for me, going around me about a foot and a half to two feet from my car. It scares me. I
come in Galpin Boulevard. I go out Galpin Boulevard so I have a light. I'm very concemed about the
traffic in the area and I'd like the Planning Commission to think about that. Now, that gets back to the
density. I understand it's the way thing are done. We shift this. We move this. We plan for this, but it
was stated earlier what this was zoned for. We met with the council and the PUD and all they kept
referring to was the 5 year plan. The plan that was done 5 years ago and this was all agreed upon. Now
we're able to change it? I need some help here. I'm not real fast in figuring this stuff`out, but why do we
agree to it on one hand and 5 years later because somebody says oh, maybe we ought to change it so
everything fits in. I don't like that. Somebody needs to explain to me why we keep doing that. And the
32
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
density on the north side of 78th Street versus the south side is not zoned for that. If you blend it altogether,
it works our perfectly. I just have a hard time with that and I just want you to consider that. The so called
wetlands down here, ooh boy. I tell you what. If that's defined as wetlands, I have a problem with that.
It's a bunch of grass in a wet area. The wetlands that are in here contain some water in certain wet seasons.
So now they're going to fill that one in and move it to another site. I understand that's done. I'm just
saying that I wonder how many more variances and exceptions and changes are we going to listen to before
we finally say you know what? We're trying to make something fit that doesn't fit. Green space is an
interesting issue. I've got to touch on that, and I apologize. We passed a park referendum. I don't know
the numbers. Millions of dollars, and we're buying up land and building parks all over the city. I voted
for that. Now I look at this and I say wait a minute, we're going to have 380, 70 units in there. I don't
know how many people. I can't keep track of the numbers anymore but we're going to designate only this
amount of land and we're going to get $250-275,000 for the city. I'm wondering when we are going to
start looking at these developments and say you know what, I don't want to pass another referendum. If
you're going to build in this city, then you put in some parks and you put in some recreation. You're going
to foot the bill for it. If the project doesn't fit it, then we aren't building. And I don't think this is enough
space in that area. I'm not a planner. I don't have all the numbers but I'm looking at this from just a
common sense standpoint, which I would ask you to look at it. I mean we can bring out all the rules and
regulations but let's look at it from some common sense and say maybe we ought to start thinking about
this. Taxes and children in schools, we've touched on that. I can only be redundant by bringing it up
again. So I think what I'll do is I'll end and I don't know what all the legal procedures are, how it goes to
council. How staff`gets involved. How the developer gets involved. Heck, I'm not even sure how I get
involved and yet you're nice enough to listen to me up here and air my grievances. I would ask you not to
make any decisions at this point...I don't know how that's done and I'd volunteer to help you with that so I
can leam myself, but I just see a lot of moving targets here and it concems me and I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Burton: Thank you. Anybody else?
Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. And I'm just going to be
real short. I pay over $12,000 a year in taxes. I feel like I'm being boxed in with this cluster housing. I
know this is a redundant fact. We know now that within a half mile we're looking at possibly three
projects. Two terms come to mind regarding this whole thing. One of them is payola and the second one is
the City's not dealing in good faith with it's citizens. I'm very disappointed.
Burton: Thank you.
Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail and I just wanted to make a
couple of points here tonight for the record. The first one is the neighborhood meeting. We had a meeting
a year ago with Lundgren. I'm sorry, with Pulte when this thing first started and it was agreed there would
be a second neighborhood meeting. That neighborhood meeting was not conducted until after we
requested it because we found out it was going in front of the Planning Commission. Additionally, this
was taken to the Park and Rec Commission prior to the neighborhood meeting. I went to that meeting to
ask them to hold off`until the neighbors had been heard. So I kind of have a hard time believing that Pulte
is really wanting to work with the neighbors when they're asking commissions to approve it before they've
even given us a chance to be heard. Additionally, many members of the neighborhood didn't even hear
about these meetings directly from the City or from Pulte, even though we were on the list of interested
parties way back when. We found it out from Mike. We had to have Mike calling people to let us know
what was going on. I think that's unfortunate. The second point I'd like to make is I also attended the
council meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved, and what confuses me here is this
41%. This 30%. It's my understanding that our City Council approved 30% maximum in new
33
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
development. Kate, correct me if I'm wrong. There was a lot of discussion between Councilman Mark
Senn and Mayor Nancy Mancino on what that 30% was. And it was nailed down that it was a maximum
of 30% for new development. It wasn't 30% across the city.
Kate Aanenson: That's not how I understood it.
Leah Hawke: Am I, then I would ask for the record that we let the person that voted on it speak. Kate, I
mean they sat there and they argued to and for and you were asked what the numbers represented and
Mark Senn said I thought it always was 30% for the new development, and you responded yes. And that
was what went into the record so I also want to be clear about what the City Council has said should
happen in Chanhassen and what has been approved. That's not what's happening here tonight and I think
if you say 30%, you need to live by 30%. Because that's where residents go, what is going on? You're
saying one thing and you're doing something else. I was also at the parks and rec commission where this
was discussed and I don't think that they were comfortable with this proposal. That's why they tabled it.
That's my opinion. I do know that they mentioned the gateway. That was also mentioned the first time
that this went in front of the City Council. Is this what we want the gateway of Chanhassen to look like.
The other issues that came up that haven't really been spoken about here tonight are locations of
recreational areas and the proximity to the street. As a parent, I mean my point to the Park and Rec was if
you're going to build it, build it right. If you look at totlots here, they're right on 78th Street. Which
parent is going to send a 3 to a 5 year old or 7 to 12 year old to one of these totlots that on what's going to
end up being a very busy road. So those are really my three points. Very off`the cuff. I have to go relieve
my babysitter and get my kids to bed, but I really think there's a lot of misinformation that's been
circulating about this. I for one would like it nailed down what this is and what the rules actually are and
then have it presented to you. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Hugh Bishop: My name is Hugh Bishop. I'm here on behalf of Miss Rosie's Farm, Susan McAllister's
property which is being surrounded almost by the Pulte development. We're here to speak just briefly to
two issues. The first is affordable housing. A good concept that should be embraced. I'm not going to
speak to that but Susan McAllister would like to speak to it herself. And I believe her answer is yes it
should. The issue that I am speaking to is should the proposal for the rezoning PUD-R be approved. And
we believe that you should recommend that it is approved with one sentence added to the conditions under
which it's approved. The background of this is that, as you probably know Miss Rosie's Farm is the only
petting zoo in Chanhassen and has, after some amount of work and back and forth with the City gotten
established that yes, we're in a transitional zone and we're changing from agriculture to higher density but
for a period she's been given permission to continue operating the petting zoo. Not petting zoo, petting
farm in a way that it has been set up. And there's a 10 year period for a limited use. Now one of the
provisions when the City modified the zoning code was to provide setbacks for petting farms. We had to
create these last spring. So we have now a new setback requirement of 300 feet for any structure or storage
area from an adjacent single family residence. Well you know we comply with that. There's no single
family residence within 300 feet of any structure or bam on Miss Rosie's Farm. So that's great. Now, the
Pulte development as it's presently proposed is not going to cause any problem there either because there's
no single family home that is proposed for within 300 feet of where she might have the bam or storage area
so that's great. Now the concem would be this. What if there were a change at any point down the road
and maybe a double changed to a single. Well, now is the time to just add this one sentence for
clarification and what we'd like to contemplate is there are three possibilities you know. If there were an
application for a single family to go in within 300 feet of where we are right now. One is, they could say
well you know, we're here now and so you need to take down your bam. Well that doesn't seem quite
right. Susan could say well you know I was here first so you can't build. Well, she's not really interested
34
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
in saying that. So what we would like is to have the one sentence addition of a condition upon which the
PUD would be authorized to provide the interpretation or just a provision that neither of those would
happen. That the owner of adjacent land would not be able to enforce the existing setback requirements
300 feet so as to prohibit development of the Pulte property by it's successor's or by Pulte themselves.
And consequently, fair for the goose, fair for the gander, just make it clear right now so it's not an issue
that needs any discussion later that the developer of the PUD property will not enforce our existing setback
requirements in such a fashion that it's required to take down her bam. That's all that I really want to
propose. I do have a handout for you and then I'll recognize Susan McAllister for the other issue that she
wishes to speak to herself. Unless you have a question.
Burton: No, thanks. We'll take a look at your handout. Why don't you go ahead Susan.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I am at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I've heard a lot
of the stories about the Longacres people, how they don't want it in their neighborhood and they don't like
possibly the type of people or whatever they believe they have too nice of houses to be in that area with the
affordable housing in their back yard so I have one really good suggestion. I'll take it in my back yard and
I'll take it in my side yard and I'll take it in my front yard because I don't see anything wrong with it. I
think that you know being a person that's lived here since 1959 1 am somebody that needs to be
responsible to the other people that are coming into the city and that it's the new way that we have to do
things. Chanhassen is not growing any more land but we're growing people and we need to house people
and this is the new, I don't like to use the word trend but I believe this is the new way that it has to be. I'm
a person that designs trends for mass merchants. They pay me to come up with a good way to get a good
product. I believe that what Denny Griswold and Pulte have proposed is a good product. I'm also talking
as a member of the, 5 year member of the Environmental Commission for the City of Chanhassen. As a
member, past member of the Highway 5 task force in 1995 which chose, you know did the
recommendation for this. Also a member of the Highway 5 overlay district and a member of the Bluff
Creek corridor. I believe all aspects of this development fit everything that was on, I was on those
committees for. It's different and it's scary and I have to tell you that a year ago I was not, I was right
where Longacres was now and it took me you know quite a while of bending and stretching and thinking
and you know really soul searching and I believe that where I am now is looking at it totally objectively. If
I weren't living there, you know it's the perfect place for it. It's segmented off`and it only works in
masses, okay and I believe that what's being done is the right way to do it and I think if we're going to do
it, let's dig in our heels and do it right. Don't just put our little toe in the hot water and say oh, that's a
little bit too hot. Take the dive. You people are there to start helping us with the new trends and to house
people so I expect that's what you should do and I'm hoping that's what you will do. That's what I have to
say. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Brian Evans: My name is Brian Evans. I live at 2585 Southem Court, on the northem edge of the
development. I really don't have anything new to say. Everything's been said. Hashed over. I think it's
kind of nice to see the American way here. Everybody getting their say. I just want to say that this is what
I feel. I bought my first house in Chanhassen in 1976 and I've seen a lot of changes and there's only one
opportunity here and I think you know that as a Planning Commission. We want to get it right the first
time. I'd hate to look down the line 5 years and say we did it wrong. We should have used it for
corporate. We should have done something else with it. I guess my other concem is, and it may be
frivolous to some but there's one flock of wild turkeys on that field and my hope is that flock gets captured
and relocated before any kind of a development takes place there. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
35
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Pastor Tony Larson: My name is Pastor Tony Larson. I live at 2631 Longacres Drive and I wanted to
address the issue of traffic that wasn't considered earlier as we look at this map here. All the traffic that's
coming out there on the Highway 5 and then the traffic on the other end going to Highway 41. I just
wanted to bring up the, that I'm well aware of the Westwood's plans of building a church on the other side.
The northwest portion of Highway 41. I know the staff`there very well. I have been on a pastoral staff`of a
very large mega church in the past and this is what Westwood is and is becoming and I just wanted to also
add the idea of not just Sunday moming traffic coming from the other side of 41, but also throughout the
week. When we're talking about a mega church, the impact of traffic not just on a Sunday moming or
Sunday night or a Saturday night or when they get into multiple services on multiple nights, then you talk
about Wednesday nights and then their plans are to also include some offerings into the community that
would invite more traffic throughout the week, during the day as well as in the evening and I just wanted to
bring up that point that needs to be taken into consideration along with this development. The impact of
further traffic from the other side of 41.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
Steve Hanousek: My name is Steve Hanousek and I live at 7501 Bent Bow Trail in Chanhassen and I echo
what my fellow residents have said tonight. I'm not going to go over that again but I would like just some
clarification. The rental units, are there going to be rental units or are they going to be manor homes? I
know we covered that briefly but that means there needs to be definition of that and I just want to leave
that out there. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Tom Green: My name's Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. Mills property that owns
that property and I acquired that property for our company back in 1987. I see some familiar faces here,
especially Mr. Conrad.
Conrad: It's too bad isn't it?
Tom Green: Yeah, still there. I've gotten a little older also.
Conrad: Why did you buy that property?
Tom Green: I don't know. But I'd like to go through the history of that land. Some of you folks don't
realize it. Somebody asked about corporate. The original purchase, proposed purchase of that property
from Dr. Savaryn was Minnetonka Inc. The Soft Soap people and they wanted to put a corporate
headquarters there and the City of Chanhassen didn't want it. Mills Fleet Farm came along, and obviously
you know what we wanted to put there, and that such a... cry came up that we ran back to Brainerd with
our tails between our legs and we sat on that property now for 13 years. The Pulte people came along and
frankly it's been zoned for this type of a project and that's apparently what the City wants and so they've
got a reasonable, in my opinion, a reasonable project together and you don't want that. And so I'm at a
loss what we should do with that land and if somebody would want to buy it for what we're paying taxes on
or more, we'd have to consider it because it seems to be impossible to develop in the city of Chanhassen.
Thank you for your consideration.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
36
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Jim Deannovic: I'm Jim Deannovic. I live at 9455 Amsbury in Eden Prairie. I'm the person who owns
the north side of the piece of property who was going to originally do rental townhomes. And it seemed
like there was some indication that Pulte didn't try to make this thing work. Well in fact they have and so
have I. With the rental townhomes there was never a subsidy from the City taxes. And I think there's been
a lot of miscommunication in that regard and we've tried to work with Pulte to make this happen. I know
that Pulte, I've been at some of the meetings. Pulte's been in here and he's tried really, Pulte's tried
incredibly hard for a long, long time. I feel the same way as Fleet Farm.
Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission before we close the public hearing?
Alright. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Now it's our opportunity to discuss the matter. Anybody want to venture forward with their
comments?
Sacchet: Well, I'll get started. You know as I said when I asked, started asking some questions of the
Pulte people, I don't have that many issues with the Pulte thing in front of us. I do believe that in a traffic
location like that, where we have a highway and another major through road going through, that that's a
good location for high density. I do believe that we need more affordable housing. It's actually
interesting, just a week ago there was a headline in the Star Tribune that reads Met Council tells suburbs to
add affordable housing and then goes on that if the suburbs don't do that, that there will be penalties. That
it's actually going to be pushed with some additional incentives. So it could be costly not to pursue that.
Now the question whether this is really cooked enough, to use an image. I don't think this is cooked
enough. I think that the staff`report we have in front of us is not sufficiently working the issues to the point
that I'm comfortable with, that I feel exactly what's in front of me to approve or recommend approval I
should say. I do believe that, my concem is surely with the densities there are issues that some of you have
mentioned a little bit of being a moving target in this process and we need to be very, very clear about
what that aspect is. We need to look at how does it fit into the context and I don't live too far from there
myself. I do believe that the general concept that Pulte puts in front of us with having a gradual transition
from the high traffic area where it's higher density to go up gradually to lower density, it makes a lot of
sense to me. I support that. I think the proposal has a lot of merits. However I want to be very clear in
terms of what is in front of us with the densities. In terms of the westem gateway, well I have a little bit of
issue with that. I mean for me the westem gateway to the city is not the 41 and 5 crossing. For me the
entrance to Chanhassen, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the Arboretum. And what's that
neighborhood there called, Crimson Bay or what. That to me is entering the city. Once we're at the
crossing of 41 and 5 we're unfortunately, I mean I like mral too and I just moved out that way because it
got a little too urbanized here to what's at that part of Chanhassen, but that's what's happening. And
Susan you mentioned it, it's the trend of our time. We can't stop progress so I think the gateway issue for
me is not really an issue. The aspect with traffic that was brought up. Well, as the traffic increases there
will have to be traffic lights. It's just as simple as that. I'm trying to get onto 41 from a little further up
north than you guys are in the Longacres area and I do take those left tums and I have my kids say dad,
there's enough room to go. I say no it isn't. I live with that every day but as these things become issues, as
the city we address them and maybe put traffic lights there so my position, to sum it up and I'll take
everybody's time here excessively. I do believe I would like to propose that we table this here to address a
lot of these issues that are still open, but in general I'm thinking this is a great proposal. It needs to be fine
tuned more. All the issues need to be addressed. We have to be very clear what's in front of us and I think
all the questions that you've been raising, especially you Mike Ryan, I really appreciate all the work
you've put into this and I think we have to be sensitive to all the comments that were brought up. But then
at the same time it's as important as we are sensitive to the comments of the landowners. I mean just
37
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
having built a house lately in this city, I have to agree that it is not the easiest place to build something.
Put something in place. And if we have people that have major tracts of land and at least in one of the
cases have made an effort to develop it, one way or another way. And then one way we say no. They try
to do it the other way, we say no. Well, it's tricky you see. We want to be consistent with our agreements.
We want to honor what we've agreed to do and at the same time we don't want to be so rigid that we can't
do anything anymore. So when we say this is not exactly in line with all the visions that were there before,
well let's be reasonable. It has to be give and take from everybody. It's a transition from higher density to
lower density. The houses that are going to be at the edges there, yes. They're proposing a duplex home
which in that sense is something they're asking us to approve. Now is that such a bad thing? I personally
don't think it's a hurdle that is unsurmountable. I think we can come across and we have to look at with
the PUD the amount of green space that stays there and yes, you're correct. I did the math myself from the
significant trees, depending how we define significant trees. If we define significant trees as being a tree
that is 30 inch or 40 inch or bigger, half of them will be cut down. And that's an issue I'd like to dig into a
little further too. That how much would be cut down if it would be the traditional development? I would
expect more than half. But so what we're in a position to trying to make it as workable as possible but I
think I said my piece so apologize. I took a while.
Burton: That's alright. Anyone else comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of stafl~ One of the things that Mike Ryan brought up was the density
transfer from the, how are we describing it? The northwest, I think it's Outlot F. Is in the Bluff Creek
primary zone and so they would not be allowed to build there anyway so we shouldn't allow a density
transfer. Will you, I don't have my Bluff Creek thing here right now. Will you talk about that.
Aanenson: Let me clear up some. When this project originally came in, again there were the two property
owners. Pulte and Mr. Deannovic. Mr. Deannovic owned the Savaryn property. Owns the Savaryn piece
which is this property right here... Okay. From the beginning the staff has tried to work the two projects
together. The Bluff Creek ordinance is under the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen. We regulate the
primary zone. What we have done under the ordinance is said, you can transfer that density out. That's a
way to accomplish the preservation because our goal is to preserve in the primary zone. If we don't allow
the transfer out, we are obligated in the ordinance to allow them a variance to build within that. We have
to give them some property. Now Mr. Ryan is right when he showed that letter because Pulte's original
position was, and we said as staff from day one, our position is we don't want that property built on. They
had no control of that so their letter stated, we're not asking for anything. Well they weren't because they
didn't have control of that property and they have been trying to gain control of the entire piece and as of
late last week, when Mr. Deannovic appears that he's willing not to do the rental property and Pulte's still
trying to get control of the entire piece. That's been our goal. To have one property owner to work with.
It makes it much easier and that's why some of the ambiguity and that's why it got tabled because Mr.
Deannovic came in at the last minute with three different products and it confused us. We didn't want to
come here saying we're not sure exactly what that's going to be so we recommended that it be tabled until
we resolve it. That they again try to have a neighborhood meeting. So that's where that came from.
Kind: So the proposal before us tonight is one owner, one parcel?
Aanenson: Well they haven't secured that yet. They're working to do that. Right. And that's some of,
what I'm hearing from Uli some of the things he wants to make sure has been resolved. It's a control issue.
Kind: That makes sense to me. With that I'll expand on my comments if that's alright. I'll try to keep
them short. First of all, all compliments to staff and Pulte and the neighbors for all your comments and
input and hard work on this. I know I spent a lot of time looking at this packet too and I'm sure you all
38
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
have spent a lot of time as well and I think it's come a long ways in one year. I can't believe it was a year
ago already that we looked at this. I do have some concems that need to be addressed, especially if we
table this. If we need to button some of this stuff`up. The totlot issues obviously. I don't think that that is
our role as a Planning Commission to get into what we think it should or shouldn't be, big or small or
whatever. That's Park and Rec Commission's role. But from a planning perspective I think we need to
make sure that we are being consistent with other family neighbors, multi family neighborhoods and I guess
I'd like to direct staff`to take a look at what we've done in other multi family developments and give us
some information about totlots and that sort of thing. I do have the same concem I had a year ago about
clustering all the one car garages together. I prefer having one car and two garage units mixed together.
However I think that the village homes, those are the one car units, could be acceptable as far as quality
goes with some of the changes in architecture that I talked about with the applicant. My main concem is
that the back elevations look better and the front entries have the same quality as the other products. The
coach homes and the manor homes and the club homes I think all look quite nice and the village home in
Apple Valley looks a lot better than the one in Eden Prairie so I was pleased about that. The other concem
I had is that, the expectations have been changed for the neighbors and that's the part I wrestle with. IfI
was a neighbor, would I feel like the rules have been changed on me? And when I look at this I see that the
housing type has changed. They knew there were going to be possibilities of twin homes and...to change
and I'm trying to sort out how I would feel about that compared to saving that large stand of trees on 41.
And I know that our PUD planning tool is the only way we could transfer density and save those trees. So
next time this comes to the Planning Commission I would like to hear the neighbors talk a little bit more
about whether it's worth it to save those trees or not to transfer the density. Because we've established
now that the density needs to be transferred to do that. Or whether you feel like the rules have just been
changed. So that's my struggle there. On the plus side I think that the twin homes along the perimeter of
the wetland are not changing the rules and the view from Longacres is the same as it would have been if it
was low density housing because then there would have likely have been twin homes there as a transition
from the medium density on the south side of West 78th, so I think that would have been a reasonable
expectation that there'd be twin homes there. And that appears to be not changing so that makes a lot of
sense to me. And the buffer is a natural buffer that that large, large wetland seems quite sufficient to me.
In fact I think it's awesome. IfI overlooked that I'd just be so excited. It's very nice. I would also like to
see for our next meeting some sort of, I don't know if proof is the right word or a ghost plan showing how
many units could be put in there if it was a standard subdivision. A ghost plan or, that's what I call it. Not
real but just if they complied with our ordinances, how many trees would we really lose and can you really
get 383 units in there on the upland? I like the idea of providing a different housing style. A non-
traditional single family home is important in this city and it is the only way we're going to meet our
aff`ordability goals and I heard it the same way Kate did. It's funny how people at the same meeting can
hear different.
Aanenson: Maybe ifI could just comment on that. I guess the intent was that we do it per project. What I
heard was new construction.
Kind: I heard all new construction too.
Aanenson: So ljust confirmed it with Bob too. That's the way we heard it but obviously there was some
other.
Kind: It's per project.
Aanenson: Well I think that's what other people's expectations were is being per project. I'll go back and
look through the minutes. That certainly wasn't my intent. I'll go back and review the minutes and see
what exactly took place and report that back.
39
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Kind: Okay, so that would be helpful information included next time around. Overall I think PUD's are
good planning. I think if you take a look at the intent of our PUD ordinance, code, this project meets the
requirements of that. We've told the landowner that we don't want a corporate campus there. Soft Soap
was no. We told them we didn't want commercial venture. Big box. No. And we put in our comp plan
that we wanted this to be housing so I think we need to live by that. And it does meet the intent of our
planned unit development standards so I do think it is a good candidate for PUD. I guess that's it.
Blackowiak: Sure, I'll take a stab. I just had three main issues with this pretty much all night. My first big
issue is traffic. I'm very worried about access to and from 5 and to and from 41. I know that means that
there will be other lights. I believe there's something scheduled for Century, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: And then more than likely that type of number would necessitate some type of a light to exit
on 41 and I don't know what that street is going to be called.
Aanenson: That's West 78th.
Blackowiak: Oh it's going to be West 78th? Okay. So have you heard anything, I mean I know it's a state
highway so there's not much.
Saam: On 417
Blackowiak: Yes.
Saam: Stop sign is what I heard.
Aanenson: Right. Not a signal at this point.
Blackowiak: Not signalized?
Saam: No. It's a 3 way stop on the west side. Or the entrance on the west side, yeah. A stop sign. That's
what's shown in the EAW also.
Blackowiak: Okay, so no light huh?
Aanenson: Right. Again let me just rephrase it. That's one of the issues we brought up if this was to go
office industrial. The traffic goes up significantly so I mean the issue doesn't go away if you flip...in
there, right.
Blackowiak: No, no. But yeah, just overall traffic is an issue for me. My second major issue is that the
rental versus the manor homes has not been resolved and until that issue is fully defined, I don't even, I
don't feel that I could, I would want to really make a vote on that because I think that that issue is going to
really drive a lot of what happens in terms of the neighbors and in terms of school enrollments. In terms of
totlots. Just a lot of different things are going to change depending on whether the eastem edge of the
property is rental versus manor homes. And finally, I would like to have a little more input from park and
rec because if they're comfortable with what's on the plans right now, I guess I would have to question how
they got their numbers because I don't think there's enough green space in there. I would like to see a
little bit more. 275's the number that's been bandied around for the cash outlay. That's a park and rec
40
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
number so they're going to have to, I mean it's the number that they came up with so I guess I'll have to, I
would like to hear how they arrived at that number and find out if indeed they're comfortable with that
number because it doesn't seem like an awful lot to me either. Short of owning the property there's not a
lot you can do to stop development so I think one of the things that we all have to remember is, if we have
an idea of what we want we have to work to get the best project and I don't know if we're quite there yet.
I think we're moving in the right direction but I think if we see this again or maybe a couple times, who
knows, we're moving in that direction so I hope that we can continue to work together and get a product
we can all live with.
Burton: Ladd.
Conrad: 100 years ago when I was here I probably was for the commercial development of this. Then I
was for Fleet Farm. I liked that idea. It pays taxes. And we're probably under commercialized in
Chanhassen meaning it's not going to, the percentages are at the low end and it's right now fixed. So in
terms of sensitivity to some of this stuff, I think I've lost almost every issue so, and I think the City Council
put a moratorium out here and tried to figure out what to do with it. And they probably, I probably
disagreed with what they wanted to do. That's a set up for my comments I think. This is a perfect spot
that we don't see very often for a PUD in terms of buffering. Normally we're talking about 20 feet.
Normally we're talking about 50 feet of three story. We're in a different area here so some of the
comments from the neighborhoods, which I really appreciated. I think everybody's done a terrific
homework and thinking. But from what we're used to, we're here every 2 weeks. Some of us maybe too
long. This, in my world, is a terrific project based on other things I've seen come in. The neighbors said,
you know a lot of what you said I disagree with but I'd have, we'd be here until midnight and I tell you I
give you why and it'd be fun just to stop your comment and tell you and you should know. You should
know what some of us have been thinking. You really should and I don't want this to go forward because
you may not like what we do but I want you to understand what we might do. I think that's real important.
It's important to be involved. As somebody said, this is the best form of government and to bundle you in
is wonderful. You may not get what you want but you'll hear why and we should do that job and I think
we can make staff`do that. My recommendation is to table this and not because I don't like what I'm
seeing in general, becauseldo. Somehow we have to explain some ofthese things. There's too many
good things that, they still may not agree with once we explain to the community but they've got to know.
So for minutes I think Kate, we've got to go back, and I'm not sure what the motion's going to be. Well
no, I do. We're going to table it but you know, I think we've got to go back through the couple hours that
we've been here and really pay attention to what the neighbors said. And I really want to be able to go
through and dialogue a little bit about why, the why's. If we can. And that means you've got to come
back and whatever and so, come on back. We've got to do it but you said some things. The things that I'd
like us to take a look at. One, I want park and rec's input. In most cases, it's a double stream. We are,
they're recommending to the City Council stuff`and we don't see it and here's a case where I think their
recommendation should be involved with us in a PUD. They should. We should hear what they're saying
about totlots and access to common areas in general. I'd like to use them that way as a resource and we
very seldom do. I want to be totally confident that we have a diversity and look of colors, materials and
whatever within the project. When we put a big project in, I just don't want it stamped out. And there is
economics that Pulte is doing that they have to, but again just to make sure we have the diversity and they
said the right thing. I want to make sure Miss Rosie's comments are bundled into our review in terms of
the, it's hard for me to understand what they'd like in terms of the 300 foot deal so I need staff`to advise
me on that. I do think Pulte needs to take a look at the back of the village home. It's not, most of the
designs look pretty good to me. I like them. But that side of the village didn't look quite right. I'd like
the city staff`to look at the water issue just so I know what this means. The watering at 2:00 in the moming
is ridiculous and that's so stupid, but let's talk to everyone, me, about it. I don't get it. The tree
preservation, I'd like to know a little bit more about that and what we're saving. I think it was brought up
41
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
the part, and some of these you'll get off of a tape but the park dedication calculations, I'd like to explain
that and make sure we're on the money there. The projected students, I'd like to know what they really
are based on that. I think a year ago we were concemed, just like you may be in terms of taxes and what
are we bringing in and I think one of the reasons we were sold on this is it was probably developed for
people that really, there weren't that many kids that were going to affect a school system at that time and
therefore the taxes necessary to handle it may not have to be increased but, and that's funny thinking you
know. To get a handle on that but again I'd want to know. I think I want to know for sure and say well
then, just for your benefit, the neighbors around, that it's probably the same as a single family, 15,000
square foot subdivision or something like that. Just for your edification. The affordable housing number
we need to know what that is. I don't have a bet on affordable housing. We do have some commitments. I
think it's become more of an issue than maybe it needs to be. Diversity of home styles is, it's the same
thing but the offering diversity here is pretty good. I think you want it. I think you don't want your kids
moving some other area. I think we want a place for senior citizens or people that are moving to a different
life style. I think we need that here. There aren't that many places to put this in the future, and we're here
looking at places to put these type of projects and there aren't many left. There just aren't in Chanhassen.
It's, this is one that it may work. We have the right transportation systems. Logically from a planning
standpoint it's not bad planning. We've got to sell you on that. You may not like it but we should sell you
on it. The traffic out at 41, I need the engineering staff to take a look at it. Make sure it's right. Tell the
neighbors it's right. Tell the neighbors it's wrong. Whatever it is, let's give them the feeling that it's not
stupid. We don't know that. I think we've seen some EAW's but let's take a look. The turkeys on the
thing, I'd love to take the turkeys somehow and make sure it's bundled into this project. We should do
that. The design of the former rental units, I need to know what that is and I'd like to have staff review
the, that comer. I think the folks from Pulte are probably telling you the right thing. I think the narrow
profile, the trees buffer on that intersection, it may make some sense but I want staff to tell me that. I want
in their words to tell me that it makes some sense. I always thought I wanted to make it the gateway down
there but a low profile and some, a bunch of trees may be a good thing. I'd like our staff to do that so those
are my comments. I'd like staff to review them and hopefully we can, and I only captured some of your
comments unfortunately. They're good. They're good comments. I think there's reasons that you're
wrong in some of those comments but I think we should make sure. Make sure that's tme. Anyway, those
are my comments. I think it should be tabled for another meeting so somebody can go through some of
these.
Burton: Okay. And I could just simple mirror everybody's comments but I think I agree with everything
you all said but I'll go on and add my own comments anyway. First I want to thank everybody for coming
tonight and also to thank everybody for handling this in kind of a civil and democratic way and not
making this a heated exchange. I think it's a lot more productive to do it the way we're all doing it. This
isn't my dream project. It's not what I would ideally like to see there. I love the mral feel of Chanhassen.
I'd like to preserve that as much as anyone but regardless of what we all want, this is going to get
developed. We can't stop that and that's all been discussed tonight. So I sit back and kind of look at what
the benefits of the project are and the detriments and I do think there are a number of benefits. I think it's
a good way to get the street here. It's a good way to work on meeting our affordable housing goal which
my understanding is historically has been a very important goal of this city and it's becoming even more
important as the Met Council is directing. This may be a better way to preserve the trees than other
altematives. I think it's also a good and natural way to have transition from the high traffic areas to the
lower density housing. And I also think, as I think Ladd mentioned it, it is good planning practice. We've
got a plan for development that's going to happen west of even here and I think this project takes that into
consideration. The detriments again I think they're, and I can't get around this one no matter what comes.
I'm saddened that we lose the mral flavor of the area, but you can't do anything about that really. The
neighbors concems are all detriments of the project. I know the tax issues, city services issues with the
water. I think it's important that we consider the neighbors expectations of when they originally came to
42
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
the area. And what's coming here now. The wildlife's an issue and also perhaps even the additional
traffic from the church. When that is ultimately developed. Additional concems that I have, and I'm sorry
my notes, I'm trying to read some of my notes and my handwriting is just atrocious so it's kind of hard. I
do have concems about the adequacy of the recreation areas and the totlots. I would also like to have the
input of the park and rec commission on that. Our PUD ordinance, and it's intent says that it's the
expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive
proposal than would have been the case with other more standard zoning districts, and I'm not sure if we
have that yet. I think that's part of what we're asking staff`to clarify. I have, I'd like to see something
kind of special and different here. I'm not sure that we have that. And I think that's sort of what some of
Deb's questions were directed toward is improving some of the getting a little bit more higher quality of
the development and I'd also like to see a more sensitive proposal to the environment and the neighbor's
concems. And I don't know what to do about the gateway issue. I guess I could be convinced that this is
satisfactory too. Another element is again weighing the neighbor concems versus the affordable housing
goal. I think that we can still have an affordable housing element to this project and still meet the
neighbors concems. And I also would like to make sure that we have something in our proposal next time
that addresses protecting the McAllister property. I know that there are a number of lawsuits where people
move into a, it's called moving into a nuisance. I don't think their property's a nuisance but that's what
they call these type of suits and I want to protect the McAllister property from those type of claims. I don't
want anybody to be complaining about the animals when they've known it's been there all along. We do
have a high amount of discretion in reviewing these things. I think it makes sense to table this and I'd ask
that the neighbors stay involved throughout the process and keep helping us out with our decision. And
with that, I guess we need a motion.
Sacchet: I want to make sure we do the best we can do so, and I'm making a motion to table this.
Burton: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the request from Pulte Homes for Arboretum
Village at the corner of Highways 41 and 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman a point. Can we make sure we know what we're doing by tabling it? And the
process. Will we be, Mr. Chairman will staff`be addressing the issues we just brought up? And it's going
to be that simple? Is there any kind of neighborhood involvement that's necessary before that meeting? Is
there anything you'd like to have done with the applicant present to the neighborhood? Anything on that?
Burton: I think it would make sense to have a meeting with the applicant and the neighbors before we see
it again. And incorporate whatever comments they have to stafl~
Conrad: I'm not sure.
Aanenson: Can I address that? We are clicking on a clock of timeframe to get this reviewed. I
anticipated this is going to take longer. Have spoken to the applicant and he's willing to give us extra
nd
time. At least 120 days. The next Planning Commission meeting is January 2 . It is a hard time to try to
get together and the Park Commission, I believe their next regular meeting is not until January. So if you
wanted their input, we're kind of pushing us back into January to resolve some of these issues. Certainly
there needs to be some clarification communicated. As Ladd pointed out, understanding the ordinance,
that sort ofthing. I think that's going to take neighborhood input. Some redesign between the applicant
and the neighbors and stafl~ Sowe'reprobablylookingprobablytowardstheendofJanuary. Ijust need to
43
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
make sure that the applicant's going to give us that extension to meet the State... If you wanted to ask that,
if we can do that.
Burton: Would the applicant, can the City have that extension of time?
Dennis Griswold: Until the end of January?
Aanenson: Well for the Planning Commission I mean but by the time it goes to Council, you're talking
February. I have the date starting the 60 day, October 23rd. So in December we're at 60 days and I'm
telling him we need another 60 days at a minimum and then we have to re-evaluate that.
Dennis Griswold: Is there not a Planning Commission first half of January?
Aanenson: Yes there is but if they're recommending that they want input from the Park Commission, I
don't believe they meet until later in the month. They may be having a special meeting this month. I'm
not sure what their agenda is. I'm just saying...
Burton: Yeah, I think we come before the Park Commission in January and we need, we're asking for
their input before we meet so we would probably be the 16th of January would be our next one? It'd be two
weeks after the 2nd.
Aanenson: Correct.
Burton: So that would be our next one. And then we go to council so we're just looking to have time so it
goes to council, came to the council in the time frame that you require.
Dennis Griswold: We'll go with that extension but I would ask your indulgence if we could have the
information together to make a decision at that point. And I know you don't know what we're bringing
back to you but I would want you to understand that...very critical and very important to us. We want to
work with the city on the time issue too but give us a decision.
Burton: And I can't tell you what will happen in our next meeting but we understand your concern and we
understand that we need to make a decision. We have to make a decision because the time's going to run
anyway so we're going to be forced to make a decision.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, can we ask to see if this could get onto the Park and Rec's agenda?
Aanenson: Did anticipate that question coming up. I spoke with Todd. They are having a special
meeting. I'm not sure if you can get it on. Certainly the neighbors want to have input too. I'm not sure
what their timeframe is. So we'll just have to see what we can do to communicate that. I just want
everybody to know that's part of the process.
Conrad: We conduct public hearings, excuse me Mr. Chair.
Burton: That's fine.
Conrad: We conduct the public hearing. I think the public made their comments known tonight. At least
about the part of the totlots. Are there other issues? There are. Okay.
Audience: Can I make a comment? Or not?
44
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Burton: Quick.
Audience: Very quickly. I just think what we want to make sure is that we take the time and if this is
going to happen, which I heard from a couple people that it's going to. Or at least under very serious
consideration, from my standpoint and I won't talk for everybody. From my standpoint is, I just want to
make sure we do do it right. And the density issue and quality issue and some buffering, some things like
that are important. We think...gateway and I would just love to sit down and talk about that. Really I
would because I think it's important. But that's what we would like. I would like to have input on is what
happens. And I think time is understandably for the developer is important.
Burton: Yeah, we're trying to accommodate all that. So ljust want to be clear on the extension that we
have.
Aanenson: I'm saying, I just don't see, even if the park commission met sooner, I'm not sure based on
we're getting towards the holidays, we can work with the neighbors and get that through the process in that
first meeting. I think we're going to need at least until the 16th meeting in January to, for the next Planning
Commission.
Burton: For the extension that we actually need from the applicant though, is it just through the 16th of
January we need or do you need to make sure it gets...
Aanenson: Well I'm telling him we're taking the extra 60 days. It may go longer than that. Just so he's
aware of that and, otherwise you're going to have to make a recommendation, whether it's favorable or
not, and get it up to the City Council so we stay within that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody have any other issues they need to? Okay. Alright, we're actually going to
move on to old business.
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: ...Anyways I just wanted to share with you where the park design is going on this project. This
is an area again that we got through the projects. The PUD on the one side and it's been left natural. It's a
very nice, natural area. 100 acre park. And the high area to the wetland. This is the Trotter's Ridge
subdivision with Coulter going through it. Now looking at the parking for this area and the trails. As you
recall this is an area we also looked at using as a place for the school kids to go over and use some of that.
Do some of their field work so the park commission is now just putting together a design and I just wanted
to share that with you what's happening on that piece of property.
Burton: Thanks. So that was old? How about something new?
Aanenson: Our first meeting in December, we do have one. January. January 2nd. We do have one
subdivision on. Sorry, a rezoning. It's a lot that has...be seeing that. As part of the application for that
first variance you saw, there is another request that Anita may be coming through with her own request on
that. She wanted to do it the same meeting but we wanted to keep those two separate issues. But as part of
that application so you may be seeing that too to come back through. So that's it, and again we wanted
enough time to resolve all the issues on this. That's all.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated
November 14, 2000 as presented.
45
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Aanenson: I do have an open discussion. We do need to advertise. In the past, this time of the year Mayor
Elect asked about that. Ms Jansen asked about when we're going to advertise. We found in the past, we
moved it to April expirations. This is a difficult time of year to advertise for replacement of Planning
Commission so we'll be looking at doing that the first of the year. Until then, until we get a replacement,
I'm not sure what you want to do as Matt.
Kind: You did a fine job tonight.
Aanenson: If you want to wait until we get somebody else involved and then kind of restructure that whole
thing so we'll just kind of leave it status quo, if that's okay. And then LuAnn should be here at the next
meeting too so we'll just kind of run it that way until we get somebody else on board and then we can
make it, if that's okay to make those decisions. We just found in the past that there's so much other things
going on, people aren't reading the paper to look for those ads so we'll do that right after the first of the
year.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more open discussion item.
Burton: You can do whatever you want. It's open right?
Kind: I don't even have to talk to you?
Burton: No.
Kind: The concept of using upland only for calculating lot sizes, this came up tonight and I was just
wondering if staff could take a look at our ordinance and make sure that that is what we have in there.
That you can only use upland to calculate. My intent is to avoid having situations like Longacres where
the lots included part of the wetland to calculate...
Aanenson: The lot lines went out. They still had to have so much upland so that, yes. That's a good
question. The lot lines went out into the wetland. Generally we don't do that so that's, while the property
lines go out, they still have to have so much upland. It doesn't count towards the density.
Kind: ...prohibits that from having lot lines going into the wetland?
Aanenson: Sure. When you review each subdivision. That one was done in like 1991 or 2. We don't do
that as a general rule, but as far as their density calculation under that PUD, they were given based on
upland. The wetlands weren't included. The lots go out. I mean the smallest lots in there could be 11,000
but they had an average of 15. But they weren't counted towards that.
Kind: The wetland portion wasn't counting towards the 11,0007
Aanenson: No. The lot lines just extended out there.
Generous: Or 15.
Kind: And do we currently have an ordinance that prohibits that from happening again where lot lines go
out into the wetlands?
46
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Aanenson: I can't think of another example where we have that. There might be one or two. As a general
rule we don't, and that was done before we did the new wetland ordinance. Again that was in '92. We've
done the new wetland ordinance that requires the entire buffering and the averaging. I believe that was
done before that.
Kind: I was just wondering if there was some aspect of our code that we should be taking a look at just to
make sure that that doesn't happen.
Aanenson: Sure. We'll look at that.
Kind: I'll go home and pour over it.
Conrad: Kate a quick update. What happened to that one parcel on Lake Riley where we wanted a buffer.
What did council do?
Kind: The Witt's.
Aanenson: I don't believe they had to put anything in. Lorijust left but she had to evaluate the runofl~ If
there was additional runoff; then they had to put something on.
Generous: What they did install was found sufficient I believe.
Conrad: What they did install, which was nothing right?
Kind: Rip rap and blue grass.
Sacchet: Here's another ordinance thing that came up in this Pulte thing with the boulevard tree planting.
Do we allow them to do it 55 feet while the ordinance says 30 and it looks like the ordinance was done by
somebody who doesn't know trees so we should change the ordinance.
Aanenson: Right. With Jill's had that discussion before with the Planning Commission and with the City
Council because her feeling is that instead of stamping them in places that you maybe want to cluster them,
get better you know, and then spacing them out. And depending on the topography, if you've got an area
that's going down. Maybe you want to skip that space so we've tried to say, you have to have trees equal
to that spacing but then we sometimes would group them if you have maybe a deciduous and a conifer or
something like that along the street. So we'd say you have to have that quantity. But they may not always
be 30 on center. Sometimes you need more. Sometimes you need less, depending on that.
Sacchet: So there is actually a rationale in 30 is what you're saying?
Aanenson: Yes. We've had that in a work session I believe that's come up. I know that's been asked by
the council, which is a segway to another one. We do have two work sessions again scheduled for next
year and I believe the first one will be in February. So if you're thinking of topics to discuss.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
47
Planning Commission Meeting December 5, 2000
Prepared by Nann Opheim
48