Loading...
PC 2000 01 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and opened with a general statement regarding meeting procedures. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Deb Kind, Matt Burton, and Alison Blackowiak MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Joyce and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchofl] Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REQUESTING $ THREE LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 344 APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R WITH AN AREA OF 21.34 ACRES AND A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 34.9% HARD SURFACE COVERAGE, AMENDED PARKING STANDARDS, A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 21.34 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LAKE DRIVE WEST, POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES, LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER, INC. Public Present: Name Address Ted Lamson Geoff & Holly Kuchera Tom Ries Larry Guthrie Jim Lamson Don Patton Erick Ries Jeff Shopek Link Wilson Bill Scarbono David Ruegg Doug Wilder Mark Menzuber Chris Mollet Louis P. Jim & Lois Dyvik 2606 Kipling Avenue 8441 Egret Court 6600 Sally Lane, Edina 3740 Drexel Court, Eagan 5132 Meadow Ridge, Edina 7600 Parklawn #200, Edina 7600 Parklawn, Edina 7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove 2203 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul 7200 Hemlock Lane, Ma ~le Grove 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1271 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1291 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Bill & Rhonda Weber Marlice Stene Kerry & Kim Simenson 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive 1330 Lake Susan Hills Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the discussion began at this point.) Kind: I was just wondering on condition 27, to me there's a difference between a bus stop and a shelter and I'd like to clarify that. Aanenson: I'm not sure we can force them to provide a shelter. We would like them to provide the opportunity for some, whether it's a shelter or a stop and they've agreed to that. We would work with Southwest Metro to coordinate that. I'm not sure what their obligation is for building an actual shelter but certainly we would work with Southwest Metro and they've agreed to that. To what that actually is. Kind: Okay. I guess that's all at this time. Burton: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Peterson: Please. Burton: Sharmin, at the last meeting one of the issues we talked about was the site grading and you did go back over that in the report and I'm just wondering if you could just summarize what you found for us and for the people here because I don't know is the applicant going to do that. A1-Jafl~ I'd defer that question to Dave please. Burton: Yeah, I didn't think the applicant might address that so I was hoping that staff could. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Digging through the archive files on this project. I'll give you the short version. We did find evidence that the property was graded on to facilitate a drainage outlet for the wetland on the property. It appears that the material that was excavated for the drainage way was deposited on the site. Overlaying the two plans, the original grading plan for Lake Susan Hills development and the proposed grading plan, it appears 1.8 acres was impacted by building or land alteration which generates approximately 5,700 cubic yards of material. Also received some soil boring data from the applicant and there happens be one soil boring right in that location and the boring revealed approximately 9 feet of fill on the trail had been placed in that area. Peterson: Other questions? 2 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a couple. Sharmin, when you were summarizing the applicant's response to the issues, at this point we have a hard surface coverage of 33.6%. Why is staff still recommending 35%? A1-Jafl5 Whenever we work on an application there are always some modifications that take place. For instance, we are recommending that the applicant expand a sidewalk north of the pool. We don't know how much more hard surface coverage that is going to take. So just to be on the safe side we're asking for the 35. Blackowiak: Okay, and you feel comfortable that the additional 1.4 will suffice? I mean it's not going to come in at any more than 35? A1-Jafl5 No. Blackowiak: Okay. Good, thank you. And then my second question has to do with the westerly driveway access point, and this was stricken. It was an original condition 21 and I just couldn't find on my plans that that had been changed, and I don't know if it's to you or to Dave but has that indeed been changed to your satisfaction? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Based on revised drawings I've received, they did make some alterations to the driveway alignment. It appears to align with the cross street, Upland Court I believe developed at the Lake Drive West intersection. So I did recommend eliminating that condition. Blackowiak: Okay. I just couldn't tell from the plans that we had received. All right, that's it. Thank you. Pearson: Any questions Ladd? Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Dave, tell me how that added soil, the 9 feet in one spot, tell me how the, whatever the additional soil affects the elevation of B2? Can you do that? Hempel: The elevation of B2, the first floor elevation as proposed is in the area of 942 1 believe. And the stockpile area that's in place of the site right now is approximately 946, 947. So that area will be leveled off down to the 942 for the first floor elevation of the Building 2. Conrad: Mr. Chair, one more question of Sharmin. What's bothered me a little bit about the footprints of the building has been the angles of B2 in terms of transition. When it's face to face with the neighborhood. That's maybe not always the best transition. Sharmin, could you tell us a little bit about, in the last week or even before that, what you've done with the applicant to review the angling pros and cons? Trial and error. A1-Jafl5 The first thing we did was they pushed the building 137 feet from the properly line so we have a distance that has been increased. After that they submitted a plan that separates the Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 buildings into seven, basically going from five buildings to seven buildings. That still does not address Buildings B1 and B2. Aanenson: The issue that I think we want to make sure was addressed is you had, can we reduce the size of the buildings? Can there be another configuration? Just to elaborate on what your question was. They went through that exercise and that is what the exhibits in your packet and what they did is they broke down the number of buildings but in order to accomplish breaking down the number of buildings, it eliminated the amenities. Otherwise in order to get that same number of units you'd have to go higher. So in accomplishing that the amenities was left out of the middle. They did look at some other iterations. Al-Jarl5 This was a sketch that was submitted by Commissioner Kind, looking at different angles on the building. One of the problems that the engineer stated was the scenario deals with the underground parking. You no longer have that connection between the two buildings. Access into those underground parking spaces also becomes an issue. Aanenson: Can we elaborate on that? If you remember B1 and 2 was one building. The continuity of the parking underground still maintains and if you ofl~et it too much it makes it very difficult to maintain that connection in order to see the project work so that's what's driving some of the upper level design is to maintain the continuity of the underground parking. And getting the angles to come in and out and make that work. Al-Jarl5 The third point with that design, the applicant has tried to maintain anywhere between 60 and 80 feet separation between the buildings. As we angle them, this separation tums into approximately 30 feet. From a distance this looks like a tunnel and it brings those buildings closer together and all of a sudden you have the impression of a continuous building rather than separations between those two. Between buildings. So really that's, oh the other thing it does is it pushes the building closer into the center reducing the size of the community space in the middle. So these were some of the things that we looked at with it. Burton: Mr. Chairman, a follow-up question. I guess it's directed to Dave or Kate. You said it was 9 feet higher, 9 feet of fill in the area and then I think when you answered Ladd's question you said B is at 942 as proposed? B2 is at 942. What was the area of B2 originally? What elevation was it originally? About. Hempel: Before the filling? In that area. Burton: Yeah. Hempel: Sharmin, can I borrow one of your drawings? It appears to be in the range from about 936 to 942. Where Building B2 sits. Burton: Is that the same for Bi? 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Hempel: The fill on B1 is located a little bit further to the east and actually on the sloped area. It probably varies from 930 to the 942 elevation. Peterson: Other questions? Okay. What I'd like to do is, this is not a public hearing. However, I would like to hear from both the applicant and then some potentially brief comments if the neighborhood would like to make a few, so I'd like to have the applicant come forward now if you would and kind of go through some of the things that you presented us tonight. You've given us some additional drawings. Just kind of walk us through those if you would please. Link Wilson: Commissioners, my name is Link Wilson, 2203 Stanford Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota. We submitted to you a packet of the 17 revisions and at least we understood were requested at the last meeting. I can go over those 17 items or you've got them right here so I'd just like to move on to what we felt were the most critical elements of the revisions that were made. I would like to however give each one of you just what I'm going to submit for the record also just to save time this evening. This is just, I'll just hand them off to you. And really all this is is just a brief history of the parkland dedication that they're, I did misspeak at the last meeting where I had stated that there was 5.7 acres dedicated to the overall PUD. That was a misstatement. There's actually 61.7 acres of parkland that was dedicated as part of this overall PUD so there's just a brief history of that. Also, there is a history of what we feel are the taxes that will be generated by the project, and also the monthly rates, parking amenities, etc and all that was reviewed by Mike Stoebe at the last meeting. Then in addition, in your packet I had a couple of site sections which were just sketched by hand and now the ones that you have are computer generated. And I can review those if need be. I guess I'd like to just move on to what we feel is the most critical element of this discussion and that is that we were able to move the two B buildings, instead of 100 feet away, 137 feet away from the south properly line. Also at the last meeting there were some issues regarding what exactly the bays would look like. It is difficult to see the bays because of the, I will call just 5 year old spruce that would be in place after the planting. It's difficult to tell from that location exactly what the building looks like, but also in your packet is just a rendering of what one of the B buildings would look like with bays on it. And I think also, just as important and I did want to speak to Ladd's questions on January 5th. We did explore also looking at cutting angles into the building. I think that Sharmin and Kate stated it best that if we tried to angle the building too much and squeeze it together, that it would appear as one continuous wall of building whereas here you can see that there is a significant amount of relief between these buildings. And I also want to state that this is an auto cad generated drawing. It's not faked. It's accurate. It's based on an auto cad civil engineering drawing produced by Loucks. This is just a blow-up of the actual plan, three dimension elevation. This is just the actual camera angle from the computer. In addition, you have a rough sketch of this. I felt that it was also important to show really the distance at 137 feet from the properly then with the spruce tree buff'er which I will get to the exact specimens in a moment. How far we are just from a graphic standpoint. You can see here, this is just a scale figure. One in the parking structure, which is below grade. Then one on the second story building. So we felt that this was a significant distance. In addition, we just wanted to cut a section through the site showing what people across the street would see from their homes. And as you can see, this is a, I don't know my truck species very well. 18 wheels? 16 wheels? This is as very large truck that you see in scale. These are the townhomes as they're located per survey, and then this is our building, which Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 is a significant distance away. There were also some questions regarding landscape. This is what, you have a copy of this in your packet. This is a landscape plan created by Damon Farber, and we could go species by species but Damon Farber feels that three rows of spruce in this area will be adequate to again buff'er the view from the neighbors homes. Also, there's a plant matrix which gives on center spacing of all of the plant mixtures within all of these areas. We are also looking at a cost of $303,515. I did not do a calculation of our apartment units times $400 per unit, which is our landscape budget. But this is way more than double that. I think that we would be required the landscape budget to be approximately $135,000. So 303 we feel is a good conservative estimate. I am submitting this as really a legal document that we could gain bids from. In these areas we have on center spacing. We have sizes of trees, and this could easily be enforced by myself as an observing architect on an architectural or construction site. We can review that if there are any questions. The last item, and I'll just save the rest for questions, is that there have been some issues regarding grade and I'm going to have Jeff Shopek from Loucks just come up here for a minute and speak about those, but one of the issues that was brought up by the neighborhood was that we should drop the entire site by 6 feet. Maybe I should just back this off a little bit. So one of the suggestions was to drop the entire site to cut the grade. Just from an approximation that would be 20,000 dump truckloads of dirt traveling the highways and moving about on this site for a considerable amount of time. But also one of the things that some people may not observe as they're driving up this hill is that this rises about 32 feet. And so if, and we can perhaps zoom in on this sketch. If we were to cut the site by 6 feet, you can see right at this point, this is a roof so if you're driving along this road, Lake Drive West, you would be looking into these people's second to third floor window right at that point. This building would be even further down in a hole. We really feel that that would look like subsidized housing. We don't want that appearance at all. So I will reserve just any questions that you may have after Jeff Shopek from Loucks answers a few historical questions on the grade. Jeff Shopek: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Jeff Shopek. I'm with Loucks and Associates. I'm at 7200 Hemlock Lane in Maple Grove. And just to more re-emphasize what Dave has already said and what Link has said, that yes there has been some dirt that was placed in this area here and I calculated 5,900. Dave I found out tonight calculated 5,700 yards so we're very close on our estimates. On that, if you spread that all over the site, when you start looking at how we position the buildings and the elevations, it's 2 inches. If you cut one foot off this site, it's about 34,000 cubic yards to take one foot off the whole site. So to spread 5,900 yards or to adjust building elevations we're talking 2 inches to all the buildings. The other really significant thing, it's not how building B1 sits with the existing ground.., any of them sit, but it's how Lake Drive was built and the grade elevation between, again Powers Boulevard and our two entrances. There's about 23 feet of rise from Powers Lake to our easterly entrance and then there's about another 23 feet rise, or 17 feet rise from our easterly entrance to the westerly entrance. And it's getting those driveways into the site and working with the buildings that more determined what the grade of the buildings were going to be than how much this dirt and where it was placed. So on our easterly drive we got about a 4% grade going. On our westerly drive we got a 51/2% grade going down. And we don't really want, what we're trying to achieve is somewhere between 2 and 5% grades into the site and still get to the garage elevations. If we try and lower this site 2-3 feet, our westerly drive will become 7-8% right off the street dropping right down and we won't be able to get to our garages. Also, because the garages have connecting drives, these people are 6 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 like dominoes that once you start changing one elevation, the next one changes, the next one changes so we're trying to get it so it works with our entrances. Works with the perimeter grades around the site as well as the neighbors. We have done some earthwork analysis on this and actually that 5,900 yards, the way the buildings sit right now, we're still short dirt. We should actually bring dirt in. What we will essentially do as we finalize the plan and go to a final grading plan and submit to the City Engineer when we go to construction, we'll try and achieve the closest we can to balance for the site and we'll probably lower the site somewhere between 6 and 12 inches. And we might have 6 inches fluctuation between some buildings but because of the underground parking and the drives, they're going to be relatively fixed. I think with that, if there's still any more questions but it's again the site was really set from Lake Drive and the entrances and trying to get it to work with all the perimeter grades and not just one side. Peterson: Any questions on the elevation? Kind: I do have a question on elevation. The 2 inches is if you spread it over the entire site, which is not being the graded, the entire site. You're talking about the entire footprint that would be. Jeff Shopek: Correct. Kind: If you just spread it over the building pad areas, how much? Jeff Shopek: Well we'd have to spread it over, I guess I want to say the grading limit area. Because you can't just spread it in the buildings. You've got to spread it in the parking lot and of course it's not that exact same dirt. But I would say we'd probably be at three inches is probably, you know 2/3 of the site or even 3¼ if it's being graded so it might make a difference of another inch. But we're actually going to probably lower it again 6 to 12 inches to make it balance so we're not short dirt. So that is not really affecting how the buildings are sitting. It's more the drives and how we can get the overall site to balance and not just this little pile of dirt. Kind: So it's your opinion that the stockpile is not what's driving the elevation. Jeff Shopek: Not at all. Absolutely not in fact. In fact we weren't, you know until it was brought up at the last meeting, we didn't even consider it a fact. We look at existing topographic elevations. Driveways and it was just, I mean it's more an explanation than it is really something we considered and designed because it's the overall site we designed, not just one little area. That dirt could have been next to Powers or Lake Drive West, the same volume and it still would have had the same affect. Kind: Got it. Thank you. Link Wilson: Before questions I did have one question of you. Just on item 4 from the recommendation from the planning department. We just wanted to make sure that item 4, we just would request clarification from staff and we just want to make sure that this is not a suggestion that there's a change to the PUD. 7 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Sharmin, do you want to respond to that? A1-Jafl2 This is what the PUD says. That's part of the contract. That's what we've done with all other phases of Lake Susan Hills. There are no trail fees but they do have to pay half park fees. Link Wilson: Thank you. Peterson: As you mentioned earlier, you were planning on speaking a little bit more to the type of deciduous trees going in. Link Wilson: Just a minor clarification in that we were referring to those always as pine trees. Our landscape architect is suggesting that those be a spruce tree. Either that or a balsam fir. They feel because of the wetland area and the type of soils that are just right on that slope, that a pine itself would die. So they feel very comfortable that those three, the Colorado Blue Spruce, the White Spruce, the Balsam Fir will all flourish in that soil type and water content within that soil. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. I have a list. Where it'd go? There we go. Since the building has been pushed back, the B buildings have been pushed back 137 feet, do you have any issues with putting in that buff'er on the south property line with Phase I? Link Wilson: No. I think that just as it's shown in this drawing, the two compliment themselves. You've given the fir trees enough space to grow and to flourish. At 137 feet we feel the buildings are far enough back that they don't have a significant impact on the adjacent properties but we do feel that the two need to go hand in hand. Kind: And originally when we talked last week, or two weeks ago you weren't sure if they could be installed with Phase I. Phase I being the A Building. But now that that construction site is further away. Link Wilson: Right, we have more space. Kind: Yeah. So you would be okay with a condition requiring those to go in in Phase I? Link Wilson: You know I'd like to be conservative and instead ofjust jumping offofa cliff here, we have three rows of spruce. Some that are closer to the property line than the intermediary. Just to be safe I guess I would prefer to plant the first two rows. Leave the third one for after buildings B1 and B2. Just because it's really, it's just too hard to police a construction site and the movement of materials and supplies around that building. I just still would like to be conservative and request that. But I'll leave that to your judgment. Kind: Now I just heard you say three rows. The plan showed five rows of spruce. This cad drawing. It shows five rows of spruce. 8 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Link Wilson: You are correct. We did show five rows in the cad drawing. Kind: And is that what you're. Link Wilson: And what Damon Farber is requesting is that you can do a tighter on center spacing in the three rows as opposed to the five. We did do this drawing I think the day after our meeting with you. The latest revisions to these were just.., three. Kind: And then I couldn't find it on the site plan, anything that specified materials that we had talked about lwo weeks ago. I'm assuming you're still okay with those being conditions as far as flat, not ship lap and shingle quality and metal railings for the balconies. Link Wilson: Right. Metal railings are definitely one of the 17 conditions that we feel comfortable with and I think in your packet we just submitted a specification that we would use for those metal rails. That was an 8 1/2 x 11 in your packet. Kind: I wasn't sure if that was for the balconies or for the pool fencing. What the deal is there. Link Wilson: Well they would be both the same material that would be used, so you would get a level of consistency to the site. Kind: I like that. Link Wilson: And then we are comfortable with the materials. This is just of course a photograph but you received actual materials in your packet. Kind: That was a surprise. Link Wilson: Those will be the materials used on site. Kind: Oh, and I appreciate the benches. Thank you. I know that was a minor thing but I thought I'd mention that. Oh, on Building D I noticed that the utility boxes are on the fronts of all of the buildings except Building D. I guess on utilities. Link Wilson: Right. Building D, the only reason why it is on the back side, and I believe it's shown at this location. Really what we're trying to do is to coordinate those transformer locations with the egress stairs and what Commissioner Kind is referring to is this particular drawing that shows a masonry screen, the transformer at this point and then the emergence egress door at this location and then stairs of course with rails, and it just happened to turn out in Building D, which was different than all the other buildings, in that all the other buildings have the egress coming out towards the court. Just this one location. It's on the back side of the building. But it still will be screened by masonry wall. 9 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: I have to find it. It's actually closer to the pond I think than what you just pointed out. There. I'm just trying to keep it away from what the neighbors have to see. Here. It's right there. Link Wilson: You are correct. Kind: Is there any opportunity to move that down the line, oh! There's another one there. There are two of them. Link Wilson: Right. Right. Yeah, we've got them on the back sides there. I guess I would prefer at this time that the buildings are designed and that particular building to egress out onto the back. We could certainly, if you wish, try to reverse the building layout so that we egress to the court side. However even on this, even with the egress staying on the back side of the building, those transformers are going to be screened by a masonry wall which matches with the masonry that's coming up out of the ground. So from a distance of, I'm just looking here. If this is 137 feet, we're probably looking 200 feet away conservatively. I guess I feel that they're still going to be adequately screened. Kind: And I know we're talking about Phase I which is just Building A at this point anyway. I'm sure we'll be seeing this again when D comes on line. Link Wilson: I believe we still need to submit and come back to you with each building as it is introduced onto the site. We need to bring full architectural plans, elevations and then the site areas in those specific locations. Kind: And then lighting. Will there be building mounted lighting? Link Wilson: The only place where there are building mounted lights are at the automobile entries. You have to, a lot of foot candles right where the vehicles enter the building so we do have face mounted and also code requires that you have to have a significant amount of light at the emergency egress. I don't want to make any suggestions but you could achieve the same, especially since we're putting this masonry wall and I'll go back to this drawing. It could be fairly easy for us to mount a light in that masonry wall. Really what code is requiring is that a certain amount of foot candles be, I don't know if we can zoom in fight enough on this. You need to have a significant amount of foot candles right at this area, but since we have a wall we could easily just put a wall pack there. At the emergency egress. However, Building D's the only one with emergency egress that faces out to the south. So if that were an issue we could certainly put that in the walls. Kind: And then the underground entrance, I think its Building D and Bi, there will be headlights and activities shining towards the backs of the homes there, or will there be retaining walls? Link Wilson: There isn't a retaining wall but there again, if you look at my landscape plan, we do have a pretty fight buffer of spruce right in this location. 10 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: I think that would be key. Link Wilson: That's going to block those headlights. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Okay, thank you. Would anyone from the neighborhood like to make a few comments? If so, please come forward. Dave Ruegg: Dave Ruegg, 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive. Commissioners to start ofl} I know there's a lot of I think faith that we have to put into your group to preserve or protect our residential parts so I do appreciate that but I think even here tonight I think we've seen a lot of confusion still. And one that I noticed right away, I think Deb you pointed out what we were presented with for screening was five rows of trees. And now we come here tonight and we see three rows of trees. We don't see a good representation of what that actually is going to look like. The other point that I noticed on some of the, I don't know what the plans are that you handed to me. There's a matrix of trees and they identify the Building B1 and B2 as 12 foot trees. But identified on the color prints they show 6 foot trees so I think there's some confusion there too on what we're reading. And again I think we initiated this response last time. It's been brought up before about the distance, moved back to 137 feet. And just to maybe share with the neighbors or address the neighbors, it's my understanding that that's the way it should have been and it kind of is coming across that maybe you know they were doing us a favor but my interpretation and what we read in the code perhaps says that it does need to be 100, or 137 feet. And that to me should be the way it is. It shouldn't be you know look what we did for you. I think from a standpoint of transition, from what we've seen tonight and what we've been presented throughout the week prior to the last meeting, I do not still see that there's adequate transition here. The plans and the drawings show 20 foot trees. That's after 5 and 10 years. You know I'm basically kind of have to look at these trees and see if they're going to grow 20 feet. I feel I'm being kind of stuck here until that actually develops where I can actually off'er somebody maybe my home at some point and say well, look. You know there is adequate buffering here. There is adequate transition. And also, I don't think we've really addressed again the 15 foot differential belween my lot line and that hill. I know we talked about the grading. I know we talked about historical facts and the soil, but reality is I'm looking up 15 feet still and that falls into the transition category. The other thing is the land alterations. I don't think it's really been clarified tonight and the PUD agreement says no alterations. Well we know we have talked about that and I appreciate that. The grading issue, but I don't think that's really clarified. We do have, you know when our homes were being built there was soil put on there. We do know that. The last point is the buffering. Why not, nobody's really talked about this hill that's there. In using that as a buff'er zone. Grading behind it. Using it as a buff'er. A berm. Anything of that nature. You know when you grade that down and it's great, it's flat but now I'm still looking at that apartment building. And in summary, you know again this is how you can take this and I wanted to share this with the rest of the residential people here tonight. It's a quote on page 6 of the 1987 PUD agreement. This agreement shall be liberally construed to protect the public's interest. I think we're the public and I think we have an interest in how this is developed and stuff and that's why we're here tonight so, thanks. 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Mark Menzuber: Hi. I'm Mark Menzuber. I'm at 1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive. The main concern for both myself and some of the other neighbors that I've talked to, is and always has been this whole idea of transition. And the lack of an acceptable transition from single family homes in this case to 3 story apartment buildings. We're concerned that the proposed development does not provide sufficient transition that meets the intent of the City Code and the PUD agreement. Attachment A to the 1987 PUD agreement states, the developer shall provide buff'er areas acceptable to the city between multiple family and single family areas. Now we can talk about dirt that should or shouldn't be there, and what it might cost to move it. We can talk about lowering the buildings a few feet of a three story building by changing the pitch of the roof. We can talk about all the scenarios that have been suggested over the past several weeks and quote, "just didn't work". But the bottom line is that this proposal before you today does not provide adequate transition. This plan calls for three story buildings in the back yards of single story and split level homes. So what would provide adequate transition. Well, if I were just to speak personally, it would require that all the development that is adjacent to the land of single family homes, which would include Buildings B1 and B2, and also the southern portion of Building D, be two stories. If that were the case then I think this landscape plan appears reasonable. With three story buildings the landscape plan is insufficient, and it just doesn't seem fair to talk about what the trees might look like 5 or 10 years from now. I think it's very easy to take a color marker and paint along a border and make it appear that these trees are just going to present themselves as a wall. I don't think that's reality. I know that this group is willing to put in more trees than a typical development would require, but from our last meeting we know that this is not a typical development. So I just ask you to please enforce what you feel would be an appropriate transition in this scenario. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Lois Dyvik: I'm Lois Dyvik, 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. First of all I want to say that what I heard that Ladd Conrad say at the last meeting about tilting that B1 building, of course our back yard is B1. And I really like that and I am forever pasting papers here, but I think there's some validity to this. If you can zero down, making B1 can be made across as such without them losing any other apartment buildings. We can still have 14 units per floor, if you put it this way. Sure, the space here is not quite as, that 50 to 70 feet that they want but you could still have a curve in here as continuity for the basement or underground parking. So I'd like to leave this an exhibit here. And we've already talked about, and the rest of them have talked about the plants and the trees and so forth and so I won't address that again. But I do want to address environmental sound that we're going to get from rental property. There are at least 200 units of two to three bedroom units, family buildings. You said these are family buildings so that could put in anywhere from 400 to 600 kids in this particular small area. That is a loud noise. I just want that, wanted you to hear that and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Jim Dyvik: Hi. I'm Jim Dyvik and I'm from the same address on Lake Susan Hills Drive. If you'll recall in our letter to all of you, we recently moved into this area in April of last year and in retrospect it apparently was not a very good decision on our part, except we have, we've met some awfully nice people. And I'd like to thank the members of the commission that were able to come out, accept our invitation and come out and actually come to the home and stand on our deck and look at what this is going to look like, on top of this hill. I also wish to extend appreciation to Jim and to Tom and to Link because they were out there twice and did that. First time at their own invitation and second time at ours so we do appreciate that. Along with the other things I was going to say tonight, I'm not because they're issues that dealt with assessed values and all those sort of things which I dealt with the county over the last few weeks and I'll leave that and handle that with the county. But there was, in our initial meeting there was a statement made, and I know statements are made but I take them all seriously. And it started with that, Link said this is an asset to your neighborhood. Now had he said the city of Chanhassen I wouldn't have objected to that, but it is not an asset to the neighborhood or the people that live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. Next in our meeting with Kate, it was explained in this whole process and I said you know this is going to have a negative, putting these apartments up on these hills looking down into our bedrooms, into our kitchens, this is going to have a negative impact on the property values and she said no. It is not. So I called the realty agency that sold our house over on Minnetonka and asked them to come out which they did on Monday and we spent three hours. First they went through the house making an appraisal, and then we went over the plans and showed them the plans, and I guess they were awfully surprised at the buffering. They couldn't believe an ordinance would allow a transition from single family to heavy density with, plus sitting on a hill like that. But anyway, the bottom line is, and they are going to give us an evaluation. We'll have it on Friday but the thing they told us they'd love to have our business but do not sell at this time because with that going in back there, that if we were to get an off'er, it's going to be a low ball and that's their opinion. I asked how much is it going to affect it? They called me back today and said they could find no studies to say that the value of properties is going down 5%, 2%, 20%. There is nothing out there. No one has done it. Either realtors or developers or cities. So anyway, I'd just like that, that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Thoughts on this one. What do you think of the changes from two weeks ago? Conrad: I can start Mr. Chairman. The applicant's done a real nice job responding. It's as thorough a job as I've seen responding to our concerns. Our needs. Our requests. I think the materials presented tonight and over the past week are good. The perspectives that we see in general are good. They've done a thorough job and I've tried to move some things around in my mind, figuring out how to do this. Everybody knows we're, my key concerns are transition. I didn't need the neighbors to come in and talk about that. And I think the applicant has, they're moving that way. I don't think we have an ordinance that really takes care of this particular situation. That is a real problem but I think the applicant is doing a fair job right now. Just a couple thoughts in the whole process so I wanted to stroke the applicant a little bit saying that the materials are good. I think one of the flaws that I see in the materials is, most of the materials furnished in perspectives make you feel good about a transition. But then the final design is coming in and it's really not what we've been shown. So if there were five rows of trees and they 13 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 were 12 feet, I think we'd have one transition based on what we saw tonight. Maybe there's only three rows so I don't, I think per what one of the residents was saying, we really don't know what we have so a big concern that I have is, the thing that sells me on transition really is what the applicant has been doing fairly well here and that's giving us kind of good perspectives and the perspectives for a while satisfied me until maybe we saw the final swatch of color and maybe that's not, I don't know what I've seen anymore so that's a problem for me. One of the other concerns that I do have is the size of the trees going in for that buff'er. The only other thing that I probably recommend, and I still think that Building B2, at least I'm calling it B2. The one on the southeast comer. I think the angulation is still of concern to me and I understand what the applicant is asking for in terms of connectivity to B1 and the driveway, underground driveway. I understand that. I'm not sure we've really pushed on that so that would be my concerns is the angularity of B, again I think it was B2. Building B2. Sometimes perspectives make things a little bit better for the neighbors but just from the neighborhood standpoint I think what we've seen since the last meeting has been some fairly significant movement on the applicant's part. I'm not satisfied yet with it but it's getting there. That's my comments Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Okay, thank you Ladd. Anyone else? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll just make a couple comments. I too noticed the difference in the inconsistencies in the plant matrix and the plant drawing that we were shown. For example the blue is showing a 6 foot high coniferous trees. On the matrix it says 12 foot. I don't think he could put this out for bid with this inconsistencies like that and I don't think that the neighbors or even the commission can be totally certain of what we're going to get when we get two very disparate numbers. There's a huge difference between 6 and 12 foot trees. But I do want to commend the applicant for sending out a nice packet the second time around. I was certainly much more pleased with what I got. I liked seeing the perspective and I liked looking at the different colors and it really helped me get a feel for what is potentially going into this area. I too am rather concerned about the transition area. I don't think it's a good decision. I know we would not do this at this point in time. I know there's an agreement in place and that really puts us in a very difficult situation I think because what we do, what we know and what we would do today is probably very different from what was done in the past so I again, don't really know if there's an easy way out of that or not. But to put high density next to single family, I don't believe would happen today and I think that we have to take a real hard look at how it's going to transition and those trees on the south side, could make or break this. And it may sound like a rather simple thing but I think that that's very important. I'm glad to see the sidewalk. I'm glad to see a lot of the different things. I think that the building looks a little more put together with the changes to the rock. To the siding. That type of thing. Those are positives. It's a transition that still kind of scares me and I'm not really sure what to say so I'll just listen to other comments. Peterson: Thanks. Matt. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. First of all I agree with the comments of my fellow commissioners. I've been taking some notes. I'm just going to kind of follow off these. First, I've come to agree I guess that the change in land elevation is not a factor here. I had been concerned about that but I think with the explanation provided by staff and the applicant that I'm 14 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 comfortable that I do not believe that the land, that the earth that was moved onto this site or moved around this site is really a significant factor going forward. So I think I've moved beyond that as a concern. I appreciate the applicant's efforts. I think they're trying very hard to make this an acceptable project. You know things like moving the setback further back. I think they are trying to come up with a landscape plan that works, although I agree with my fellow commissioners, I don't think that it's there yet or we've seen it yet. Or that we understand it yet. I appreciate the changes in the windows and they changed the roof slope and things like that and I do think the applicant is trying fairly hard to put together a project that appeases everybody. Having noted that, I'm still not comfortable with this site plan and I guess I'd rehash a bit what I said last time. We were asked tonight to look at the site plan for Building A and not B1 and B2. But like I said last time, I think how we handle Building A locks us in on how B1 and B2 may be developed and I'm not comfortable still with B1 and B2. Now how we review this is governed by the PUD agreement and the city ordinances. Now the PUD agreement is pretty poor and not forward looking at all, and as Alison said, that there won't be another PUD agreement I think in Chanhassen like that one. But we're stuck with that one. And when we look at the ordinance with respect to site plan, there are different elements that we have to consider and I keep coming back to the sixth one which I'll read which says that the site plan essentially protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for a surface water drainage, sound and light buff'ers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial affects on neighboring land uses. And as I said last time, I'm still not convinced that they have met that element or the applicant has met that element of our analysis of the site plan. And I do respect the staff's opinion. I think staff has done a great job on this project. I think I just differ on that one point from staff2 When I look at why I disagree, I think the main thing as has been noted, is that there's not an adequate transition. I'm not sure exactly how to address it. Whether it's the number of stories in the buildings. Where there's a setback. The positioning of the buildings. The buffering. All I know is at this point I'm not comfortable with the site plan of A and B and B1 and B2. So I guess those are my comments and as, well what we were presented I'm not happy with it. Peterson: What can we do to make you happy? Burton: I don't know. It's a combination of the factors I just said. I think that when you look back, especially I have this drawing here that was submitted so people what I'm referring to. I do think it still seems as if the buildings are towering out there right above these houses without adequate transition and I, maybe it'd be the plantings or changing the angles of the building or reducing a story, I don't know. But I'm skeptical of the drawings and I just, I'm concerned that this is not an adequate transition and I mentioned, I'm not sure how it gets to be made to feel comfortable about it except, I would love to see B1 and B2 just move very far away, or angled in a different way or you know, I look at their drawings and I see A, up in the comer there and I wonder why A can't be pushed further into that comer and then B slid up that way and maybe moving the recreation facility more towards the houses and doing different things. I don't know, I'm just not convinced that everything's been explored and why, I'm just not comfortable with it. Peterson: Okay, good. 15 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: ... with the previous comments. And I think Ladd was saying, and I agree with him that I am comfortable with this transition. And then I heard that it changed from this and that does not make me comfortable at all. And 5-10 years sounds like a long time but man, it's a heart beat and I really feel that ifa lot of the neighbors had planted trees when the homes were built, and I know a lot of the people who live there right now were not the builders, if they had put trees in 10 years ago, there would be a nice buffer and as big as what we see here. So part of the onus goes on the homeowners as well in creating that buffer. It's not all the last person who comes in. And if the transition looks like this, I would be comfortable with that but I feel like the landscaping plan that we were given here just tonight, that we haven't had a chance to look at, is a moving target and it's different than what the view perspective we've been given is. So I don't know, I'd kind of like to see the landscaping plan detailed out more. The way we're used to seeing it with specific circles, with specific trees so I can see that there's going to be trees blocking that driveway and five rows versus three rows and staggered or not staggered or what the deal is. Just having marker drawn in areas is not what I'm used to looking at for a landscaping plan. Peterson: Good, thanks. The only thing that I'm really uncomfortable with is the transition. I think that I'd be more comfortable if when we do make a motion that if we had the City Forester work with the applicant to do a little bit of research. You know the three rows versus five rows. Insure that 12 foot trees are in there. I think that I'm not convinced that five rows is better than three. The biggest thing I'm worried about is sticking them too close together and within a year or two that they're half dead. I've seen that more times than I have successful trees that are farther apart. You know I think as a commission, my personal thoughts is that we've brought this as far as the statutes really, that guide our commission have allowed us to go so I'm for one comfortable that based upon some of the caveats that my fellow commissioners have cited this evening, that we push this on. So with those comments, I'll entertain a motion please. Conrad: I would make the motion Mr. Chairman that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of 21.34 acres into four lot subdivision #99-14 and Site Plan Review #99-19, approval of Phase I (Building A), 106 units as shown on plans dated and received December 3, 1999, revised and received January 12, 2000, subject to the conditions in the staff report, plus condition 32. And this is just for ease of convenience rather than going back and really attaching it to one of the other conditions but condition 32 is that the staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that, and all materials presented to City Council support each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residence. I don't, parenthetically, I don't want renderings, cad drawings going that aren't real. I want them not future tense. Current tense. Related to that would be to clarify the 12 foot trees versus the 6 foot trees. What the applicant is proposing, I don't understand it. Condition 33 would be for the applicant to seriously review the angularity, if that's the right word, of building B2. And to attempt and to work with staff to see if there is any other angle that lessens the transition impact so that those buildings aren't face forward into the residents to the south. I think if those two things got done, this would be a reasonable project. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a couple, oh. Do we need to second that before I have a friendly amendment? 16 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Yes. Kind: Second it. And I have a suggestion for a friendly amendment. Condition number 5, add a sentence that says landscaping along the south properly line shall be installed with Phase I. Conrad: I will accept. Kind: And let's see. Peterson: Can I add a friendly to a friendly? Kind: Yeah. Peterson: We don't want to put that in before, before the right time so I'd like to have somebody other than ourselves, City Forester probably review and ascertain if that's the most prudent thing to do. Kind: What he said. And then you're up to condition 34, is that what your last one was? Conrad: Yeah, up to. Kind: I have a suggestion for condition 35. Along the lines of building material conditions, just because I couldn't find and spell it out in here. I just want to make it clear that the low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. Peterson: That'd be 34. Kind: 34? Conrad: Yeah, 34. Peterson: Okay. Any other friendly amendments? It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? Conrad moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat of 21.34 into 4 lots (SUB-99-14) and Site Plan Review #99-19, approval of PHASE I (Building A), 106 units, as shown on the plans dated received December 3, 1999, revised and received January 12, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Amend the PUD contract to state the impervious surface coverage of the site cannot exceed 35%. 2. A cross-access easement shall be conveyed to all the lots for use of the private street. 17 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and 1/2 park fees. The applicant shall increase proposed buff'er yard landscape plantings for the north, south and east properly lines in order to meet minimum requirements. Native species are recommended. Landscaping along the south property line shall be installed with Phase I after review and approval by the City Forester. Boulevard plantings shall be increased to one tree per 30 feet of frontage. The applicant shall show the sod/seed limits on official landscape plan submitted to city. The PUD agreement also states that the applicant shall provide $500.00 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping. 7. Fire Marshal conditions: Fire hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Some proposed fire hydrants will be required to be re-located. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 903.2. b. Install post indicator valves (P.I.Vs). Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Copy enclosed. e. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: 1. f-1. Attic spaces shall be sprinklered per NFPA 13. 2. f-2. Class 1 standpipes shall be installed in stair towers. 18 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 3. f-3. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system. g. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. i. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. 8. Turning radius shall be reviewed by the Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.3. 9. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. b. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. c. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. d. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. The building owner and or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular, the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. 10. The developer shall supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff for materials imported to or exported from the site. If the material is proposed to be removed off site to another location in Chanhassen, that property owner will be required to obtain an earthwork permit from the City. 11. The applicant will need to develop a temporary sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat 19 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. submittal. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The applicant shall enter into a development contract/PUD agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County Public Works, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk storm drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 20 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. The developer shall escrow with the City a financial guarantee for a share of the local cost participation based on traffic generated from the site for a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lake Drive West and Powers Boulevard. The cost of the traffic signal is not known at this time. Preliminary estimates between the City and County shall be used for a security escrow. Type III erosion control fence will be required adjacent to the wetland areas. Storm water ponds and/or temporary detention ponds shall be constructed with the initial grading phases to minimize erosion potential to the wetlands or downstream water bodies. Erosion control blanket will be required on slopes greater than 3:1. Revegetation of exposed slopes should occur immediately after grading is completed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Storm water ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height will need to be engineered and require building permits. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height should be protected with fences and/or landscaping materials to prevent children from falling off the walls. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The plans shall be revised to utilize the existing sewer and water services provided to the site from Lake Drive West. Open cutting of the street Lake Drive West will not be permitted. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20- 1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with section 20-1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the turning radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. The proposed high density residential development of 21.34 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $34,997. The applicant has provided a water quality ponds to treat 18.6 acres which will waive $30,504 of this fee. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $93,042, for a total SWMP fee of $97,536. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 21 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 29. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. 30. The staff and the applicant work on a landscaping plan that shows all materials presented to City Council supporting each other in terms of what actually will go into that transition area on the south side of the property between Building B2 primarily and the single family residences. 31. The applicant seriously review the angularity of building B2 in an attempt and to work with staff to see if there is any other angle that lessens the transition impact so that those buildings aren't face forward into the residents to the south. 32. The applicant show the following specific materials on the buildings. The low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. All voted in favor, except Matt Burton who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: For the reasons being the similar comments before? Burton: Yep. Peterson: All right, thank you. This goes on to Council. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, can I make an announcement. This was scheduled to be on the 24th meeting. Based on the comments and the input that you need for this to be carried forward, just so the people here understand when this is being tracked. I'm not sure we can accomplish that to put it on the agenda. If it was on the agenda, in good faith we'd have to recommend denial because it's missing some components. So for the applicant's edification and the neighbors, we're scheduling this for the February 14th meeting to get the landscaping and those issues resolved. So February 14th City Council meeting. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Everybody thank you very much for your patience and tolerance. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 43~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES TH BUSINESS PARK 8 ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BLVD, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST ON MALLORY COURT~ ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 22 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Any questions for staff'? Kind: For a change, no. Can you believe it? Peterson: No. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Mark Undestad: Hello. Mark Undestad, 8800 Sunset Trail, Chanhassen here. Whittling down our lots out there. This one actually from the landscaping on there, we are going to increase landscaping through the entire site and the owner of this building, Andreas Development and ourselves are going to kind of take care of a little more around the entrance of Mallory Court is kind of it's own little park within a park down there. This one. The one that's coming up next and then the building we're already starting construction on back there. They all tie together into this one. I don't really have a lot to add to it. Another project in Chanhassen and stafl} we kind of just plug away and try to make them look nice. Do you have any questions? Peterson: So the colors on this one, me being color blind, I was trying to tie this building with the next one and with the other one that's going on the closest to it. Are they similar colors? Are they the same? Mark Undestad: They're similar. The architect, RSP Architects we've hired, they've designed all the projects. All the buildings. So they've tried to kind of carry a little bit of a theme through it but not make cookie cutter. This is that one, that one's that one so, but they are similar. I wouldn't say they're exact colors. I mean if you look at, this would be the building next to it. The brown's a little redder. The gray's a little grayer but still in the earth tones and stufl~ Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Mark Undestad: Thank you. Peterson: May I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing's closed. Commissioners, comments. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a nice looking project and I think the staff report does a good job with it. 23 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Conrad: One question Mr. Chairman to staff2 Connectivity to the sidewalk. We constantly hit that Sharmin. What's our policy? What are we. Al-Jarl2 We want them accessible to pedestrians in general. There is a sidewalk along Mallory Court that is not shown on the plan. Are you referring to the parking lot? Conrad: Well just curious. Giving connection from that building out to the main street. A sidewalk going to the main sidewalk. What is that, Lake Drive West? So do we have a policy? There is a sidewalk that runs into that court or not? Al-Jarl2 There is a walkway through here. And then the sidewalk is along here. Conrad: Okay, there is one there? A1-Jafl2 Yes, there is. Conrad: Okay, that's all I need to know. Peterson: Other comments? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Ladd reminds me of my usual crosswalk question for Dave. Where will it be along, where will they, if how many are there and where will they be along Lake Drive West in relationship to Sunset Ridge Park? You probably answered this for me before but I don't recall. You probably don't either. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Currently there is one crosswalk located on Lake Drive West at the park entrance, which is quite a ways to the west from this site. The apartment site was proposing right in that location there is the only crosswalk along Lake Drive West. Kind: So these businesses wanting to go over to the park for lunch or whatever, would convene in this area to cross? Hempel: Use the north trail along the Lake Drive West and they cross. Kind: And then with this previous project, the apartment building project, there will be an 8 foot bituminous path along the south side to Sunset Ridge Park. It wasn't really clear to me in there how far that would go along the south side. Will it just pretty much bee line to the park? Is that how it will work? Hempel: It will essentially duplicate your north sidewalk which will run all the way from Powers Boulevard along Lake Drive West to the park. On the south side. Kind: Okay. Along the side and then it'd be like a perpendicular stub path down to the park, is that how it will work or? 24 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Hempel: There will be sidewalks to the drive access points. From the drive access points. The apartments and the sidewalk will continue, the trail will continue along, all the way down to the park along the south side of the road. Kind: I'm just thinking about these businesses, they would be able to use that same path to the park potentially. Hempel: Correct. Kind: If they wanted to go have a lunch there, whatever. Hempel: We didn't want to designate a crosswalk if you will in that area with the level, number of pedestrians crossing would be fairly low and wouldn't really warrant a crosswalk. Kind: I agree. We don't want a crosswalk every 10 feet. Thank you for refreshing my memory. Peterson: I'll entertain a motion please. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000- 1 for a 43,000 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plans dated received December 17, subject to the following conditions 1 through 24. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussions? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan #2000-1 for a 43,000 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plans dated received December 17, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall increase parking lot tree plantings to a total of 16 overstory trees. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city. 2. The applicant shall submit wildflower seed mix specifications, application procedure and maintenance schedule to the city. 3. One overstory tree will be added to the north buff'er yard area. 4. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. 25 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 5. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria. a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. i. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. Official Conditions: The building shall have an automatic fire extinguishing system. Five accessible parking spots must be provided and they must be dispersed among the various building entrances as close to the entrances as possible. c. The utility plans will be reviewed when submitted for permit. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 7. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Refer to the utility plan. Please note the location of the fire hydrants to be installed. One hydrant will be off the northeast comer of the building and another hydrant must be 6. Building a. b. 26 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. located off the southeast comer by the from entrance. The hydrant shown on the southwest comer can be deleted. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1997 Section 903.4.2. b. Refer to the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy requirements for your subcontractors. The walls along the east and west side of the loading area shall be built of the same materials as the rest of the building. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp.5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area would be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. Grading plans shall incorporate a meandering berm, 3-4 feet high, along the east and southeast comer of the site. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require building permits through the City's Building Department. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. The applicant shall construct a five foot wide concrete sidewalk from the parking lot to Mallory Court. The proposed driveway access shall incorporate an industrial driveway apron and pedestrian ramps on the plans in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee the boulevard restoration and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a 27 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 letter of credit or cash escrow, which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. 19. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks upon the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 20. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7 ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 22. The applicant shall incorporate berms along the southeast portion of the site to screen the south and east parking lots from the intersection of Mallory Court and Lake Drive West. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. 23. The applicant shall revise the grading plans to show how a drainage swale is to be constructed along the west side of the building to insure positive drainage away from the building and a 2.0% boulevard grade within the right-of-way of Mallory Court. 24. The applicant shall provide berming in the southeasterly portion of the site to screen the parking lot from the intersection of Mallory Court and Lake Drive West to help screen the parking lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 43~730 SQ. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 2~ BLOCK 1~ CHANHASSEN LAKES TH BUSINESS PARK 8 ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD~ NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST ON MALLORY COURT~ EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, ifI could add one comment. I noticed an error in the staff report with regards to the retaining wall height by the truck loading facility. I don't know if anybody caught that. The staff report says 13 inch high retaining wall. It should be 13 foot high. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Sharmin, I'm trying to figure out on the color rendering that we've got, which elevation is this? I couldn't picture, figure out which one it was. 28 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Mark Undestad: That's looking straight in this way. You're looking at the top one here? Peterson: No, the bottom one. Mark Undestad: Oh bottom. Okay, the bottom one is this face here. So as these step out, you're seeing all the difl'erent jogs through here. Peterson: So from the angle of the foyer, "entrance", how many feet to the west would you go approximately? I'm just trying to get, it's a big, long wall. I'm just trying to figure, it doesn't look as "nice" as your previously building. Mark Undestad: Well, the difference in this one is that we're using a lot of the image is coming on the top 6 feet of the building here. We're changing to using these break-off or a corduroy block. To stand out a little more for more depth. Peterson: And they'll be in, and they're not noted on here as I can see so about how far apart are they on this to break up that wall on top? Mark Undestad: Well if you look at this first light tan line here. Okay, right above that, that brown stripe will be a corduroy block or break-off block. Then there will be another smooth, recessed band of smooth block and then the large, white band on top. The finish end will be another corduroy block. Peterson: So on the other rendering we've got some angles, some 45 degree angles that are in there. Am I dreaming when I say that? Mark Undestad: At the top of the building? Peterson: Yeah. Mark Undestad: This is, what we're doing on these is very similar to what.., step off the top 3 or 4 courses of block. Peterson: So the corduroy will look like a 45 degree angle is really what I'm talking about is the. Mark Undestad: Right. It will.., corduroy sticks out another 3 inches farther than rock face or smooth block. But we don't step them up, we're not doing the same design at the top of this one so that this one will bring Lot 2 with Lot 3... But this is the same detail as Lots 1 and 2 in the 7th Addition. Peterson: Okay, thanks. Any other comments before we get Mark back to his seat and bring him back up. 29 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Chair, I do have a comment. So I didn't quite get the answer. How long is it from this comer, which I'm guessing is the edge of the front entrance, to the back or the farthest southwestern comer, which would be down here? What kind of length are we looking at? Mark Undestad: I don't have a scale on me... Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I've scaled it ofl~ It's approximately 140 feet. Peterson: Thank you. You redeemed yourself for the retaining wall. Blackowiak: And what kind of view can we expect on the other two elevations? I know that they're not as, maybe as prominent but yes. Mark Undestad: Well, back there we're going to do part of the building is going to be buried back there. Those hillsides go up, I don't know, 20 to 30 feet. Up the bank in the back. What we're going to do is this will grade down and grade, there will be a swale in there to drain off and then we're going to put windows in along the top of that. It's a production place. Put windows in up there but they're going to be higher up built, maybe 12 feet. 10 to 12 feet off the ground. Blackowiak: Okay, so the back would be basically just a single color? Mark Undestad: No, no, no. It will look just like this all four sides even though. Blackowiak: Butjustno low windows? Mark Undestad: Right. Blackowiak: It will just be the tall windows. Mark Undestad: But the same design goes around all four sides. Kate Aanenson: That is in the black and white packet. Blackowiak: I know. Okay, thanks. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. You just mentioned something that reminded me. You mentioned that it's going to be a production facility and this is probably a partial question for staff and for the applicant relating to ordinances on noise and odors and that sort of thing. Not to worry? Thank you. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Thanks. Can I have a motion and a second for a public hearing please. 30 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thoughts on this one commissioners. Hearing none I'll entertain a motion. Blackowiak: Oh, excuse me Mr. Chair. I'll just make a quick comment and I don't know, I kind of alluded to it with my question. Lot 1, the building we just saw, I liked the south elevation a lot. I liked the variation. The different entrances. Lot 2, I like it less. It's a pretty long stretch of wall. I do understand it will be shielded for, I mean a lot of it will be shielded by Building 1, Lot 1 but still 140 feet is 140 feet and I would maybe like the applicant to consider doing something to break it up. I don't know whether landscaping or, it just seems like it's rather long. And that would be my only concern at this point in time. Mark Undestad: One of the things we're reviewing right now.., there's an opening in here that we may add another entrance in there. Blackowiak: I'd like that. Mark Undestad: Which would reduce, I mean it wouldn't be obviously as grand as the main entrance here but we could get something. Blackowiak: Just to break it up a little bit, okay. All right. Thank you. Peterson: Motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 2000-2 for a 43,730 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition as shown on the plans dated received December 17, subject to the conditions in the staff report, number 1, am I reading the right thing? Oh, I see. You've got it revised. Subject to the conditions 1 through 32. Peterson: No... Burton: I'm sorry, whatever the numbers are. My numbers are wacky here. I don't know if I'm looking at. Peterson: 1 through 21. Burton: Mine goes 1, 7, 8, 9. Okay, whatever they are, they are. 31 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Aanenson: We'll correct that. How about subject to the conditions in the staff report. Burton: That's fine. We'll leave it at that. However they turn out. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-2 for a 43,730 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 2, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, as shown on the plans dated received December 17, and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall increase the number of overstory trees in the parking lot area to a total of 14. The applicant shall submit details of the wildflower seeding proposed on the north and west sides of the property. Details shall include contents of seed mix, application procedure, and maintenance schedule. 3. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. One ground low profile business sign is permitted per lot. The area of the sign may not exceed 80 square feet and a height of 8 feet. Also, one wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 15% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 90 square feet. All signage must meet the following criteria: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. 32 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. 5. Building Official Conditions: a. The building shall have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b. Five accessible parking spots must be provided and they must be dispersed among the various building entrances as close to the entrances as possible. c. The utility plans will be reviewed when submitted for permit. d. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: Refer to the utility plan. Please note the location of the fire hydrants to be installed. One hydrant will be off the northeast comer of the building and another hydrant must be located off the southeast comer by the front entrance. The hydrant shown on the southwest comer can be deleted. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code 1997 Section 903.4.2. b. Refer to the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy requirements for your subcontractors. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the city. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp.5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area would be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. 10. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 33 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 11. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. Installation of the private utilities throughout the site will require building permits through the City's Building Department. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or state plumbing codes. 13. The applicant shall construct a 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk from the parking lot to Mallory Court. 14. The proposed driveway access shall incorporate an industrial driveway apron and pedestrian ramps on the plans in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5207. 15. The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee the boulevard restoration and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow which will be returned upon satisfactorily completing the project. 16. All disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within lwo weeks of the completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 17. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7 ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. 19. No berming is permitted within the City's right-of-way. Landscaping improvements may be permitted subject to staff review and approval. 20. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement against Lots 2 and 3 for the common use of the water and storm drainage system and encroachment of the truck turnaround area on Lot 3. The agreement shall also address maintenance responsibilities. 21. All retaining walls in excess of 4 feet in height need to be engineered and a separate building permit obtained. A landscape hedge 3 to 4 feet in height shall be installed along the top of the retaining wall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 34 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK LOCATED 7415 BENT BOW TRAIL (LOT 10, BLOCK 4, MEADOWS AT LONGACRES 4TM ADDITION) TERRY RADIL. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staflk Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Trying to give the applicant their patio, could they use pavers? Is that considered pervious or impervious? Kirchoflk That is considered hard surface. Same as a patio. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Cindy, what's a buff'er strip monument? Kirchoflk A buff'er strip monument is a sign locating where the buff'er strip is, correct? Aanenson: Yeah, it's a post in the ground and it's got a marquee that the city makes up that says wetland edge or conservation easement. We put it on every other lot to delineate that line. What we found is, if it's on paper and someone's out mowing their lawn, it's hard to find. So we do require the developer to place those on the line. Kind: And this one's missing? Kirchoflk Yes. Kind: How do they go away? Okay. I'll let that one alone. Peterson: In looking at it, when you were out there, the large pile of boulders that's currently there in the side and the rear. Is both the side and the rear intruding on the current setback or just the rear? Do you know? Kirchoflk I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Peterson: The boulders that are pictured in the elevation on the rear and the side, are both of those intruding on the buff'er? Or just one? Kirchoflk They're not encroaching into the buff'er, they're in the setback. The wetland setback. And it says rear and side elevation just to identify the picture. Peterson: Got it. 35 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chairman, you remind me of another question. You're allowed to do landscaping within the setback. It's just not in the wetland itself? Kirchofl5 You can't alter the buffer and in this case there's a 10 foot buffer. That has to remain natural but the structure, any structures have to be 40 feet away from that. Kind: But the use of the back yard, of the 40 foot setback, 30 feet of it can be landscaped or mowed or used however the homeowners wants? Kirchofl5 40 feet of it can. Kind: 40 feet can? But 10 feet needs to be left natural? Kirchofl5 Yes. Kind: Okay. So it's 30 feet that can be, whatever. Peterson: Other questions of stafl2 Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Terry Radil: My name is Terry Radil and I live at 7415 Bent Bow Trail. This picture actually I drew and it doesn't show a couple of the things. Right here is where the cantilever bay window comes out and that's the 15 inches that went into the wetland setback. There was a lot of discussion unfortunately that occurred that I wasn't aware of as far as between the builder and the city and I'm not sure what happened there but here's where our patio door comes out and without some type of variance we're going to have an 8 foot deck. And as far as the boulder question, those boulders actually were put there by my landscaper. They're for a retaining wall that will go, it will not be part of the wetland setback at all. They're for a retaining wall that will go right here and then another one up so they're just there temporarily for the winter. He wasn't able to finish. I had one put in the front yard and he wasn't able to finish the other ones in the back yard so the boulders are not part of the setback at all. And as far as the buffer monument, I thought it was the tarp but that's clarification for me. That's basically how I purchased the property right before Thanksgiving. We moved in the day before Thanksgiving so I actually tried to get the tarp up but it was froze down and we'll be digging it out next spring to finish off our landscaping. We're asking you to give us approval to put in a reasonably sized deck, a relatively small gazebo and I do have pictures of something similar if you're of interest there. If we would have known about the original plat drawing we could have very easily built on a different lot. None of this was brought to our attention with our builder. As another point with the patio, we could have very easily put the patio door in another part of the basement so we wouldn't extend in the wetland but we just weren't in the know there and that's I guess my fault too. Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Kind: Did you consider a 3 foot variance just to get your deck to be 11 feet wide? Why go for 12 feet? 36 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Terry Radil: As far as the deck? Kind: The variance. Yeah, the deck specifically. Terry Radil: Well the 12 feet variance is actually because of the patio because you're going 12 feet off of the patio and that can be adjusted. As far as the deck, we just went 14 feet out. I was talking with a builder and there is such a thing as cantilevering the deck out so we don't put things, posts in the ground. We just cantilever over the wetland setback and we could do something like that. Kind: Stafl} could you speak to that? Terry Radil: And I'm not a construction person but my understanding is that you can cantilever a third of the distance that from the, you know the. Kind: I know what you mean. Terry Radil: So ifI went from, I'll go up 9 feet you know with my floor joist, I could go out another 3 feet to have the cantilever so the deck would be you know 12 feet. Peterson: Your footings would be 6 feet instead of the 9. Kind: Right. So would that be encroaching still? Kirchofl5 Yes, that's still an encroachment because the cantilever for the bay window was encroaching into the setback and they had to get. Kind: And that's free standing too, okay. Terry Radil: Yeah, this picture actually right here, you can see if you zoom down there. The bay window is 15 inches that are encroached already. Here again I'm going to restate, had we known about the deviation from the original plat, or if the builder would have brought this to our attention, I feel like we're kind of stuck right now, which is unfortunate for everyone. Peterson: When you bought the house was there already a tentative design for a deck? Terry Radil: No. No. He didn't include the deck with the builder at all. Normally what, this is one of their standard models. We didn't deviate from the footprint of the house very much at all. Normally what they, there are other models that have this is they pretty much do this exact same thing. You go out the door which is right here. Go out the door and then there's a deck area that is greater than the 8 feet of this wall right here. So I'm not sure if it's standard or not but that's a standard model. 37 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. A motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward. Conrad moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Deb, do you want to tackle this one first? Kind: Sure. Goll, I like people to have decks and patios but I just don't see a way around this one. I think that it sets a precedent for encroaching in that wetland and it was so clear on that document that was signed by the builder that they can't do that. They can't go in there. It's starting to get on my nerves these builders that don't talk to their homeowners. The buyers. I don't know what we can do to make that better but I support the staff report. Peterson: Any other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I feel badly for the applicant also but I agree with the staff report. I would like to have them have a deck but I agree with Deb. It sets a bad precedent. It does seem as though there's a reasonable alternative. I guess we didn't discuss it tonight but the staff report does show that there's an alternative and based on that I don't see how we can approve it. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: I agree with what's been said. Yes, it's unfortunate but it's very clear the builder agreed to it and there is an alternative so I think our hands are fled. Peterson: Okay. I would agree. Motion and a second please. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based on the following, number 1 and 2. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded, any discussion? 38 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance Request #2000-1 for a 12 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a gazebo, deck and patio based upon the following: 1. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant can construct a deck on the site without a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanhnously. Peterson: Also I'd like the record to show that an appeal from this Board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this with a decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of this Board's decision. This appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Aanenson: Which would be the 14th. Peterson: The 14th of February. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING 13.41 ACRES FROM RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY TO PUD-R~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL~ A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL~ AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF TH 101~ NORTH OF MISSION HILLS AND SOUTH OF VILLAGES ON THE PONDS~ MARSH GLEN~ MSS HOLDINGS~ LLC. Public Present: Name Address John Gerogeorge JeffNordos Brian & Dawn Riley Tony Ferguson Tom & Kay Faust Bruce Hanson Bill Coffman Roger Wainwright Kathryn Krogness Vem & Bob Lindemann Roa McKenzie John Mazeika 470 Mission Hills Court 461 Mission Hills Court 8580 Mission Hills Lane 8495 Mission Hills Lane 541 Mission Hills Drive 3300 Plaza VII, 45 So. Seventh Street, Mpls. 15070 Amur Hill Lane, Eden Prairie 532 Mission Hills Drive 544 Mission Hills Drive 552 Mission Hills Drive 536 Mission Hills Drive 8525 Mission Hills Lane 39 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Steve Scheid Scott & Shannon Fiedler Steve Kroiss Beth Andrews Steve R. Kroiss 451 Mission Hills Court 8511 Mission Hills Lane 8905 Cove Point Road 8905 Cove Point Road 5605 Zumbra Drive Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions and I don't know if you want to take them part by part or all at once. We'll start with the land use plan amendment. Okay. You talked about the 150 foot setback from Rice Marsh Lake. Would that be applicable to anybody trying to develop this properly? Kirchofl5 That is correct. Blackowiak: Okay, then is there a benefit? You're saying that there would be, that the lots are located outside of the setback from the lake so no encroachment can take place. That would be true even if it were single family. So there's no real advantage to. Kirchofl5 However the outlot, as we have required it to be, will be common ownership and no one can encroach into that. For instance ifa single family home was built on those lots and they were per the zoning ordinance, there could be an encroachment that could be requested into the 150 foot setback. Blackowiak: I thought that was DNR or something like that. Kirchofl5 Yes, but you still can receive a variance. Aanenson: I guess what we're saying, in our past experience, even though we put restrictions of the buff'er setback requirement.., over time to give individual properly owners that encroach, work their way down and eventually are mowing. So we're saying this way we have more control by making it an outlot and an association in control instead of individual tenants, homeowners in control. So it gets a little bit better security in maintaining the natural features which we think is a plus. Blackowiak: Okay. Secondly, it talks about the fact that there's no minimum lot size for properties developed as attached single family dwellings on land designated as medium and high density residential. Currently this is low density residential, so is there a minimum lot size for low density residential? It's just the 15,000? Kirchofl5 It's 11,000. A minimum with an average of 15,000 under the PUD. Blackowiak: Under the PUD. 40 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kirchofl2 But as it's zoned right now it would be 15,000. RSF. Blackowiak: Okay. How many, if it were, went in as a straight residential RSF, 15,000 foot lots, what would be the number of homes we could expect in that? Kirchofl2 Staff did a calculation based upon the acreage and it's approximately 29 units. Blackowiak: That would be at the, if you went to the top? The four? Kirchofl~ No, that was. Blackowiak: Four units per acre or what are you? Kirchofl2 That would be dividing the total area that's buildable by 15,000 square feet because that would be the minimum lot size that would be permitted. Blackowiak: Okay, and that's just, that doesn't take into account any streets or anything like that? Kirchofl2 No it does not. Blackowiak: But roughly the same. Kirchofl2 Roughly, yep. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Rezoning, you have Table 1 and it talks about the last item in Table 1. This is on page 4. It talks about the hard surface coverage. We don't have it. Don't we normally have that before we go ahead and approve any rezoning? Kirchofl2 A rezoning? Blackowiak: Well you're talking about justification for rezoning to PUD. Aanenson: Yes. We can get that information. It's not shown on the plat. I'm confident that it's way under, significantly under than if you did single family home subdivision. Based on the square footage of the units. Blackowiak: Okay. But well within what we're required, the 30%? Aanenson: Correct. Before this would be approved by the City Council, or if you wanted that information, we can certainly get that. The applicant did not put that in there. Blackowiak: Okay. Kirchofl2 And just note, it is a condition. 41 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: It wasn't there so. Aanenson: It is a condition of approval. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Back to, what's my next one? Preliminary plat. Here we go. Talking about water quality and water quantity fees. There being based on medium density developments. How does it, is that common that we would make that change or how does it compare to residential rates? Aanenson: It's based on a per unit acreage, and because we have to up zone it, because we don't allow the clustering of the smaller lots into low density. Even though we're still staying in that range, we have to up zone it. That's what is making the change. Blackowiak: So that's why the medium density rates would apply? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. If it were to be all single family, would the fees be any higher or would they be similar? Aanenson: Pardon me? Blackowiak: If it were to all be single family. Aanenson: It would be less, correct. Blackowiak: How do the rates compare? I was just curious. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. If it was single family it would be less. Blackowiak: Okay. I think I have one more. Ah, here we go. Oh, you know what, it's not really a question. That's it. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions of staff'? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure if this is for staff or the applicant or both but I have some concerns about the layout of the actual homes and is that appropriate to discuss a preliminary plat or is that something to discuss at final plat? Peterson: Now. Kind: Now, thank you. Learning experience for me. My concern is what I would describe as garagescape. Knowing that the main entrance into this area is going to be from 101 in the near future, that when you're driving along here all you see are the sides of every garage as you come 42 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 in here. I'd like to see that each unit parallel to the curb I guess is how I would describe it. And then you get away from that. It's something that bugs me about the North Bay development where you drive along the street and you just see the sides of garages. The whole way. And the same is true in that when you're driving this way you don't see these front porches because they're all hidden on the other sides of the garages and I don't know if you all can see what I'm doing here but I keep moving my target. Sorry. So I'd like, knowing that this is going to be really the main drive I'd like to see those flopped and parallel to the curb. And then the same would be true coming in this direction. All these nice looking porches I guess, are hidden by the garages. I'd like to see them flopped whenever possible. Aanenson: Can we comment on that? Kind: Yes. Please do. Aanenson: The applicant has revised the site plan relocating the pond. That is shown here, it's hard to see. They have introduced some side loaded and they will be doing more. That was a condition. We also have the same concern. Kind: I like that idea of the side loading. Aanenson: And then additional, for the presentation of the porch a little bit larger. We did look at the other product and we felt the porch should be a little bit more pronounced. And they have agreed to do that and also they've shown some but they've also agreed to put additional side loaded.., opportunities. Kind: I saw those in the conditions. I like those. And I was just thinking by adding those two other ones. Aanenson: No, they've agreed to do more. They're excited about that opportunity too so. Kind: Okay. Cool. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Seeing none, would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Beth Andrews: Good evening. I'm Beth Andrews and this is Steve Kroiss from MSS Holdings. Steve is also with Kroiss and Associates and his development company is developing the land. He will also be building the product out there so he'll be able to address those issues for you. This is the first time Steve has built in the City of Chanhassen. He's done several projects in the City of Eden Prairie over the years and we are very excited and looking forward to building in Chanhassen. This will be his second project similar type oftownhouses that he's currently building off of Pioneer Trail. Very successful. And part of what I'd like to explain to you is why we decided to do what we did. Steve builds single family. Steve builds twin homes. In the decision making process of why we like this parcel of land and what we found would fit here best, not only for environmental needs but also what would sell. You have to build a project that 43 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 the consumer wants to buy. And in investigating that we found a great need for this kind of product in the City of Chanhassen. That empty nester, not the 200 or 300 project from a tract builder, but something a little more custom. Something a little more upscale. Something that they don't have to go to Bear Path and pay $500,000 for. We are anticipating that this is going to be about $275 to $400. The more expensive homes of course being on the wetlands. In looking at whether single family would fit there or not, economically what you would have to put there for housing in order to make it work with the regulations. In talking about your questions on building pads, in order to fit that there you're looking at putting 1,600-1,800 square foot main level building pads with three stall garages. Those are going to take up a lot more hard surface with bigger driveways than clustering the product that we found. We think that moving these building pads away from Rice Marsh Lake gives the City something back. We're creating a much larger buff'er for the City than normally would be had single family homes been put in there. Staff has done a very good job in their report and Steve... what we're trying to do here. This landscape plan that we have is not totally accurate. Steve in a few minutes will address for you how we plan to accommodate some of the questions that you had. We've agreed to put in a hard surface trail connection.., this thru street eventually will be a city street so the neighboring properties to the south, and the properties to the southeast will be able to access the trail systems for the City of Chanhassen. Also we're dealing with what kind of product is going to work there as a buff'er. We have high density townhomes here. We've got 101 and the extension that's going to eventually in the near future go through here. In working in our project in Eden Prairie we have several people that we are dealing with now that have seen the site and are very excited about being able to... is way under what would normally be. With an association maintaining the property we can control what's going to happen with those.., and that landscape and the color and style of buildings... Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Yes, I'm Steve Kroiss of MSS Holdings and first thing I want to do is address the staff and thank them for all the effort that they have helped me to get through this process. It's a learning curve when you're working with such a unique piece of property as this one is. I think the first thing I really would like to talk about before I get into the product, what really excites us I think more than anything else is the fact that our vegetation and tree loss is at well below what is, what the city requires. So we really don't have a tree loss issue. In fact, the vegetation that we're actually going to be placing into the development is by Jill Sinclair is saying far exceeds anything that the city is requiring. And I do, I'm excited about doing that. In fact we're going to do a real good job here for the neighbors as a buff'er both ways for us. I'd like to plant a lot of pine trees. We're well known in our, we took a flat piece of property in our Settlers Ridge and if you have a chance, really drive by and take a look at it. I mean we spent a fortune in pine trees and it was kind of a fun project to do but it really looks like something now. So along with that, I guess I really want to talk more about the product. Deb, you addressed the issues about why, I do the design work for our company. That's my job and a couple of reasons why I did lay things out the way they are is because I know this 101 is going to be approved here in the future. A lot of what we have done is to try to take advantage of getting windows and most of the living area and sunshine is also a part of my reasoning for why I do things. Away from that 101 as much as possible. Because that in essence would be a negative. Yes, staff2 I'm even more so looking at doing more side loaded garages than even what has been proposed here. You do see the plan that the latest one where we are here. We're going to move the road to accommodate a 44 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 little better.., staff did want to see that. We are going to take this donut out of the cul-de-sac. We are moving this road over and this pond here is going to go up over there. We are going to be building, talking the single on first floor. First floor only. Our units are what we call our A units are 1,400 square feet. We have what we call a B unit and that's about 1,600 square feet. These will be walkouts. What we're doing is proposing these to be walkouts. The exciting part of this for me is that, I spent a great deal of time with my engineer and staff on this to make sure that we can get this road here to follow the existing grade as much as we possibly could. And there's going to be very little cut and fill situation going on there. So that these units will be able to follow the natural grade very closely. We will individually grade these lots. Our excavating and grading will be done on an individual basis with the least amount of impact on the trees and vegetation in this area. So we don't really want to touch this, do any grading here. The only thing that we really want to do is put a trail in. We're excited about that. We think that's a real plus. Not just for our people here but actually for everybody in the community to be able to use that and go to the parks system. Over in this area here we're going to, to the south we're going to have some more walkout units. These here will probably end up to be more of a look out situation. I may end up with one slab on grade but I doubt it. We're working very hard not to end up with that because I do want to have lower levels on all my units. I think I did the best we could possibly do with working with staff to try to get the best use out of this property. With all the other things to consider, especially 101, high density, the neighbors to the south of us here and, I'm excited to do the project and I went through.., and this is the type of color scheme. My wife does all the decorating for our company. We're pretty well known for her coordinating of... So this is the type of product that we will be proposing to do. A mix of the cedar shakes, siding, and stone. Every building will have stone. We will vary the stone per building. Some will be, we'll definitely be doing the project and monuments in the front, pillars and that's pretty much our approach. I want to make sure I've got a well coordinated project going through that's color coordinated and matches and blends into the landscape well and so there, I guess that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I appreciate you're hearing us. Thank you. Peterson: Okay, thank you. A couple questions for you. Can you walk us through just the square footage of the units just to give us a general idea? Steve Kroiss: Yes. Our what I call our A unit is. Kind: A for Aspen. Steve Kroiss: Okay, this is not going to show up very well. A represents our A unit and B is our B unit. The square footage on the main floor is approximately 1,400 square feet. Most of the people that we deal with are like Beth was saying, are empty nesters. In fact, there's a quite a few of our people that are single women that actually do buy our A unit. It's surprisingly a high proportion of population that we have there. And they end up finishing out at about 2,700, excuse me, 2,600 square feet. Our B unit's about 1,600 square feet and when they finish the lower level, then it's about 2,850 in square footage. Peterson: And the C? Cottonwood. Is there a C or not? 45 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Steve Kroiss: Yes. We will have a C plan as well which is almost a derivative of the A unit. It ends up being a little larger on our porch and it increases the square footage by 45 square feet on the main. Peterson: Alright, thanks. Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Could you speak to my parallel to the curb issue? Is that something. Steve Kroiss: Parallel to the curb? Kind: That the front of each building being parallel to the curb rather than stepped back so you see sides of garages. Steve Kroiss: Okay. You would like, as I understand your question, you would like to see side, more side loaded, what I call side loaded garages? Kind: That too but I'd also like to see the fronts of the buildings curve along the curb rather than being stepped along the curb so you see sides of garages. I don't like seeing sides of garages. Steve Kroiss: Again, yes... Kind: If you get a chance to drive by the North Bay development, like by Lake Riley, you can see in real life my issue. All oriented so that when you're driving in the main drive, what you see is the side of this garage. The side of that garage. The side of that garage. The side of that one. Steve Kroiss: Now I understand. We're going to be very, I'm not going to force a side load garage just to have a side load garage. It should be a natural situation. Like this is a natural situation on the end. This is a natural situation. Kind: Yep. I'm not talking about side loaded garages. I'm talking about how they are to the curb. If these buildings were parallel to the curb, you would not see that. You would not see the sides of these garages. Steve Kroiss: Oh. You'd rather have them more straight, the units straight on? Kind: Yep. Steve Kroiss: Oh, okay. Geez, I thought I was doing something pretty good by staggering them and putting them sideways a little bit. Okay. I guess we could address that and look at that. Kind: Now, Settlers Ridge I've been there and I don't remember it being like this. Steve Kroiss: No. That's what's unique about this piece of property because I'd like to be able to do it a little different than just the straight. 46 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: I like it straighter. Peterson: If you asked the five commissioners here tonight you'd probably get five different. Kind: Yeah, but anyway. I like Settlers Ridge better though. It's really nice. Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Appreciate that. Kind: Did I have anything else? Let me take a quick look. No. Thank you. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Conrad: Yes Mr. Chairman. On page 5 of the staff report, at the top. The top paragraph. It says staff would like to see a variety, different building types. No two adjacent units shall have the same front elevation architectural style. Varied window sizes. Location, shutters, whatever. The three examples in your kit are exactly the same. Did you read the, do you know what the staff report says? Steve Kroiss: Yes. Yes I do. This is a demonstration of what we have done... I am not done with this completely either. Let's see, why don't I start. Here as an example would be a double and we have very little.., the roof line in this particular area here. Here's one that has the roof line, just a different side of the situation. Our single units are more or less going to look like this. We are going to be popping out the porches a little more on our A unit. Staff has recommended that and I'd really like to do that. That's not a problem for me. And ifI need to I can use more variation in the roof line if staff would like that. I can actually do some hips if we'd like to do that. Conrad: I think it's real important, for me to change and to rezone and whatever, I like what you're doing but I don't want the same thing going in and what you've presented to date is the same thing going in. You're saying different but you're not presenting different. I have to be sure you're going to allow the home buyers alternatives that are varied. Real important to me in this project and I'm not sure how we get that done because the words are pretty good but the, I'm not sure how we make sure this happens to the point of, I'm not sure how we make that happen. I think we can say stafl} make it happen but again what we want to do here tonight might be important direction for the applicant and the public. Peterson: We will get a formal site plan back because all we're doing tonight is rezoning. Aanenson: No. In the past what we've done is, as this has moved through the process we've asked the applicant to designate those and we will track those, each product as they come in. He needs some flexibility as far as the product type. I mean he's going to say A, B, C and move people towards that. We've done on other projects where we varied the windows, Walnut Grove for example and it's stafl~s job to track those as they're permitted and working with the applicant. Again, that's the thing about working with one builder. It's easy to resolve those issues so, we've done it on other projects. 47 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Conrad: But also with, what happens if one product starts selling, that's what you keep selling. Aanenson: Well I think we have to mark a certain percentage and again it's onerous on them that that happens. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more question of the applicant. It kind of dove tails off the last variance with encroachment into the wetland for decks. On the back of each little drawing shows a little deck on there. Will, and some of the setbacks are right on that 150 wetland so those homeowners would not be able to expand their decks at all. Does the association guard against people expanding their decks or tell people you can or can't? Beth Andrews: Part of your requirements is there's a legal written document, a conservation easement that will actually be given to all buyers up front. Aanenson: That's one of the conditions that was added. That we review the covenants to make sure that all that language is in there, and also talking about the architectural styles. Kind: Because here's a chance for us to make sure that the builder tells the homeowner your deck cannot go there. I'm sick of that. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Tom Faust: Good evening, my name is Tom Faust. I live at 541 Mission Hills Drive. Unless I've missed something, it seems to me that the only access to this proposal would be 86th Street. And that's a heavily traveled street already. We have 219 dwellings of one kind or another that feed on 86th already. I would suggest that some thought be given very strongly that there should be another access from 101 into this project, or into the whole area. But one street to handle all this traffic to me, 86th is a bad street already. Is very dangerous. I want to make that clear. Peterson: Dave, can you speak to the timing of that potential road going through. Your best guess. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I probably said this five years ago when Mission Hills was built, 101 would be upgraded in five years, though it's five years later. We currently scheduled a program the turn back of 101 we're hearing 5 to 6 years in the capital improvement programs that have been laid out in the year 2000 so. Now 2005-2006 is when it's been programmed. 48 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: I would safely assume just generally speaking that 18 months to 24 months to get this thing built out? Okay. Anyone else? John Gerogeorge: John Gerogeorge, 470 Mission Hills Court. I've got a few concerns. One is concern with the rezoning of the land and any potential for the project to terminate, which has happened with the previous project for which I feel leaves an open ended situation for a potentially less attractive project, maybe high density apartments. Another concern is I think it was stated before with the increased level of traffic through the neighborhood due to the lack of any access directly between Mission Hills Lane and Highway 101. Also uncomfortable with the level of buffering between my property and approximately a 200 plus foot drive to which access is for two car garages which face my back yard in particular. Peterson: Could you point that out on the? John Gerogeorge: Oh. That would be my lot is this one right here and the drive is here. Which is approximately 200 feet and it shows trees here of course but they're not going to fill in quite like that. The buffer is 30 feet. Also not convinced that the headlights from the traffic to those properties on the south comer there will be sufficiently shielded from the west side of my home which has most of the windows on this area here. The concern is with the lighting. The headlights and so forth. As well as the encroachment of this turn about to this 30 feet buffer zone. Also I don't see what I'll call ancillary parking pads here in this layout and maybe they're not shown but. Aanenson: They wouldn't be required for... John Gerogeorge: Oh they're not? Okay. Because the other site, or the other project that the applicant has talked about does have that. And I also don't understand how low density zoning equates to 29 lots and medium density equates to 30 plus 2. I would propose to leave it as a single family at that point in time because I don't see that much of a difference there. And finally, I guess I covered that one. The turn about. With respect to the buffer zone. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Tony Ferguson: My name is Tony Ferguson. I live at 8495 Mission Hills Lane. Chanhassen. This lot on the plat. We had a previous meeting with Mr. Kroiss and representatives of his holding company and at that meeting I believe we were misled or misinformed, whether intentionally or not I'm not sure. That the land was currently zoned as an agricultural zoning and there was no current zoning on it. Now we find that it is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. And the request is then to change it to PUD-R. I have the similar concern as the previous speaker in that that is a medium density or high density. I'm not familiar with the different terms of zoning. However, you're butting up on a continuous road, or street, Mission Hills Lane with a low density rating and adjoining it or proposing to adjoin it with the medium to high density range. And that is, that's a lot of homes being put on that land. 30 plus 2 versus about the same size parcel of property in the Mission Hills development, which has 16 lots. There's just a lot of 49 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 homes and I'm concerned about a number of things including the traffic levels that go through there. There was some discussion about adjoining Mission Hills Lane out to 101 at this location. And I'm a little confused, I heard both that the builder wants to adjoin it to 101 and the city wants it but the city asked the builder to change the plan so it did not adjoin so I'm not sure which way it is. I would strongly suggest that it does adjoin the 101 to allow an exit for the residents in that new neighborhood, Marsh Glen, and also to allow fire access to those new units as well. The other concern that I have is the, was the, excuse me. Let me gather my thoughts. Oh, the concern was if the land is indeed rezoned and the builder for whatever reason needs to back out, then it leaves us exposed to a new developer coming in that is, that has the zoning at a higher density level than it is currently and then therefore that builder is free to put up apartment buildings or some other medium to high density zoning, or level of construction. And as per the previous speaker as well, if it is possible to place 29 units on that property in lieu of the 30 plus 2, then I would also strongly suggest that it remain as an RSF rating, Residential Single Family versus a medium density PUD-R. So again, I guess we don't wish to discourage Mr. Kroiss and his company. We don't wish to kick out a reputable builder and a quality builder, from what we understand. He seems willing to work with the neighbors and we appreciate his environmentally conscious design with saving the trees that are there and planting additional trees to create a buff'er between the current development and the new homes. However we don't want to be faced with the prospect of reduced home values by putting in medium to high density so I would suggest that we consider leaving the number of, consider leaving the zoning as is and if possible then the only change would be to reduce the number of units in that development from the proposed 30 plus 2 down to a 29 level. That would seem to still allow Mr. Kroiss to have an adequate return on investment. Thank you. Steve Scheid: I'm Steve Scheid, 451 Mission Hills Court, Chanhassen. I guess I'm looking at it from a public safety standpoint. From when you turn off on 86th Street up into the Mission Hills Court area, it's .4 of a mile to reach the dead end currently. With the way the road curves around to here, it appears to be at least another .4 of a mile which adds to approximately 1 mile to the residential part of it, plus another .3 of a mile from the possible proposed connection to 101 later. Fire Department protocol on a medical call is to, when you reach a residential neighborhood, turn off the lights and siren. Go the speed limit until you reach the address of the, of any incident. That's going to add approximately 2 minutes to any heart attack call or anything. And if he's targeting the 50 plus or the empty nester that he said, that could make a great deal of difference. I guess what I'm pushing for is if it's going to be developed, to get an entrance on 101 as quickly as possible. Five years seems much too long. Peterson: Thank you. Dave Nickolay: Good evening. My name is Dave Nickolay. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. Just to put it in perspective. I own all of the property that abuts the proposed development on the east side. And I have talked to the staff and I have talked to the developer and they both have supported the points that I'm going to bring up and I'd like you to, as you consider the various conditions, to get these points worked into those conditions so that it's followed through on. Because I'm sitting on approximately 3 1/2 acres of property, the two homes that are proposed up in this area up here, the closest one is only 30 feet off the property line of where my home is on 50 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 right now. And I've been here before when Rottlund came in and did the development which is known as Mission Hills I guess. You can't go from 3 1/2 acre parcels to this size parcel without a transition and so what the staff originally recommended in condition number 2 on page 17, which was to eliminate Lot 9 in Block 1. I would like to see that still happen. I think the developer can put a home on this site that is consistent with the neighbors back to the south and in my direction to the east and find a buyer who's willing to pay for that kind of privacy. That's why I moved to Chanhassen 18 years ago. So I would like you to reconsider condition number 2, which is on Block 1, and to eliminate one of those sites. The only other way, and I did talk to the developer about this, that I could see and support having two homes here, would be to shift those two homes to the west so that the yard on the one that's going to be closest to me would be more consistent with an alignment with the house, and I think it's the Ferguson's house, up on this lot here. So if somehow the developer could slide that over, then fine. He can have two houses on that site. Otherwise I'd like you to go back to the original... The other two points are less in terms of need from my standpoint, but down at the bottom of where the trail's going to connect right down below here, the City maintains the sewer line that goes around Rice Marsh Lake which goes through my property and through my neighbor's property. They come in about once a year and they brush it off and it does look like a trail. It's not paved. If you're going to put in a trail I would like to see you put some kind of signage probably at our property line there for now that just says that that's not an accessible area. Because what's going to happen, it already does happen. Snowmobilers get back there. Cross country skiers get back there and then they get trapped back behind us because there's no outlet there. And they're going to look for a way to get out once they're in there and they're either going to have to double back or they're going to go across private property and then there will be problems down the road so I don't think it's an unreasonable request to have some kind of signage put in as that trail's put in. My last concern deals with the grading that will take place on the property line over here. Wherever you decide to put that pad, I would like to see no grading occur between that pad site and my property line. We've got a nice stand of shrubs, trees, prickly ash. The deer move through that area yet. It's the last place up on the high ground that they can possibly go through. And I don't think it's unreasonable to leave that whole area alone so wherever you decide to put this pad here, between that pad site and my property, that you not disturb or the developer not disturb any of the vegetation there. He seems to be very willing to do that but this was a condition that I asked for when Rottlund came and we were successful in getting that and that buff'er has added to the neighborhood between us there so those are my three requests and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Otherwise thank you for your consideration. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close. Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners. Interesting one. Who wants to tackle this one first? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, can I just ask a question of staff before you move forward? Somebody, one of the neighbors made a point and she made me think of something. We're asking to rezone this to residential, from residential low to residential medium. Do we have any other option? 51 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Aanenson: Certainly. The point being, I think there's some misunderstanding. If this properly is rezoned, we're rezoning it with this plan. We're bound by this plan. The site plan would be tied to the PUD. It's going to be PUD with this plan identified. If this developer was to go away, anybody purchasing this properly is tied to this plan. The covenants and everything. It wouldn't be recorded until it goes forward but let's say 2 or 3 buildings go up and he decides to move on. This plan is still in place. Anybody requesting a deviation from that would have to come back through a similar process. That's the beauty of the PUD. We're locking into a specific plan. Blackowiak: Okay. So I was just curious about, you know if there was an option to rezone to, or maybe not even rezone from residential low to residential medium or do we have to? Aanenson: No. And that was, we pointed that out when we went through the comprehensive plan and the Livable Communities Act. Some of the things that we were concerned about the way our PUD ordinance was written and the way our PUD ordinance, as Cindy indicated in her opening comments, is the way our PUD ordinance is written now you cannot cluster in the low density. The only thing you can do is average the 15,000. Blackowiak: 11,000 minimum. Aanenson: Exactly. That's the only way you can approach it. And I understand the concern about the other but again we're buying into this plan and locking into it. That's what becomes the zoning. That becomes the rules. Just as we experienced in the first project, those rules are locked in place for the permit project. They run with the properly. Thus, no one can come in and ask for changes. It doesn't mean if this goes away someone can't come in and ask for an 8 unit per acre. Still this number of units would be locked on the properly. Blackowiak: Okay. Thanks. Burton: Chairman, last question for staff2 Maybe I missed it earlier but can you talk about condition 2 and what the history of that is? Kirchofl5 Sure. The original submittal of this PUD was Lot 9 and 10 being located here. And staff after reviewing the plan decided that the road needed to be realigned here. As a result of that we had felt that Lot 9 would need to be eliminated and that's why it was located in the condition 2. The applicant has revised the plans. Has realigned the roadway and Lot 9 and 10 can be accommodated in this area over here as well as relocating the pond from this area to the western portion of the site. We are eliminating condition 2. Also this roadway right here, this private drive, while it was relocated to the east and we had felt that Lot 11 was going to have to be eliminated due to that. However, the applicant has accommodated Lot 11 with that condition. Burton: Thanks. 52 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Another question of staff before you move on. On the cul-de-sac that is in there. How have we dealt with the cul-de-sac in previous situations like this? I'm sure we have, or hopefully have. As it does go into the buff'er line and the ramifications of that. Kirchofl2 The cul-de-sac can be a minimum of 20 feet from the properly line. The PUD ordinance does permit that. Setbacks, structures have to be 30 feet from the properly line. Peterson: Okay. Conrad: Two questions Mr. Chairman. Kate, you've made me comfortable on the zoning, but on the land use plan amendment, if you rezone it to medium density, then we're at risk if this project doesn't go through. Aanenson: No. Conrad: What's the trigger? Aanenson: We're locking into this project. We're approving this project for the zoning. It becomes PUD specific to this piece of properly. They don't get carte blanche. We need to zone it medium density and change the comprehensive plan, we said PUD and we're locking into PUD dash, okay so it's locked into this. The contract runs with this specific piece of properly. Conrad: Okay. That's good. Aanenson: That's the beauty of the application of a PUD. Conrad: Okay. That made me comfortable. Dave, a question for you. This is a huge cul-de-sac. Don't we have a 500 foot maximum on cul-de-sacs? And I didn't read the Fire Marshal's report. What does he say about this? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. The Fire Marshal's concern on the cul-de-sac island area was restricting turning movements with a fire truck crew there. He requested the island area in the center cul-de-sac be eliminated because of the length of the private drive I guess. Aanenson: That was this part. Hempel: Right. Aanenson: And the island has been eliminated. Hempel: That revised drawing has eliminated the island. Has moved the drive entrance further to the east as requested. Conrad: But that whole road is one long cul-de-sac. So what's our secondary access for emergency? 53 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Hempel: At this point there would not be one until future 101 is upgraded... Peterson: Other questions? Comments from commissioners? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Dave. I'm sorry. Could there be a temporary entrance onto 101 knowing that it's going to be 5 or more years until that road will go through. Hempel: That's a good question. Staff did investigate that a little bit. Looked at the location of where the street would come onto the existing 101 and there's very, very poor sight lines to the north. Very short distance, reaction. Another issue, 101 is under the jurisdiction of the Highway Department and their, it would be their decision to allow a connection point or not. Most likely it would not because of the hazard or the sight lines. Kind: When 101 is upgraded will the sight lines be okay? Hempel: Yes. They will be corrected. The road, this area will be significantly changed and the elevation quite a bit lower. Kind: I'm wondering if this is premature. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, again. Shouldn't there be a temporary emergency access to this site? I'm not sure we need the permanent access to the site right now. I think you said 300 car trips are acceptable. What I would be concerned with is emergency access. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It's always our first choice to have a secondary access and we always try to strive for that. But I guess we were looking at the time frame of this development to build out to full capacity given the turn, different time line for upgrade of 101. Plus a development like this would also help, it would push the 101 upgrade along a little sooner as well. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, again I keep pushing the point. Dave, did you say therefore there can't be an emergency access to the site? Hempel: At this point no. It would be very doubtful to get the approval from the Highway Department to get another access out on Highway 101. Given the sight lines. Where the existing driveway to the farmstead is right now, it has severe sight distance problems to the south of the hill, and where the proposed street would go out to 101 on the north has severe sight line problems. I would say that they would not get an access permit. Blackowiak: I hate to beat a dead horse, excuse me Mr. Chair. What about a right-in, right-out? Would that be more likely to be approved? Hempel: No, because they're always, traffic always will go against the flow. People inadvertently don't know it's a right-in, right-out or take it for a full access. They'll still utilize it 54 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 as a full access. You put in a traffic delineator or... The other thing is the grades, that severe knoll. That would have to be graded through. It would probably impact the houses located in there as well. Blackowiak: Forgot about the house. Minor detail right. Peterson: Okay. Kind: Mr. Chairman, another staff question. Regarding the 30 foot setback that is being required on the property that abuts, oh I can't remember. Aanenson: Mr. Nickolay. Kind: Thank you. What are the rear setbacks on these homes? Kirchofl5 30 feet. Kind: So it's no different? Aanenson: Correct. I guess that was our point. If it was a single family home it'd be 30 feet. Kind: Got it. No difference. Peterson: Alright, try this a third time. General comments from commissioners. Your thoughts on the development as it stands today. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll go first. I'm getting tired. I want to get going. Keep it moving. I think it's a nice project. I think it's a good transition project. I think it's appealing from both a planning perspective and I guess an architectural or aesthetic perspective. I think it's a nice buffer between Mission Hills and 101. I think, I found it important in the staff report that they noted and justifying the rezoning, that the purpose of the request was not to gain additional units but to allow a more flexible design of the development and I think that's a nice development. With respect to the turn on 101, based on what I've heard, I concur that's probably not safe at this time. The staff report discussed in more detail about the concern about sight lines and I just don't think it's a good idea to put an additional access on at this time and with the time it will take this developer to build out, I don't think it's that long of time between that time and when 101 would eventually be upgraded. I think that the neighbors concerns are pretty well addressed. I don't think that there's a chance that if this developer backs out that anything different is going to be put there. And it appears as though that the applicant is meeting the setbacks that would be required under any circumstance so I think it's a nice project and I guess that's it. Peterson: How do you feel about the two buildings versus one on Lot 9? Burton: Two buildings on Lot 9. I'm not troubled by that. My recollection was the problem was. 55 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: The road. They fixed the road but one of the neighbors tonight was encouraging us to consider one versus two buildings there. Burton: I guess I would like to hear the other comments on that. I wasn't particularly troubled by the positioning of the buildings as they are, but maybe if you are all concerned, maybe I'll change that. Peterson: Okay. Is that it? Burton: Yep. Peterson: Thanks. Other commissioners, any comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'll jump in. I'd like to start off by saying generally I think the concept is very good. They have a lot of good things about this project. I like the setbacks. I like the control that would be available to us from the Rice Marsh Lake area if we have an association in place. I think that's important. The clustering is a good idea. The trails. The connections all seem good. I like the fact that they're promoting porches because I think that's important for any neighborhood. Tree preservation is good. I'm feeling more comfortable about the rezoning. I was a little concerned about that and one of the neighbors brought that point up. You know I was curious, I was even thinking could we have it mn only with the developer. I suppose that's not legal but it would be nice. I do have some fairly major concerns regarding the access onto 101. I know that from a public standpoint ideally there are two entrances or two exits from every neighborhood. We don't have it here, and Dave I think you're optimistic if you believe that putting more houses is going to make 101 come any faster. I'd like to say I would agree with you but I'm a real pessimist about that so I don't think that that's going to, whether we put houses there, I don't think is going to have any affect on when 101 goes in or when it gets upgraded. They're going to do it when they feel like it and what we do I don't think makes any difference to them. You asked Mr. Chair specifically about Lots 9 and 10. I guess I don't have as much a problem with that. Just from my eye balling this, it appears to me that they could be shifted to the west and still get both lots in. I'm not positive. It seems that it could be and I would think that that would be a nice compromise for everyone. The developer gets the lots they want. The neighbor gets the increased setbacks so the deer can move freely. I think that would be a good thing to look at. Kind: Alison, where are you talking about? Blackowiak: Lots 9 and 10 on the southeast comer. Peterson: Right here. Kind: Is there a ravine there or something though? They could be moved there easily? Blackowiak: They could pull them I believe. I believe, but again my major concern is traffic and access and as I read through the findings of fact, I thought I had another question but it was 56 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 actually more of a comment. When we talked about findings of facts, we look down into 4(e) and (f) that it can be accommodated with existing public services and traffic generation is within capabilities. I just don't know if we've met those two requirements. 101 is bad, and there's not a lot we can do about that until it's upgraded and I don't think we as a city have much say in when that's going to happen, so I don't know that 3 more houses in there is going to make it happen any faster. I don't think it is actually. So I wonder if they're, as Deb said, a little premature in putting development in when the traffic is already so bad. It is only, I mean only 30 but still. That's 300 trips and we have to consider that. I think we'd be remiss if we didn't. But again there are lots of things to like about this project and I think we're moving in the right direction with it. I just wish this 101 issue were resolved and we could get another access into the project because I think it could be a real problem and I think the gentleman who stood up and talked about the public safety aspect made a very valid point that you don't want to slow down any kind of a response time when you're talking about people's lives and people's homes so we need to consider that. And I'd like to just listen to what the other commissioners have to say. Peterson: Anyone else? Kind: Yes, I guess that leaves me. I have that same concern about the access. I just, I like this project though. And I want to see it happen but I don't know if we can direct staff to really explore some sort of temporary access off of 101. Dave hates that idea. I can see that. I'm just talking out loud here. And then another concern I have is the neighbor who lives on the comer right here by the cul-de-sac. The temporary cul-de-sac. The landscaping plan showed that there's two box elder trees there and then there's some buffering here and here, but headlights are going to shine right through those trunks of those trees. There's got to be better landscaping right along there with some evergreens or some sort of year round screening. Those box elders may not even make it after the road's there. Beth Andrews: They're there. We are. It is on the plan. Kind: No it's not. Not this one. Peterson: Let's not argue... Beth Andrews: We'll get into it. Kind: Okay. I just want to make sure that that happens because I think that's a real concern with the turn around that there would be headlights going on. Especially once people take the drive down this road. Steve Kroiss: That's our concern as well. Kind: Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate that. I know you guys build a nice house so I'm really excited about that. Premature or not, I don't know. Peterson: Any comments Ladd or have they all been said? 57 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Conrad: You said them all. The only issue, emergency. It's not day to day access that I'm concerned about. Staff has made their recommendation that 300 car trips is not harmful. That's what the staff has said and that's what, so we're not playing that game. We are playing the emergency service game however. There is not a second access to this site right now. And staff'.., there isn't and that makes, so it doesn't matter to the current neighbors. It matters to the potential future people who won't have access to their site. That's a concern. The other concern that I have are the home styles. IfI don't see 3 or 4 home styles that are different than one going to City Council, this thing should come back. And I'm real serious about that. You gave us three styles that were exactly the same look and staff said don't do that and I know there's interchange here so you know there's timing issues but the question, and I think what the Planning Commission should consider right now is do we table it and bring it back for a Fire Marshal's report on emergency access, or do we let the City Council handle that? Do we table it and take a look at the different, four different home styles that we might care about, or let City Council handle that? I think the other issues have been handled. I think everything else looks pretty good. I think the comments from the public are good. The cul-de-sac shielding is a good issue. The Lot 9 and 10 and preserving the deer habitat and whatever, those are all good things and they should be done. I guess our issues are emergency access for the people that are going to move in and do we need a Fire Marshal statement on that and then in my mind, home styles to make sure they are available. That doesn't mean they will be built but to make sure they are available. Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. As it relates to the public safety aspect of it, as conservative has public safety has been through our previous reviews, I'm just assuming that they have looked at this thoroughly and given their blessing. And Dave is that a safe assumption? That it's been reviewed to the nth level and we should be satisfied with that? Not that we can't question everything but. Hempel: I won't speak for the Fire Marshal obviously but he did review the cul-de-sac. He made the comment about removing the island in the cul-de-sac. I don't believe he said anything else about the distance or anything because it's not long term. Peterson: With that I guess I'm personally comfortable that it's been reviewed. Deb, your earlier comment about the angles and as you drive in from that. I would vote the other way. I like North Bay in that feeling for whatever reason. It's unique versus the other. I think they can give more privacy to the porches if you angle it and bring them straight, then your porches are right out in the open so the residents, so I think you just give and take there. Kind: And there's both in this so that we can both be happy. Peterson: Yeah. As it relates to the comment about different designs. I mean I'm not adverse to working through a number tonight. Should we say, or can we physically say that we should have no more than you know 40% of one design within the development? Or 35% or 33 1/2%? Aanenson: The way that Cindy had put it in there was no two adjacent have the same front elevation. If you want a little bit more variety than that... 58 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: So that's 50% though. I mean you can still have. Aanenson: Right, but he's got three products though. Certainly. Beth Andrews: There's actually four. There's actually four different, could be four different front elevations. There's several twin homes of two different floor plans and then there's detached villa homes of two different floor plans. And your comment that we want to put shutters on and just because we two A units or two Aspen units right next door to each other that are the same floor plan, doesn't mean that front elevation can't be reviewed and one can have different stone and a different color shutters in a different angle of the roof and the other one next door can have no shutters and all cedar and a gabled roof versus a hit roof. That sells our product and we're looking to have our product sell. Peterson: I understand. I think regardless of whether it's 3 or 4, it goes back to my question. Should we. Aanenson: Yes, you can put in a condition. If you want to do that or direct staff to work with that before it goes to Council, there's a lot of difl'erent ways. Just as a point of clarification, the staff has to sign off on every building permit that comes through the city so there's still that check to make sure that they're following. Peterson: Yeah, I'd be comfortable just making a notation on this as it moves ahead that you work with the applicant to develop some percentages or something that gives you a little bit more guidance than the no two adjacent because I don't think that meets what you hear the fellow commissioners tonight saying. Traffic, I just don't see it as that big of an issue as far as the rezoning aspect of it so. Good comments. Thank you for those. How about a motion? Audience: Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with the protocol. Is it possible that I make one more comment related to? Peterson: The public hearing is over unfortunately so. You still have an opportunity to go to council if you want to too. Audience: Okay. Is there a meeting for that? Peterson: Yep it will be, I'll tell you in a second. Audience: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Motion please. It's 10:05. Kind: I'd kind of like to see it again. The elevations so I guess I'm in favor of tabling. Peterson: The elevations, as far as the different designs? 59 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: Yes. Because I agree with Ladd's concern that even though there's three different ones, they all look the same to me. And I guess I'd like to see what the different, the variety before it goes to council. Peterson: That's one opinion. Is there a motion? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the land use amendment 2000-2 to change the designation from rural low density to residential medium density. Do I have to do these one at a time or all together? Peterson: One at a time. Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of the land use plan amendment #2000-2 to change the designation from Residential-low density to Residential-medimn density. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Another one please. Burton: I'll move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of#2000-1 of 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential based upon the plans submitted December 8, 1999, dated November 29, 1999 and revised January 18, 2000, and subject to condition 1. Peterson: There's three so this is the second one. I think it's just 1 and 2. Blackowiak: They just numbered those differently. Burton: I think it's 1, a, b, c. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Oh! And I'd add, I'll let you guys add it actually. If you want to add anything. Peterson: We're losing control here. Burton: Well if you want to add anything you can make an amendment to my motion on that one because I guess we've been talking about l(b) and in particularly (b)(2). Blackowiak: Well I will second the motion. 60 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: Any discussion? Conrad: My concern with that would be, I think the, in the next motion we may have some changes in the preliminary plat. And I don't want a condition, I don't want to sanction, you know the zoning re-approval is okay. We have to condition it on a site plan to make sure we get what we want. Yet I don't think the site plan is exactly what we want yet. But the motion locks us into this which I can't vote for. Peterson: One of the things I'm hearing Kate say is that the, you know Dave had success in the past working with the applicant on each individual unit, which they have to approve. Each individual one to have creativity there. Now whether we tighten up 1, this numbering is less than desirable, l(b)(2). With some more meat to it but I also don't want, I want to give staff the, you know as much autonomy as they feel comfortable with to creating a unique design. Conrad: If we don't force that right now, I'm not sure that it will happen. It's not that staff won't be looking for it but if we don't do it right now, it won't happen. Aanenson: It's the four products issue, correct? Conrad: Yes. Aanenson: And the variety of the four products. Conrad: Yes. Aanenson: Which is number 2 under building designs. If you want to modify that, that would resolve that. Peterson: Yeah, I'd be comfortable saying that no more than 30% of the four designs provided be used. Conrad: Can I jump in? It's really not ready yet. It's just not ready yet. I think staff's, the staff report there were a lot of comments that said we'd like to see more side loaded. We'd like to see more this. We're like, it's not there yet. I haven't seen the variety of building types. I really think this is a case where maybe not this motion but I think the, I think we need to see it again. I think we need to see this back again with the applicant responding to what the staff report said. And I think that's something that we should be doing. Aanenson: All three should track together. Kind: Yeah, I was just thinking. Could we back up to that first motion now? Aanenson: And a point of clarification, we have a work session in two weeks. 61 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Peterson: I mean I look at this as somewhat of a custom project. These units will be custom designed to some degree to the buyer and to what staff would want so I struggle with, in not moving it ahead. So I don't know. I've got mixed feelings on it. I'd like to find a way to move it ahead based upon it will be well over a month. Burton: Could we add a condition that staff work to develop a condition that addresses the concerns that we've expressed or does that leave too much. Conrad: You can send it to City Council with conditions that staff works with the applicant on the following issues. Burton: If stafl' s aware of what our concerns are. Blackowiak: Kate, you said that they should track together. Do they have to track together? Aanenson: They should track together. We wouldn't rezone a property. Blackowiak: Do they have to? Aanenson: Well yeah. We wouldn't recommend a rezoning unless you approved a site plan. Then we're back to we've got a medium density so we put it all together. That would be the stafl~s recommendation. You can do whatever you want. Peterson: Well, why doesn't somebody make a friendly amendment that guides staffto address the issue we discussed in the last 10 minutes. I mean a little bit more succinct than that but. I mean I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but. Burton: Well I can, can I just tack that on to mine? Peterson: Yep. Certainly. Burton: I guess add a condition that staff revisit Section (b) to take into consideration the comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant. Does that make sense? Peterson: Makes sense to me. Conrad: I'd really like the applicant to tell us, it's really his job to say I'd like to have 4 or 5 building types in there. We're saying we want that. But I don't want to, I'd hate for us to dictate, 1, 2, 3, 4. Maybe, but maybe this is sort of a soft way of doing it. It still gives them a lot of liberty. Peterson: Okay, is there a second to that motion? 62 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Blackowiak: I already seconded it. Burton: I amended my own motion so does the second? Blackowiak: Okay. I will second the amended motion. Peterson: Any further discussion? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Rezoning #2000-1 of 13.41 acres from RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential based upon the plans submitted December 8, 1999, dated November 29, 1999, and revised January 18, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer shall comply with the Marsh Glen Design Standards: a. Setbacks: 1. The front yard setbacks for Lots 1-8, Block 1 may be a minimum of 20 feet. 2. The front yard setbacks for Lot 10, Block 1 and Lots 1-6, Block shall be a minimum of 30 feet. 3. The driveway length for Lots 7-10, 12-20, Block 2 shall be a minimum of 20 feet. b. Buildin~ Materials and Design: 1. Front porch styles shall be varied (e.g. wrap around, wider, deeper). 2. No two adjacent units shall have the same front elevation or architectural style. 3. Varied window sizes and locations, shutters, window boxes, and columns shall be incorporated into each unit. 4. The following lots have the appropriate elevations to warrant side loading garages: Lot 8, Block 1; Lot 10, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; Lot 16, Block 2; and Lot 17, Block 2. 5. The developer shall be responsible for demonstrating that each unit meets the design criteria at the time of building permit review. c. Si~na~e: 1. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI. Signage shall be limited to the entrance off future TH 101. 63 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 o Staff revisit Section (b), Building Materials and Design, to take into consideration the comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: One more. Burton: I guess I'll go with it. I'm on a roll here. Planning Commission recommends, I would move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat #2000-1 to subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots and 2 outlots based upon the plans submitted December 8, 1999, dated November 29, 1999, and revised January 18, 2000, subject to conditions 1 through whatever the end is. 32 as listed in the staff report and with the corrections made in the staff report. And then if anybody wants to add an amendment, I'd welcome it. And I guess, let's see. Whatever the wording of that last condition was that I put on the last one, I'd like to tack it onto this one. And I would like to add a condition that, I don't know how to word it though. That the units in the Lot 9 be. Kind: Cul-de-sac landscaping? I'm sorry. Burton; I'm trying to remember how to word that one. Kind: I've got an idea. Burton: Go ahead. Kind: Condition number 32 that landscape buffering between the mm around and properly line needs to be increased with evergreens for year round screening. And while I'm at it, I have an addition to condition number 30 to add a sentence that that condition's pretty long as it is but it's along the line of trails. That sentence that says, the applicant shall post in quotes "Trail End, Private Properly", end quotes, or some sort of language, sign on the east end of the trail. Peterson: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Friendly amendment. And is there a second? It's getting late. Is there a second? Kind: I'll second it. Peterson: Any further discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (#2000-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 30 lots and 2 outlots based upon the plans dated November 29, 1999 and submitted December 8, 1999 and subject to the following conditions: 64 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 10. 11. Lot 12, Block 1 and Lot 21, Block 2 shall be platted as outlots. The recording of the final plat shall be subject to the approval of the land use amendment by the Metropolitan Council. The impervious surface coverage shall be calculated for the entire site. A lighting plan shall be submitted. Residential street lighting shall be required along the extension of Mission Hills Lane. The applicant shall plant three overstory trees along the south properly line adjacent to the medium density area of the Mission Hills development. Additions shall be shown on a revised landscape plan. No landscaping is allowed within the street right-of-way. Revised landscape plans shall be submitted to the city showing this change. The applicant shall revise the location and/or the species of some of the proposed front yard spruce trees. Changes shall be shown on the revised landscape plan. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater qualily/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basin, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pond net model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 65 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right of way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right of way. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and built to 7-ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 7-21, Block 2 in favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. The developer shall install a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Mission Hills Lane from its current terminus to Outlot A. The developer shall dedicate the following easements to the City at no cost: A temporary cul-de-sac easement with a 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills Lane on Outlot A. The easement shall expire when Mission Hills Lane is connected to Trunk Highway 101. b. A 20-foot wide trail easement over the proposed "path" through Lot 12, Block 1. A 50-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line through Lot 12, Block 1. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds and wetlands outside of the right of way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100-year flood level. The plans shall be revised as follows: The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood level. Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler, with lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. 66 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan. Sanitary sewer and watermain extension through Outlot A, underneath future Trunk Highway 101, shall be cased. Grade Outlot A for the future street extension of Mission Hills Lane. Provide temporary cul-de-sac with 40-foot radius at the end of Mission Hills Lane. Add 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north side of Mission Hills Lane from its current terminus to Outlot A. Relocate all proposed landscape plantings from the right of way along Mission Hills Lane. Landscaping materials are not permitted within the City's right-of-way. Redesign path through Lot 12, Block 1 to meet ADA grade requirements. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. The fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance. The developer and future property owners should be aware that there may not be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these development plans. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be a through street. The applicant shall install a sign that states "This road will be extended." The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or an approved seed mix for wetland soil conditions. The proposed residential development of 10.06 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $15,391. Once the applicant demonstrates that the ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, this fee will be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $29,928.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the 67 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 25. 26. 27. 28. buff'er edge. The Applicant will install wetland buff'er edge signs, under the supervision of City Stafl; before construction begins and will pay the City $20 per sign. The Building Official's Conditions are as follows: Demolition permits are required to demolish any structures on the property and all well, sewage treatment areas and utilities must be properly abandoned and documentation of such provided. Any portion of a building within three feet of a property line must be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued. The Fire Marshal's Conditions are as follows A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US west, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed they must be either chipped or hauled off site. Due to close proximity of neighboring homes no burning permits will be issued. Regarding the cul-de-sac with center island. Due to the long access, over 1100 feet, the design of the center cul-de-sac islands is not acceptable and must be eliminated. The reason being in order to negotiate fire equipment around the island it is imperative that no vehicles park in the cul-de-sac. Even with no parking signs vehicles can and do park there. With the island installed it eliminates our ability to jockey fire apparatus if cars were blocking or parked in the cul-de-sac. Fire apparatus often needs the full cul-de-sac dimensions to turn around in the event of a fire. Collection of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, engineering, and construction of this designated trail in its entirety as a part of their public improvements. The city will reimburse the applicant for all design, engineering, and construction costs associated with the "city" trail. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the "trail connector." 68 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Bid documents for all phases of trail construction shall be presented to the city's Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to work being initiated. The applicant shall submit the Homeowners Association private covenants agreement for review by the City. The applicant shall dedicate a tree preservation easement over the 150 foot setback and buffer area of Rice Marsh Lake and the 50 foot wetland setback and buffer area for the ag/urban wetland on the north portion of the site as shown on Attachment 8. Staff revisit Section (b), Building Materials and Design, of the Rezoning to take into consideration the comments that have been made by the Planning Commission with particular attention to developing a condition that mandates a variation between the different types of units so that no one or two types of units become predominant. Landscape buffering between the cul-de-sac and property line needs to be increased with evergreens for year round screening. The applicant shall post a sign that reads, "Trail End, Private Property" on the east end of the trail. All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: For the reasons already noted? Conrad: For the reasons that I think it's a good example of something that should come back to us and would validate some of the things we're talking about. I think the site plan has been asked to be changed by staff and we haven't seen that and I think that would be good to see. I think we also need to make sure that the Fire Marshal reviews this again for a real long cul-de-sac and absolutely is comfortable that we can serve these people and their public interest. I think the other conditions were put in were valid and responsible. Peterson: Good, thank you. This goes on to Council on the 14th of February. I think that as you heard the commissioners, you heard a very strong and passionate message regarding a lot of those issues so we are going to entrust that you will work with staff to accomplish that goal and we'll be there at the council meeting so make a mental note. Thanks. Thank you all. ONGOING BUSINESS. Peterson: Kate, any new business? Aanenson: I didn't have any new business. I have some ongoing though, if you want to do the minutes. Peterson: I can go with that. 69 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Burton: Receive the minutes? Aanenson: Yeah. Burton: So noted. Whatever. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Matt Bu~on noted the Minutes ofthe Planning Commission meeting dated January5, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Thank you. Just to remind you our work session will be the 2nd of February. I hope you can all be in attendance. We will be meeting, the Senior Center is busy, we'll be meeting in the court yard. Dinner provided. We'll start a little early. What I've got scheduled, design standards. There's a pretty entertaining exercise we did with the City Council. We'll do the same thing. Talk about building materials and what makes a livable community. Some of the things that Deb brought up like park benches. Those sort of things. We'll also talk about buff'er yards so I can get a better handle on what our ordinance... The other was the Home Occupation Ordinance. An issue paper. We'll discuss that. And then also talk about terms and the By-laws and we'll do that in our first meeting in April but it's kind of an opportunity to talk about some of that sort of housekeeping things. As far as upcoming regular agenda items, the next regular meeting, that would be the 16th of February, right now we have on Dakota, a sign went up. We got calls on Dakota. And what's yours? Blackowiak: Lake Drive East. Aanenson: Lake Drive East. A small office building. Residential in character. That little triangular piece. Blackowiak: Right across from McDonald's. Aanenson: We're excited because it looks like a home. It's, how many parking spaces did I tell you? 8, 9. Blackowiak: I think there's 9. Kind: By the park? Aanenson: No, it's across the street from McDonald's. Blackowiak: Just right across from McDonald's. Right across. If you stand in the Playland and look out that way. 70 Planning Commission Meeting January 19, 2000 Kind: That's next to that little park. There is a very little park. Aanenson: There's an office use there, and again it's residential character so we think that's going to work well. Saving the trees. So right now that's what we have, unless a variance were to come in but I think that's it. Yes, if you have that, thank you. If you have that letter of representation, if you would sign that and I can mm that back in to the finance director. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 71