Loading...
PC 1999 09 01CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING SEPTEMBEIl 1, 1999 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7;00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Kevin Joyce, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: SITE PLAN APPIIOVAL FOIl A $,223 SQ. FT. IlESTAUIlANT, IlUBY TUESDAY ON PIIOPEIITY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON THE PONDS SECOND ADDITION, ALLIANT ENGINEEIIlNG, INC. Public Present: Name Address Bob Savard 8080 Marsh Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions for staff'? Kind: Sharmin you recommend putting, or removing the signage on the pond. Could the applicant choose to remove, which one would be not the front of the. A1-Jaflk Highway 5? They don't have. Kind: Which way do the two that you're recommending keeping face? A1-Jaflk The one that faces the.., and the one that faces the parking lot. Kind: So they could for instance give the parking lot one and keep the one that faces Highway 5 or the pond? A1-Jaflk No. Because the ordinance, well they could apply for a variance and you would have to grant a variance. The parking lot is their main entrance. Kind: Okay, so they could keep the parking lot and the one on Highway 5 and get rid of, could they pick whatever two they want? Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Al-Jarl) They need two. They could keep two. Kind: But the pond, Highway 5 one would require a variance? Al-Jarl) Correct. Kind: I can just understand why they would want a sign on Highway 5 so I'm trying to figure that one out. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Sharmin I've got a question about the trash enclosure. Was this approved as part of the Famous Dave's or part of the retail? A1-Jaflk It was done with both applications went through at the same time. Blackowiak: And are you comfortable with what is being proposed and it still seems to serve the needs of both lots? A1-Jaflk Yes. We looked at that in depth when Famous Dave's came in and we looked at two separate trash enclosures, one for the retail building and another one for Famous Dave's and after a lengthy discussion everyone agreed that a shared trash enclosure would be the best solution. Burton: Mr. Chairman. Sharmin, can you give us a little more background on your discussions with the applicant regarding the west and south elevations and what you're recommending and what their responses have been. A1-Jaflk Our understanding is that one of the major issues that they would be facing would be cost associated if they were to add windows to the building. Meanwhile staff has to enforce the requirements of the planned unit development. And we went through three revisions. With the first proposal they were proposing to paint the columns. It would be painted brick and we told them that that wasn't an acceptable solution. Painted brick is not permitted in the PUD. They eliminated that. The paint. And the revisions basically showed brick only. Well, the building looked very plain. The awnings were still there. With the third revisions, which is before you today, they came back with the EFIS and the awning. They included tile for the diamond shaped accents on top of the building. We're also running against a deadline for the 120 days and we basically had to bring this before you. Sidney: One more thing Sharmin. In the development design standards, point 11 it talks about slope roof elements... Al-Jarl) It's a combination of a pitched element that they have on the building and staff added to that the awnings as sloped element as well. They need to meet a 70% slope. Sidney: The awnings... 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Al-Jarl) One other thing. The only thing we have as far as samples is the brick. We don't have the colors that will be used on the awnings or the roof or. Thank you. Joyce: I do have one question. I do concur with you that this seems like an awful lot of light fixtures. Condition 9 we have the applicant shall reduce the number of light fixtures. Should we be a little more specific like right now so that they understand how they need to reduce so they can comply to that? Do you feel comfortable putting a guideline in there? Al-Jarl) They feel that that is a trademark part of the corporate logo for Ruby Tuesday. It's very important for them to keep those fixtures. Again, we haven't received a photometrics for the lights but I went and visited other Ruby Tuesdays, specifically the one in Edina in Southdale. There is no glare whatsoever. Joyce: Are you going to need a photometric for both this and the parking lot, correct? Al-Jarl) Yes. The light fixtures are shielded. Joyce: I understand but I just think that that condition, because it's very open ended and I'm just feeling that it might be... process we should close it up a little. With that said, any other questions? Conrad: Just one Kevin, or Mr. Chair. I mean when you talk about adding windows, are they fake windows? Al-Jarl) We looked at the interior plan for this side and the areas, the problem areas are where they have their storage coolers so my guess it would have to be fake windows. It's something that Houlihan's did. They added three windows and the hotel, they added six windows. Conrad: Real or fake? Aanenson: Fake. A1-Jafl5 We're trying to maintain the same standards and requirements of all applicants within the PUD. Conrad: The hotel it's relatively easy to do. With rooms on all sides. Restaurants it's tough but we're talking about, and detail wise you've recommended like on the south elevation one or two fake windows? What have we recommended? I'm going to have a tough time voting for the staff recommendation because I'm not sure what it really is. A1-Jafl5 Basically where you have the awning, underneath that. You may have a window. Conrad: Okay. So the full awning, and why. Visually that doesn't bother me personally. Visually it seems if they put another column like their green and yellow columns to the left of the awning, there would be some interest to this. But it is your recommendation that a fake window Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 that you can't see through is a better architectural detail? And you know I don't like, I don't want to be involved in architectural things but it's going to be hard for me to swing with the condition here ifI don't understand what we. Aanenson: This is the third draft and the problem was the articulation on that facade so Sharmin was working to try to get some additional articulation. They came back with the canopy and we thought well, that makes you believe there's a window under it. So if you have a concern with putting a window there, then we would suggest they do something else to make that not along, unadorned wall. That was the concern that Sharmin was trying to resolve. That was our response. I'm certain they can... Conrad: I'll reinforce the Chairman's comment about the light fixtures. I think we'd like the flexibility to review what they could bring back, is the way I'm reading your conditions. Is that what you're looking for is the ability to look back? We don't really have an ordinance that says you can't have 72 fixtures? A1-Jafl2 As long as they meet the requirements of the photometrics. Conrad: Yeah, okay. And they're way under in terms of signage square footage, so and they certainly could put signage on TH 5, right? A1-Jafl~ Right. Conrad: We want them to actually. Yeah I think that's, we want to help them promote themselves and not putting it on TH 5, I'm just making sure that, if that's where they want it but boy, we don't want to restrict Highway 5 visibility. We want them to be successful. Okay, thank you. Joyce: Okay. If the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward and state your name and address please. Gerry Ruta: Good evening. My name is Gerry Ruta. I'm the President and CEO of RT Minneapolis. I live at 8391 West Lake Drive in Chanhassen. My family and I moved to Chanhassen about two years ago and I'm excited to talk to you tonight about Ruby Tuesday. I'd like to give you a brief overview on the restaurant and my colleague tonight, Scott Nelson will talk to you about the architecture and address some of the questions you may have. Ruby Tuesday is a restaurant that's been in business since 1972. Most of the restaurants are east of the Mississippi and south. There are 385 restaurants nationwide. My company bought the three existing restaurants in the Twin Cities, Southdale, Rosedale, Mall of America October of 1998. So we've been doing business as an entity for approximately one year. We have plans on building six, I'm sorry, 9 more restaurants within the next 5 to 6 years within the Twin Cities. Most of these restaurants will be free standing restaurants as you see today. We have been working, as Sharmin has said, for the past several months on presenting a building that will be acceptable to the PUD requirements of the Village on the Pond plan. We're excited to be a part of the vision of this development. The staff recommendations are very good ones and we've made quite a number 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 of changes to our prototypical building. As we build our brand in the Twin Cities, it's important to us that when building a brand you address service, great food, and of course the image that you project. Part of that image is the prototype for the building. So we've been working within the PUD requirements as well as our Ruby Tuesday incorporated requirements as far as prototypical design goes. We think we've come up with a design that should address most of those, and Scott can talk to you more about the architecture of the building. And I'd like to bring Scott up right now. Scott Nelson: Good evening. My name is Scott Nelson. I'm the project architect from DGR Architecture and we've been working with Gerry and the staff here for several months and as Sharmin has indicated, done several revisions in listening to the concerns of staff and in trying to address the concerns and respond with some new ideas. Just say a couple things. Our company does a lot of work with prototype restaurants and I won't name them all but I think in doing those we've really begun to appreciate what Ruby Tuesdays does in their brand identity and their enforcement of the prototypical standards. I think that as a prototype restaurant, as opposed to several, this is not a box design, as many are of a 60 x 100 box. The building itself, the floor plan itself is a very well articulated thing with ins and outs. Changes in height. It also uses some very traditional brick detailing. Corbels, soldier coursing, diamonds that we've added tile to and with the pilaster design we've gone through a couple revisions. Have changed these to an EFIS which brings some color and texture to the building and their basic prototype design is made to fit into small towns, urban centers, some of the neotraditional design type of ideas. We've reviewed the conditions of approval I believe that number 20 on here and we really don't have issue with any of them but two that I'd like to discuss and review and you've actually touched on a couple of these already ifI might. And we're more than willing to work with, continue to work with the staff on a couple of the landscaping issues. I think a number of these have already been addressed and we'll be happy to work with the building department as it goes through to the code issue. You touched already on the issue of the fake window I'll call it, and we've discussed in looking at a couple of possibilities, ifI could refer to the plan here. Refer to the elevations. The reference was made in the revisions that additional windows should be added to the south and west elevation. Actually the way the building... The south elevation is really an articulation of steps that doesn't really show well.., but this first piece right here we could add a window that could be a real window.., we've added the awning in the center in response to some of the staff comments to provide some additional color and some texture out there. We also in the initial.., added a number of additional pilasters at all the comers, not just what's inside... We've added them basically around the whole building. Added some additional canopies for it, and light fixtures. Actually added a number of light fixtures so that it would look like one of the, one that is typically the front and the side. We'd be more than happy to work with staff on... a dozen or more light fixtures. Anyway, our hope was to get... The west elevation is a little more trouble because all of that area back there is cooler, restrooms and service area that would be impacted by windows... Especially at night to seeing through or seeing... The other condition that we have some issue with is the signage on the west elevation which Sharmin pointed out .... area plan here that shows where our site sits relative to the pond. Right across the pond from Houlihan's. Their building, because of the atrium inside, they're able to turn their building slightly such that they can actually get the three signs and have all of them facing TH5 and the parking area. We think that the vision of the building coming from the west on Highway 5 is very important.., believe that we still need 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 the one on the north side. Of course on the... We're more than willing to continue to work with staff'.., couple of issues but those are the key... Joyce: Commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Conrad: Yeah... elevation, which is the side closest to the road? To Highway 5. Scott Nelson: That would be this one. Conrad: Okay. And so it was kind of, but you put the signage on the end away from the highway. Scott Nelson: Oh I'm sorry. A1-Jaff5 The only elevation that doesn't have any signage is the south elevation which faces the Villages. Conrad: Sharmin, that doesn't help with my question. So on the elevation I'm looking at, Ruby Tuesdays is on the west elevation, the name you've put away from Highway 5 or, which is north on that elevation? On this particular schematic, which direction is north? Scott Nelson: It is the one with the entry. Conrad: Okay. Scott Nelson: See how the canopies cluster.., and we've added light fixtures over... Ideally we'd put our sign as far north... Conrad: No, I think it would benefit you by putting it closer a little bit. Scott Nelson: I think one of the reasons we looked at that there were some landscaping elements.., application. They're really kind of clumped around the comer. They've actually... Joyce: Anything else? The comment I'd like to make is we like to have live samples of the materials and I'm sure that City Council would probably like to see those.., samples of the, what do we have just the brick here tonight? Aanenson: The colors. Scott Nelson: Stucco, the canopy. Joyce: I would highly recommend that. Scott Nelson: Okay. But they are very close to what you see here. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Considering that this is part of a PUD, we like to... Scott Nelson: We'd be happy to do that. Joyce: Okay. Alright, could I have a motion to open this up for a public hearing please. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item is open up for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this topic, please step forward. Bob Savard: Good evening, my name is Bob Savard and I live at 8080 Marsh Drive and I'm the closest current residential neighbor to this development. My concern is particularly with the addition of a patio at some time. Noise. We already have a development in Villages on the Pond that has a patio and I have a problem with the noise. My concern is what will we do to try to prevent extreme noise. I can stand in my bedroom and recite the words to the music that's coming from the current live entertainment on the patio at Houlihan's and I certainly don't want that to happen again. I'd like to make it clear though that I've been a strong supporter of the development of Villages on the Pond, but in this particular case I'm concerned about that issue. And secondly, I look at the south elevation of this building from my home. And I would be concerned about how that appears aesthetically to me. Personally so thank you. Joyce: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, could I get a motion to close. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Back to the commissioners. We'll start off and put on this item. Burton: Alright Mr. Chairman I'll venture forth here. I think it's basically a pretty nice project. I do agree pretty much right down the line with the staffrecommendations. I looked atthe PUD standards and it says that there shall not be undeveloped back sides of buildings. All elevations shall receive nearly equal treatment and visual qualities, and I guess it's subjective but I don't believe that they've met those standards and I don't think that the staff is trying to address that with their recommendations. So I pretty much agree with the staff and then since the applicant is willing to put a window on the south side there by the entry, I think we should require that they do that. Joyce: Anyone else have any comments on this project. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I'll jump in. I agree with Matt. I also feel that the south and west elevation needs some further interest. Specifically on the south, that is what many of the pedestrians and a majority of the people who are going to be walking and doing business in the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Villages will be seeing. So I think that that is as important an elevation as the north almost. I mean there might be granted more traffic per se. More cars per day. Whatever, but the south elevation is going to be very important to the bulk of the Villages and to leave it totally brick, I mean although brick is nice. I'm not saying it's not but I think we need a lot more interest there because by itself it's just not going to do it. I feel that the applicant should consider a west sign. I feel that the staff needs to really work with them on getting a western sign. I would encourage, strongly encourage the applicant to do a patio right away, and although Mr. Savard was worried about noise, I feel that this patio is on the northwest comer of the building and pretty much screened by the entire building itself so I don't feel that noise would be, I could be wrong. I don't think it would be a real major at this point because of how the building is placed. The fact that it probably will project more towards Highway 5 than towards the southeast. And again, if noise is a concern I'm assuming we have a noise ordinance. If they're exceeding some type of decibel threshold we have, that that can be looked into but that I guess is another issue. And then finally just make sure that we get a little more interest of whether it's a false window or whatever it may be. More columns or something but don't leave the south and west elevations blank because that just doesn't quite make it. It's not a complete building in my mind then. I need to look at all four sides equally... Burton: Mr. Chairman, can I follow up on one thing? A question for staff2 Is the sign issue the same issue we had with the Chinese restaurant that was across the way? Is it any different? Weren't they looking for an extra sign and we wouldn't let them? Aanenson: Yes. Burton: Isn't this the same? Aanenson: ... that would be frontage, correct. Joyce: I'll ask a similar question.., do you know? Al-Jarl) Technically, as the ordinance reads you would need to give them a variance to put a sign facing the pond. Joyce: So in essence they'd have to come back to us? Did I open up a can of worms here? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear the answer. How many signs does Houlihan's have? Al-Jarl) Three. One facing TH 5. One facing the interior of the development, Pond Promenade, and the third one is facing the parking lot, which is permitted by ordinance. Kind: They have signs on three sides of every building? Al-Jarl) Correct. That is permitted by ordinance. Under the PUD requirements. Kind: I don't get how this is different. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: Yeah exactly. Why does this need a variance as opposed to Houlihan's? Al-Jarl) Houlihan's, signage on Houlihan's faces Highway 5, which is a street frontage. Pond Promenade which is another street frontage. And the parking lot, which is also another permitted elevation under the PUD requirement. With this application, with Ruby Tuesday, they have one sign facing TH 5, which is okay, under the requirements. One facing the parking lot, which is also okay. The third one is facing the pond, which is not permitted under the PUD requirements. It could face south which is Pond Promenade and then they would have a similar situation to what Houlihan's has. Kind: How would you make the argument that the one facing the pond is also facing Highway 5? Al-Jarl) They have one on Highway 5. Kind: You can only count Highway 5 once? ... got it. Mr. Chairman, I'll just speak to my points. I would like to be able to see them to have a sign on the west elevation. It's important. I would also encourage them to move it towards Highway 5. Do different landscaping or whatever. And I agree with everything else that was said. Joyce: Anything else? Conrad: Well I like this. It's got some life to it and it's probably not Chanhassen. This has got more character and color and it's kind of fun. I think you've all said the right stufl~ Their signage is real understated and therefore I guess I'd like to figure out how we could help them. I don't want to break the rules however. There's no point to break the rules but their signage is really understated and that's kind of neat so I'd like to make sure they have the right visibility so staff that's, everything I've said is a contradiction. I don't know that you can do that. I think if we can, a couple architectural details are going to solve some problems, especially on the south elevation. If they can put a window in there. If they could put one more column or... or whatever, boy that's going to solve it. I think it's real close and if they want to reduce the, if they feel that they have too many lights, it looks fine to me but if staff wants to reduce it. It adds character to the building and again, I don't know how we figure out what the right number is but they seem to be willing so I think we should leave that in there and give staff flexibility but on the other hand I don't think I want to say strip out, it does add character and we're not, I'm not trying to reduce it by 50% by any means so that's clear. I think it's a nice building. Joyce: Yeah. I'd have to echo everything else that people said. I would like conditions, if we can make a motion to enter a photometrics study for the light fixtures and if that's okay, I'm going to back off on how many light fixtures there are. I just want to make sure that we're not exceeding anything. But after your explanation I can see they are kind of more decorative than intrusive so as long as there's a, the photometrics comes back okay, I personally don't have any problem with the lights. As far as the other condition about the windows under there, the south elevation is what really what I'm concerned with and I just think a little bit of tweaking with some articulation, that's to your benefit obviously. I think Houlihan's did a good job on all four sides of 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 their building and you're 99% of the way there. I hope you can work out with staff'... I think that can be resolved. With all those comments said, can we get a motion for this. Blackowiak: Well I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 5,223 square foot building, Ruby Tuesdays on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Pond 2nd Addition, dated received August 16, 1999, subject to the following conditions, and I'm going to renumber slightly. The little glitch here. 1 through 5 stand as written. 6 and 7 aren't there so let's renumber 8 through 22 to read 6 through 20. And therefore it will be conditions 1 through 20 and Kevin, photometrics is addressed in the final condition so if you want to just take a brief look and see if you're satisfied with that. Joyce: That's parking lot. That's what I was concerned about. Blackowiak: Okay, then I'll revise renumbered condition 20. The applicant shall provide parking lot lighting plan, light fixtures, design height, location photometrics, etc for review and approval. The applicant shall also provide similar information for the building lighting as a whole. Does that do it? Okay. Kind: I was going to suggest another way to rewording that is just to delete parking lot. Aanenson: Put them both in there. Parking and building lighting photometrics. Joyce: ... friendly amendment for your condition. Blackowiak: Sure. Parking lot and building. Kind: I'll second that. Joyce: Alright. Is there any discussion? Conrad: Ah yeah, on condition 10. Staff has said adding windows so are we saying, do we like fake windows? Kind: I prefer the real one if they want to add them. Conrad: Well yeah. It still has some merit. The fake thing, you know why do we want to do that? Kind: You could just have it be adding windows period. Get rid of the last part of the sentence, under the awning. Conrad: That might be more flexible. I think it's phony adding fake windows. It's a personal deal and I'm not into architecture on this but maybe we could. By adding windows or architectural detail, that might be a better way to let staff negotiate or revise it a little bit, if we could do that. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: I'll entertain another friendly amendment. Would anyone like to make that friendly amendment? Kind: Did somebody make it? I'll make it. Number 10, which is actually number 8 will read the west and south building elevation shall be revised by adding windows? Conrad: And other architectural details. Kind: Or other architectural details. Blackowiak: Okay, I will accept that friendly amendment. Kind: While we're into amending conditions, I'm wondering about number 9. If we should just get rid of it. Because I think it's addressed on number 20. Joyce: It's Alison's motion. Kind: What do you think Alison? Blackowiak: You know, I don't have a strong feeling either way I guess. I mean we could leave it in. I mean this is a recommendation so. Joyce: That sounds good. Motion made, do we have a second? Kind: I seconded it. Joyce: Thank you. Discussion we've had. Are we done with discussion? Good. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission reconunend approval of Site Plan #97-12 for a 5,223 square foot building (Ruby Tuesday's) on Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 2''a Addition, dated received August 16, 1999, subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscape islands will need to be increased to ten feet wide or aeration tubing will be required to be installed. 2. The applicant shall vary the locations and species of plants to create a more interesting landscape design around the building and pond. 3. The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the necessary security required by the agreement. 4. Add planter boxes to west side of building. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from views. The Famous Dave's site plan shall be officially withdrawn. The applicant shall reduce the number of light fixtures. The west and south building elevations shall be revised by adding windows or other architectural details. The proposed commercial development of 2.13 net developable acres is responsible for a water quantity fee of $9,287. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The wall mounted sign along the west elevation shall not be permitted. Building Official conditions: a) The building is required to have fire sprinklers. b) The utility plan was not reviewed at this time. c) The floor plan was reviewed for exit separation only. d) I recommend that the building owner and/or their representatives meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 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 storm sewer inlets shall be protected with erosion control measures until all disturbed areas have been revegetated. A rock construction entrance shall be maintained until the parking lots and driveways have been paved with a bituminous surface out to Great Plains Boulevard. The sidewalk on the site shall be constructed in conjunction with the overall site improvements and prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy unless inclement weather conditions prohibit. The applicant shall coordinate installation of the proposed trail/walkway along the west side of Lot 1 through Outlot B, Villages on the Ponds with the developer of Villages on the Ponds. The sanitary sewer and water lines and storm sewer on the site will be privately owned and maintained by the property owner and not the City. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining the appropriate sewer, water and plumbing permits from the City's Building Department. Cross-access easements for the utilities and driveways shall be dedicated over the lot. Mylar as-built construction plans of the utility improvements will be required by the City upon completion of the site improvements. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 16. A building permit shall not be issued until the access driveway meets fire code requirements. The driveway may be constructed with a bituminous and/or Class 5 gravel section, 20 feet wide which meets a 7 ton per axle design. 17. Staffrecommends the applicant consider raising the curb elevation/parking lot grade in the northwest comer of the site a minimum of one foot. 18. Construction plans for utility extension to the lot from Main Street and Grandview Road shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of building permits. All utilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. 19. The applicant shall provide parking lot and building lighting plan, i.e., light fixture design and height, location, photometrics, etc. for review and approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 100 FOOT TALL MONOPOLE TOWER WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4151 HIGHWAY 7~ U.S. WEST WIRELESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN CHURCH. PubBcPrese~: Name Address Dave Fischer Peter Keller Deb Reiff Robert & Mary Blue Barry & Giselle Matsui Loren Witte Bea Gemlo Bill & Loma Slott Jason Hahn Pat Yantes US West Wireless 6760 Country Oaks Road 6750 Country Oaks Road 6770 Country Oaks Road 4170 Hallgren Lane 4101 Glendale Drive 6780 Country Oaks Road 4167 Hallgren Lane 4142 & 4162 Hallgren Lane 4156 Hallgren Lane Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions for staff at this time? Kind: Move to open the public hearing. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: Can I get a second? Burton: Second. Joyce: That's quick. Alright this is open for a public, no I can't, I shouldn't allow that. We've got to get the applicant up here. Kind: Oh, sorry. Joyce: You should be sitting here. Withdraw that. We need to talk to the applicant so if the applicant would like to make a presentation at this time, please step forward and state your name. Dave Fischer: Good evening Planning Commission, staff and citizens of Chanhassen. My name is Dave Fischer representing US West Wireless located at 426 North Fairview Avenue, Room 101, St. Paul, Minnesota. And I'd like to just give a brief overview of where we arrived at this location. How we started and kind of the quick A to Z ifI may. US West engineering department issued the search ring for this location November 1st in 1998 and the coverage encompasses the following locations centered around Highway 7. And the search ring goes as far north to Howard Point, east to County Road 41, west as far as Smithtown Road, and south to Red Cedar Avenue. On April 28, 1999 1 met with the City staff to discuss the possibilities of locating our facility at the Chanhassen Fire Department. Based on positive feedback from the City to allow us to pursue this location we performed a drive test and based on a couple different reasons, one being our RF engineering requirements for the height and our objective to locate to connect our coverage from that site to the west in Minnetrista, and also the lack of ability to achieve our setback requirements being the height of the tower and half the height of the tower from the right- of-way. Being that this was the issue and we could not meet these requirements, we disqualified this location and pursued further locations to the west to try and meet up with our other existing site to the west. June 7, 1999 1 scheduled a meeting with the Chanhassen staff to discuss height restrictions, setbacks, zoning restrictions within our search area, and after reviewing the area, keeping in mind the zoning requirements and our RF engineers objectives, we determined the Holy Cross Lutheran Church would be the best site that would meet and comply within the zoning regulations. After several meetings in June with the city staff and talking with them we determined that we could be permitted through a conditional use permit as long as the US West comply within the following zoning ordinance guidelines. In Section 20-1503 the height restrictions up to 80 feet unless we accommodate one other additional user. In Section 20-1504, that we may exceed the height limitations up to 25 feet. In Section 20-1505, that we comply with all the setback requirements. Since US West was in compliance with all of the guidelines as staff had pointed out in the zoning ordinance. US West proceeded with the Holy Cross Lutheran Church. Understanding that there had been concerns from the community surrounding the church, US West decided to hold an open house to address any questions and concerns of the community. Under Section 20-1506 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, towers in residential zoning districts, subsection (c) allowing towers in residential uses for government, school, utilities and institutional sites. It has been US West's experience with jurisdictions such as Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnetonka, Woodbury, and many other jurisdictions that churches are typically defined as institutional sites. Since the City of Chanhassen does not have a definition of institution and the 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 city staffhad not conveyed anything to the contrary, US West had proceeded with the proposed site at the church under Section 20-1506. Towers in residentially zoned districts, subsection, as an institutional use, which is very common throughout the Minneapolis area. When we held this open house, US West notified all residents within 500 feet of the proposed property to address the following issues. Why US West chose this location. How it related to our design requirements. The concerns regarding aesthetics and how this affect property values. Why US West chose this site, the Holy Cross Lutheran Church is the most sensible location that achieves our objective, yet also complies with all applicable zoning outlined in the Zoning Ordinance that I stated previously. As well as subsection, as an institutional use. The location allows us to meet all setback requirements and height requirements and still achieve our objective in meeting with our site located to the west. One of the other issues which we understand the concerns from the public are regarding property values. Based on the review of property value studies, including an article in November, 1996 there was a real estate value impact study conducted in the cities of Stillwater, Golden Valley and New Hope in 1996 by Rupert and Rupert Associates. And the study concluded, the findings of this study indicate that all three study areas, there's no measurable difference in the market value and selling prices between the property in close proximity to the communication towers and those that are farther away from the tower. Therefore it is our conclusion that communication towers do not have a measurable or identifiable impact on residential values, unquote from Scott Rupert, MAI JD of Rupert and Rupert Associates. On behalf of US West I'm requesting approval of this application for the CUP be approved for a 100 foot monopole structure to be located at the Holy Cross Lutheran Church located at 4151 Highway 7, Excelsior. US West makes this request based on the following criteria. Compliance to Section 20-1506 of towers in the residential districts. Compliance to Section 20-1505 regarding to setbacks and compliance to the Section 20-1503, Subsection (b)(1) and 1504, Subsection (1), as well as Subsection 2(c) of 1506 of institutional uses. I would like to thank the City of Chanhassen for their assistance regarding US West's proposed wireless communication at the church and request approval for this application. And would be more than happy to answer any questions concerning this. Joyce: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. Dave Fischer: You bet. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Okay. This is open for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the commission on this topic please step forward, state your name and address. I guess I'll volunteer to go first. Good evening. My name's Pete Keller and I live at 6760 Country Oaks Road. I've also served on a commission, local commission and I know it's a long and huge and often unthanked job so I appreciate your dedication to the community. I'm a stay at home dad. I do daycare. Have a home based daycare business and look directly at the church's property. This is the primary view from my back yard. I find it wonderful that Dave's had the time to read the ordinance. I can't agree more with Sharmin's conclusions that the tower does not comply with 20-1506, number 2, section (a) that it quite clearly says that a church site, that it has 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 to be camouflaged within the steeple or the bell tower. It certainly is open to interpretation whether a church is an institution or not but because it more specifically outlines a church as a church, and the rules that apply to it, I think that's what we need to stick with. I also have to thank Sharmin. It's been a true pleasure in working with her and getting some great feedback in how the process works. And that if we want to go into the business of looking at a variance request from US West, I think at that time it'd be far more appropriate for us to get into the compatibility and residential neighborhood. How it's going to afl'ect values. We would need to do things like get a little bit more organized. I mean when I talked to Sharmin about her report I was inquisitive as to why a lot of the things that we had discussed left out and it's essentially a moot point. It's not appropriate to address at this time. The ordinance collectively says it's not right. We need a variance to go into those other things. The other things, you know namely have a lot of them have been brought up by Dave but I think it'd be interesting to get our experts on whether there really is a need for this technology and our experts to look at real estate values and our experts to look at resale and things like that. And also again, at the variance time it would be interesting to look at things like increased incidents of lightning in the trees that are around there and how this would negatively affect my business that I run at home with a view of this tower. Why they really, truly believe that this is the best location considering Minnetrista's about a stone's throw away from approving a 150 foot tower that's actually less than 2 miles away from this location. And why really specifically should we come to the conclusion after approving great hardship that the church is the only place that it could be. Why it has to be in clear view of the neighbors without any screening whatsoever. This is in full view of our homes so I guess in closing I really don't have a lot more to add except that I very encourage you. I understand you are an advisory commission and I very much encourage you to advise the City Council on the staff recommendation. Thank you very much. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else that would like to address the Planning Commission at this moment. Robert Blue: Hi. My name's Robert Blue. I live at 6770 Country Oaks Road. Right next door to Pete, and as he did point out, this view here is directly west of my house. That tower, 100 feet tall is approximately I would guess about 300 feet away from my house, and there is no shielding. There is no trees. There's no nothing. It's going to be an eyesore sitting on my deck and that's why I bought that lot in the first place was for the nice view in the back of that church. I can't recommend this tower being there at all. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Deb Reifl~ My name is Deb Reiff and I'm on the other side of Pete at 6750 Country Oaks Road. I have with me a letter that was given to us by the church one week ago when they had their initial hearings or informational meeting on this. It states in here, if you believe that this tower, which will be explained to you tonight, is something you can't live with, then neither are we willing to have the tower built on the property of Holy Cross Lutheran Church. I don't know if there's any church representatives here tonight but I think that we have 100% representation here tonight of every house along the back there that will get to enjoy this oversized flag pole view. And that the advantages to Holy Cross congregation as they listed in here, actually there's only one and that is 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 the financial payment that they would be receiving for this. I guess my feeling is that churches should be holding fund raisers rather than erecting towers that are going to lower our property values and just have this site in our back yard. And in criteria number 5, in their recommendation, it is not true that it would not be, that there would be aesthetic impact because there will be. The houses to the south have tree cover but as they explained a week ago, come wintertime that tree cover is gone and these people that have built these nice homes there will have that huge pole right in their back yard. And we have no tree cover so we can enjoy this tower all the time from our back deck. So I request, I strongly request that this be denied. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Okay, commission. Sidney: Mr. Chairman... staff report and appreciate the comments... The zoning ordinance clearly states the fact that this site... Joyce: Anyone else like to comment on this? Conrad: It doesn't meet it so the staff report is appropriate. Kind: I agree. Joyce: The only comment I'd make, I mean who was the fellow that used to work for the Planning Commission that did all the work for us on the. Al-Jarl) John Rask. Joyce: He became quite an expert on that. And just a note to US West, I think we really did some due diligence on monopoles and really looked at our ordinance very, very seriously and did a lot of research on it. John did a lot of research on it. This doesn't follow the ordinance so I really don't think I could vote for it. So with that said, could I get a motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of conditional use permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the finding in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Joyce: Any discussion? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #99-3 to allow the construction of a 100 foot tall monopole tower wireless communication facility for US West Wireless based upon the following: The zoning ordinance requires antennas on church sites to be camouflaged as an architectural feature such as steeples or bell towers. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: This topic will come up again in front of City Council September 27th. Thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 50 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF THE HIGHWAY CORRIDOR (HC-2) DISTRICT REGULATION TO PERMIT THE ENCLOSURE OF THE SANITATION DOCK AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP~ INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK AND LOCATED AT 8000 AUDUBON ROAD~ C.F. HAGLIN AND PILLSBURY COMPANY. Public Present: Name Address Dennis Wendt 4749 Diane Drive Tom Lind-MacMillen 3311 East 51st Street Dotti Shay 7230 Frontier Trail Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Dennis Wendt: My name is Dennis Wendt. I'm with Setter, Leach & Lindstrom. Basically we concur with the recommendations the staff has made and we are willing to look at adding the additional trees that they want. As far as applying for a building permit, the information that they're looking for will be part of our contract documents for the city. I have the, a couple people from Pillsbury that can address any questions that you have pertaining to the use of this facility. Joyce: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Burton moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward. Seeing none. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Commission? Burton: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the staff'comments. I think it looks pretty good. Makes sense here. Kind: I especially like the benefit of the trash enclosed and I like the idea that it's a condition. Joyce: Alright, can I get a motion. Aanenson: Can I just make one clarification, excuse me. I meant to say this before. This is a straight forward variance so it does not go onto City Council unless it's appealed so let me modify that condition number 5 to say that before a building permit is issued, that they demonstrate that the lighting is downcast and not shining on the adjoining property. Or is in compliance with City ordinances. Kind: Is that all lighting? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: The whole facility, not just this new addition? Aanenson: Correct. Just so you understand it's not going on to City Council unless it's appealed. Kind: Mr. Chairman I move the Planning Commission approve Variance #99-11 for a 20 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a sanitation dock enclosure addition as prepared by Setter, Leach & Lindstrom dated 7/28/99 based upon the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 5. And do I need to restate? Joyce: Paraphrase. Kind: That the applicant review overall lighting to ensure compliance with current city codes before building permit. Joyce: Perfect. I've got a motion, do I get a second? Blackowiak: Second. Joyce: Discussion. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #99- 11 for a 20 foot variance from the 50 foot front yard setback for the construction of a sanitation dock enclosure addition, plans prepared by Setter, Leach & Lindstrom dated 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 7/28/99, based upon the f'mdings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall replace the trees being lost due to the expansion on a two to one ratio. Based on the grading plan dated 8/20/99 submitted to the city, the replacement trees include eight (8) conifers and 12 deciduous trees. These replacement trees shall be located to soften the building elevation and help screen the condensing units to the east. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to the issuance of the building permit. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan needs to be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. Details such as retaining wall height, parking lot grades and erosion control measures need to be denoted on this plan. 3. The plans shall be revised to show specific utilities that will be extended through the site. Permits from the Building Department will be required for relocation and extension of the storm sewer system. Before a building permit is issued the applicant shall demonstrate that the building lighting is downcast and in compliance with city ordinances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONCEPTUAL PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (414 UNITS) CONSISTING OF MANOR HOMES~ COURT HOMES~ VILLAGE HOMES AND TOWNHOMES ON 82.8 ACRES AND 3.7 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41~ ARBORETUM VILLAGE~ PULTE HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Dennis Griswold Mark Gugnther Jim Deanovic Paul Savaryn Bud Olson Pulte Homes Pulte Homes Peter Anderson Co. 9950 North Shore Road, Waconia 55387 7331 Hazeltine Blvd. 2O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Bruce Geske Brian Evans Susan Markert 7325 Hazeltine Blvd. 2585 Southern Court 7461 Hazeltine Blvd. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Conrad: ... conceptual point, this is conceptual PUD. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: So I'm a little bit confused in terms of the process Kate. I thought we were kind of, why all the conditions at this point in time? It looks like you put a lot of conditions on when you're really looking for a non-binding comment by the Planning Commission at this time. I don't understand. Aanenson: That's a good question. We leave no stone unturned. We want to make sure we've given them clear direction on what they need to do at the next evolution. That they're not going off in one direction. That they hear from you. I think if you wanted to leave it in broad brush strokes, come back with storm water calculations, more details in grading, that's fine. I mean their marching orders are actually in the PUD ordinance itself that says what you need to show at the next level of detail. So it could be addressed that way. But I think some of the things that we did want them to resolve that wouldn't be in the PUD ordinance is articulation of the commercial zone, specifically the list. You know the list that you feel comfortable with the uses. And then architecturally, how they're going to make that compatible. The other thing that we talked about, there is five different home products in there. Get some direction from you. The staff's initial response was to make those more neighborhoods. We want diversity of material within there but should that be done on a neighborhood basis or within the project and those aren't specific to the ordinance itself. Conrad: IfI could challenge everybody up here. Stay on the big picture tonight. Staff can do the other stuff2 Don't get hung up in all the conditions in the staff report. Do you like where commercial is? Do you think there should be more commercial? Do you like the housing type? Do you like the, stay big. Joyce: We shouldn't get into the density at this situation? Aanenson: Well, it does require based on this project, it does require a land use recommendation. Alteration which would read in that you'd have to, again we're not increasing the total number of units. What we're doing, so that we would need feedback on too. So that's the big picture though, that's correct. Joyce: Then it will come back to us as an amendment? Aanenson: When it comes back to you, the process would be conceptual approval, recommendations, whatever you recommend to the Planning Commission they will also hear and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 make a recommendation. They have to come back through the process with very detailed plans for preliminary. Joyce: ... that tonight at all either? Aanenson: No. But what I'm saying is they need some direction so they know how to proceed. Again, similar to like we did on Walnut Grove. Joyce: Okay. Any other questions for staff'? Conrad: Just a couple. The density transfer is coming from where to where in your recommendation? The visual was so dark. Aanenson: By the north side of the road is 0 to 4. And the south side is 4 to 8 so it's actually coming in, based on our calculations at 114. They're coming in at just a little over... Conrad: Were we preserving anything in that? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: What were we doing? Aanenson: This stand of trees. These trails connected throughout and then the area that's behind the Olson... And then all this area over here will transfer the density. This isn't going up but this is what we recommended based on the primary zone, that it's in the primary zone. That all this be preserved. That has the slopes on it. That would be in front of the future Westwood Church. Conrad: So we're transferring density from the west side. You are transferring from the west side of the highway? Aanenson: Right. Consistent with the Bluff Creek overlay district. Conrad: And that is all wooded? Aanenson: Predominantly. I would say 80%. Near 90. Conrad: The ag/urban wetland that are marginal, you've just pointed at them. Is that where you're trying to get maybe some funding to support the resurrection of those or, I wasn't quite sure what the staff report said in terms of the future of the restoration of those. Aanenson: Okay. MnDOT examined those as part of the Highway 5 frontage road. When they went out and did their survey. And based on farming practices, some of those have been eliminated. They are proposing a pond, this pond, part of this will hold Highway 5 drainage also. But this pond does remain but they have been altered as far as past practices. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Conrad: Pretty worthless basically, is that what we're saying? Aanenson: Right. Conrad: So we don't have plans from the city tohelp, or ffoma govemmentstandpoint, tohelp those? Aanenson: No. Again, MnDOT was driving that issue. They're out ahead of us on that as far as the frontage road. Conrad: Do we have a visual direction for the comer of 41 and 5? Are you comfortable with a pond being there? Being that it's a major intersection. We have the Arboretum across, is this where staff is comfortable in terms of an entryway to really Chanhassen? Is the pond what you like? Aanenson: Ah no .... actually they're coming back with more of an arbor. We had the same discussion on Bluff Creek Elementary that we're reflecting character of the Arboretum, which is apple orchards. I'm not sure as far as mitigation of some of this, it's going to be a busy intersection. Mitigation of visual qualities, that that's the best material that we should be using. I think we can do a combination. City Forester, the Water Resource Coordinator and I have discussed that. We think we can do a nice combination in that comer of forest, you know reforestation and a water feature and that's who we are and I think that would be a better statement instead of just the pond. Conrad: The commercial area, you like the proportion? Has that always been our vision? That amount of commercial. Aanenson: The comp plan said, I believe it was 2 1/2 to 5 acres. That is one of your attachments. Flip through it quickly. 2 1/2 acres. It's really a remnant piece and actually if you look at the frontage road it's a point of discussion that Dave and I caught as we were looking at the location of the frontage road. As this property goes back towards the group home it actually comes back and touches Highway 5. We have a little remnant parcel. This is the commercial piece. This is the property limits here. We've got this little remnant piece. It doesn't have a lot of, here's Highway 5... in front of the group home... Conrad: Do we like that restored wetland? The commercial, if it's neighborhood commercial it'd be cool if you didn't have to pass over a street. Do we like the restoration of that, do we like the pond where it is? Aanenson: I think that's being driven by MnDOT. They need a pond at that location. I think the commercial was originally on the other side of the street and that was their recommendation. Correct me if I'm wrong Dave. Yeah. But there is a nice tree row. If you bring that point up on the back side of that house that's being rented right now, but it's difficult at this time to measure the exact degradation as the trees at that frontage road and the gradings going to appear. It would be nice to save the tree lines on the back of this... Actually in Bluff Creek we talked about an 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 alternative underpass and that was basically a critter crossing. Underneath Highway 5 we talked about that. It was not implemented into the design guidelines so we're going to put little arrows to direct the deer. But we do have the other underpass, but that was talked about. There is a nice tree line but at this point it's hard to measure exactly what the grading and utilities are going to do to that. And speaking of utilities, the sewer will follow similar to what it did at the Meadows. It does follow the edge of the wetland. It will be in the low area so it will be following the southern edge of that most northerly wetland. That's the low area. No matter what went in, that's where the sewer would go. Hempel: And a pathway will mostly likely follow the trail that's being proposed along that wetland edge as well. Aanenson: Right. And that's similar to what we did on the other side. Conrad: The Markert property, do we care what kind of vision or guidance do we have for that and we do have connectivity to that when it develops. Aanenson: Right. And as we're planning access on it, Mrs. Markert is here. We have met with her. She has some development potential for her property in the future but right now it's my understanding she'd like to leave it in the agricultural use. She has plans on kind of an agricultural use that you'll be seeing shortly, but we have provided access to her and where the Highway 5 touchdown point was located, they did.., in order to give her a little bit of bufl'ering and landscaping so it's not right adjacent to her property. Conrad: The property to the west of TH 41, again that is recommended for density transfer. How do people use that in the future? What is it's purpose? Aanenson: It's similar to what we did on the property just north of Stone Creek. We left that as a conservation easement. Conrad: Is there a trail projected to go through? Aanenson: No. Conrad: Is it just there? Aanenson: Yes. Natural. Conrad: Just the natural. And how many houses, what kind of density can we transfer out? 4 to 1 out of that area? Aanenson: Well first they have to demonstrate what they could have got on that otherwise. There is a wetland on the north, very small little finger of wetland. They have to demonstrate what they could have gotten anyway if they were to do an official layout and then based on that, we'd take those number of units and transfer them over. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Conrad: Any benefit to the, or what are we doing for the marsh to the north? That good, big wetland there. Anything that you've recommended Kate? Aanenson: Right. That one we did recommend. That was one of the projects we recommended. We did receive some resistance at that time from the subdivision to the north. We'd like to revisit that issue. The Bluff Creek corridor study made a recommendation to increase the habitat by adding some, by making it a little deeper. Adding some water. Give some diversity up there. We'd still like to revisit it. Again, this will be a very nice, with the trail around the entire property, very nice experience and we would like to increase the diversity, and that is a project and we will be working, if this goes forward, to try to make that as a part of this. Conrad: Do you know what condition that is, or where you said that in the recommendations Kate? And I don't want to get into details of it. Aanenson: It is on page 7 under wetlands. Very bottom of the page. Conrad: And is it in a condition on your recommendations Kate? Aanenson: Yes. I believe so. Conrad: I think that's important, that's why. We can come back to that Mr. Chairman, thank you. Joyce: Deb you had a question. Kind: Yes. Kate, could you talk about the trail, the section that you'd like eliminated. Show me where that was. I couldn't figure out the directions. Aanenson: Highway 5 does have a trail section. 41 is not being upgraded at this time. They show a trail going all the way around. The other issue, going back to circulation... There's two access points. The project on the frontage road which is West 78th... creating a better grid. With that we felt like there needed to some internal trails through there. Get out of here, you're blocking a driveway. Kind: I agree. Yeah. Aanenson: So we felt if we made an edge here, making this.., and put a trail or sidewalk in. Kind: And where's the trail that you want to get rid of? That you recommended eliminating. Hempel: We're proposing a trail along this wetland here... Aanenson: Sort of duplicating that trail experience. Kind: Thank you. And then have you calculated the hard surface coverage? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: No. Kind: That's being proposed here... And just this drawing, I can't tell that they're providing for any visitor parking lot. Would our ordinance of 1 for every 4 units apply to this? Aanenson: We'll have to calculate that. We didn't do the landscaping percentage of anything. It's kind of broad brush at this point but that's something that they'll have to look at, correct. Kind: That's all for now. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman. Could you, on this color map, show us where the primary and secondary corridors fall based on the Bluff Creek study? Aanenson: It takes in most of this... Blackowiak: So pretty much everything west of TH 41, which is. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: And that follows the edge of this wetland. And then.., but again the point I was making with Highway 5 frontage road, some of that would be eliminated. Blackowiak: So primary, pretty much the northern. Aanenson: Correct. And then along this edge. Blackowiak: Okay. What about secondary? Is that all the rest? Aanenson: No. The secondary follows... Blackowiak: Okay. Talking about setbacks from primary corridor, weren't we at 150 feet? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: What is the building setback from the primary corridor? Why do I have 150 feet in my mind? Aanenson: I've got the attachment, it's one of your attachments. The other thing is with the primary corridor is that, that was our kind of point of beginning. They can provide documentation by a qualified person to say this site has been altered but that was based on the information we had based on wildlife movement again and vegetation, slopes, wetland. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: But didn't we have some qualified people to do the Bluff Creek study? Aren't we confident about the primary corridor delineation? Aanenson: It's similar to what we did with the wetland. We inventoried all the wetlands with an exact line of delineation. They would still have to go back out and verify by a qualified person. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: The ordinance is attached as one of yours, I don't have that off the top of my head but if you want me to look it up I can. They're going to have setbacks from the wetland. Burton: I think it's on the last page. Aanenson: 40 feet. Blackowiak: 40 feet. Aanenson: And that's consistent with like the, and that really is following the wetland. Edge of that wetland which is going to be 40 feet. It's a PUD. You can put what standards you want in there. Blackowiak: So where, go to Family of Christ on the south side of TH 5, near Bluff Creek school. Weren't we talking about 150 or 100 feet back? Aanenson: That was an area within the Bluff Creek study that we had identified additional enhancement to so as part of that PUD we said this is an area that we want to enhance. Similarly we said that huge significant tree stands we wanted to preserve so that was an area that we had identified in the study document, and I attached that in your packet, of an area we wanted to improve because that was along the creek. So we said we wanted additional setback there. For the PUD. What were we getting for that PUD. Blackowiak: Right. So what are we getting, tell me what we're getting with this PUD and why we should stay at 40 feet and shouldn't be farther back from the primary zone? Aanenson: I don't know if I've given a specific setback. I haven't calculated all those yet, or parking ratios. I think we're looking for some direction from you. Again, what the staff's position was was lower the front end instead of putting the higher units, that we preserve the significant stands. We transfer the density and the diversity of housing mix. Blackowiak: And then the commercial, the amount of commercial. How does it compare, I'm sure I've got it here somewhere but. Aanenson: 5 was the original recommendation, but what I'm saying is the pond had to go on that side so it left a remnant parcel. It may even be larger if you add what's on the other side. Or you can say, maybe you only have 2 acres and the rest of it will be office related or quasi because 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 you're going to have that remnant piece as TH 5 works it's, the frontage road West 78th works it's way back towards TH 5. Blackowiak: I'm just concerned about what kind of income, you know tax revenue. Aanenson: Sure. I guess and we wanted more specific, what types of uses they were looking at and maybe you could attach what some other quasi kind of uses that would be compatible to a neighborhood. Blackowiak: And just the overall, talking about what you want for that comer of TH 41 and TH 5 and you're not sure that the pond is what you want. Is this dense block of housing what you want? We as a city want. It's pretty intense right there. Aanenson: It could be more intense. It's up 8 units an acre. We lowered it down to just over 4. I think that's probably better than keeping it up closer to 8. And also I think with this type of product and orientation, I think it works nice with the trees being saved. You're not going to see with the orientation of the buildings, you're not going to see the sea of rooftops through there. Again, we don't have a lot of details on the topography, which is one of the conditions we had in there specifically. How they can work those units which they're aware. We've discussed that. Worked those units in so they're not, it's not mass graded. I mean it can hold 400 units. 400 plus units on the site. That's what they're coming in with. Whether it was all low density or what about the higher density, they're still going to have 400 units. It's 100 acres. Blackowiak: Okay. Burton: I was just following along with Alison. I'm concerned with the density too, and maybe it's just hard to look at the mixture here, but I like how the manor home section is spread out with the houses and that green space. And it'd be nice if we could incorporate more of that feel throughout the rest of the project too because just when you look through the corridor with the court homes and, especially along with the village homes too, it's just so dense right through there and I don't think it's like anything that I'm familiar with in the area. It just seems like it's such a heavy use right in the middle there. And one thing I was curious about, is this whole project within the conservation, excuse me, the Bluff Creek conservation overlay? Whatever it is. Aanenson:No. Burton: Just the edges? Aanenson: Yep. Just this piece here. Burton: It's not in the overlay district, the whole? Aanenson: No. I know it's hard to read but that is unattached. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Burton: Yeah, I couldn't read it at all. Because that's talking about incorporating the natural features and working with them and I kind of like the rural feel that Chanhassen has and this I think just eliminates that feel altogether. Joyce: See what they have for the presentation. A couple quick questions Kate. Is there a fence around this area? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: I mean is it a big fence? Aanenson: There's not specifics on that. Joyce: It looks like it borders the whole, that whole big section. I can ask staff2 Are you saying that this road right here is going to, like a turn around, is that the suggestion there? Aanenson: Cul-de-sac it. We don't think it makes sense to pinch it between those two wetlands and take down the trees. Joyce: One, just so I can understand this. We're going to send this, this is kind of like a dry run that we're going to send to City Council. City Council's going to get our comments. Aanenson: Right. If you want additional you can certainly keep it here for a while but yeah, it's ultimately your recommendation will go up to the City Council and then they'll give the final read. It may take some time to come back, correct. It's not in the MUSA. They'll have to wait 'til that. They also have to petition for sewer. They have a two year phasing plan. They hope to be started in 2000. Very optimistic in our opinion. Assuming, we've got to get the road in place. Utilities in place. They can't proceed. We don't allow permits to go until the utilities are in place so it could be a year out. Joyce: ... out in front of some people and find out what we're doing here so that's what we'll do right now. If the applicant would like to make a presentation. Dennis Griswold: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. My name is Dennis Griswold. The Director of Land for Pulte Homes and with me tonight is Mark Gugnther who will be up in a few minutes to talk about the particular product types that Pulte would be offering. And also Mr. Jim Deanovic who is one of the underlying property owners who will be speaking to you about the rental townhome portion and also the leftover piece on the west side of TH 41. So with that I think we've talked, or hit on a lot of the different points on the site plan. I'd like to just quickly go through some of those points and give you some of the thoughts that we had. Of course we're trying to, through the planned development process, do two things. Provide a community that would be a life cycle community for a number of different housing needs within the city of Chanhassen. And we're also trying to shift density around, or the units around somewhat so that we can work with the proposed frontage road and with the existing amenities on 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 the site. Namely the wooded areas up along the marsh to the northwest behind the Markert properly, and also the wooded area down on Highway 5, which is right in here. Those are the dominant features on the site that we can work with. Obviously we're totally avoiding the major wetland on site within the corridor so we feel that when we accomplish this site plan we will have a community that will be a life cycle community for various people in different age groups, income groups, housing needs groups to enjoy this land and the amenities and also be in a site that is very strategically located on a very busy road, but very convenient to the metropolitan area. And I think that's what we're trying to do is blend the Highway 5 corridor if you will with the amenities and given that we feel it is a very exciting site and a very nice site to live at, if we can do those and accomplish it through working with you by the way and to this point we've worked closely with staff2 We've come through several iterations of this concept plan, and we did want to keep it a concept level because as soon as we get into more detailed plans you get more locked into a position. It's harder to flex with comments. It becomes a very expensive process. This way we can have an interaction and hopefully come out with the best community possible working with you and council. We obviously don't know all of what you're trying to achieve. We were trying to provide an amenity on the comer of TH 5 and 41 in the form of a pond with a fountain that would be backed by pretty heavy vegetation and a decorative fence to kind of form the buff'er between the heavy traffic area of TH 5 and the housing behind it. We thought that could be a nice entrance to Chanhassen from the west. Reflect what is over in the Arboretum in terms of plant material, but have the statement be more of a natural statement if you will with the plant material and the pond. I think through the process with you and staff maybe we can refine that to what your vision might be for that comer. It's obvious looking at the plan we're willing to dedicate some space on the site. Some expenditure to accomplish that. So we do have some common goals here. We want to come out of it with a very nice looking community that is economically successful for our company but one that you can be proud of too for years to come. We do off'er within the plan development a series of paths that represent kind of our best effort at where people might want to go on site. On an initial stage. That has been recommended to change a little bit. Having gone through parks now, by revising the path along the east side in this area, and there have been comments about bringing the path system more into the southwest.., and maybe a better alignment on that street. So the streets within that part of the site are all private streets that would be maintained by the association. But given that we can work with you on the green spaces in a more organized path system through there. The more heavily defined streets through this area and through here, of course public streets within public right-of-way. We would be constructing those and of course dedicating to the city. It was our understanding on a preliminary basis that that northerly, or northeasterly loop is something that was being contemplated by the, by one of the overall neighborhood plans and we're very happy to make that a cul-de-sac and not impose an access onto the adjacent properly to the east. So we think that would be a very good solution. We will be, just a little bit about our process. Pulte Homes is a national corporation. We do about 20,000 units a year nationally. About 600 units locally and we're actually the Marv Anderson Division here in Minnesota. We've been here since 1990. And this is the type of community or project area that we really like to develop. We do the development and the construction of the units so we control the total community and I think we end up with a very nice product in the end. With that I would like to divert the comments to Mark Gugnther to just briefly touch on the unit types that we're proposing. As we mentioned on the site plan there are five different unit types. I'll just quickly point out where those units are on 3O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 the site and then Mark can come through with more specifics about the architecture and the demographics. On the northerly part of the site, along the marsh are the club homes, which are one level with a basement where topography permits. Those club homes typically for the empty nester type buyer. In the center portion are our manor homes. They are row homes that are front to back. Garage on the front, back has the patio with either three to a building or four to a building. The area in through here, the rental townhomes which Jim Deanovic will be constructing. He will address those after Mark... his comments. On the south side of the frontage road would be the court homes through this area and those are 8 unit buildings and 6 unit buildings. And then down in the southwest comer are the village homes which are 12 plex units. They're three story on the garage side, or patio side, and they're configured with the green space in-between that creates kind of a little two building neighborhood affect for those people. So those are the different unit types. The villages, court homes, the manor homes and club homes will all be constructed by Pulte. They would be owner occupied and the 32 rental over here would be constructed by... With that I'd like to introduce Mark Gungther from Pulte Homes to go through the demographics and... Mark Gungther: Good evening. Mr. Chairman, commission members. My name is Mark Gungther. I'm the construction manager for Pulte Homes, Marv Anderson Homes Division as Denny mentioned. Denny did kind of give you a little background on Pulte Homes in terms of it's size. The thing though that we've been most proud of here in Minnesota in our division for the past 5 years we have been the best Pulte Homes Division across the U.S. in terms of customer satisfaction. The product that we deliver to our customers is a very high quality product. Our customers are very satisfied with the end result as well as the service they receive afterwards. Like Denny mentioned, the community here of Arboretum Village consists of four products that are owner occupied and another product, one product that is rental townhomes. The products that we are presenting to you tonight, we have built hundreds of already across the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We've learned a lot from our buyers by building these communities what their needs are. What their wants are and then design and modify the products throughout the years to meet those needs. The first product that I'd like to present to you as Denny mentioned on the southern part is the village homes. This product is a two story townhouse with a tuck under garage. We off'er four floor plans in 12 home building so there are actually 12 homes in one L shaped building. Joyce: Mark, do we have a rendering of that? Mark Gungther: That one there. Was there one in the packet? Joyce: We have some nice color. I guess this one's black and white. Mark Gungther: The square footage on these homes range from about 900 to 1,150 square feet. Price range on these is about $100,000 to $110,000. The buyer profile on this, this caters basically to a first time buyer. They're typically professionals just starting out their career. Wanting to own. Moving up, or moving away from rental or mom and dad just said enough. It's time to get out on your own so don't want to live at home anymore. Since they are a first time buyer we have seen very few children in these communities. When we do a purchase agreement, 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 each buyer is surveyed and so that's how we get our demographic information so by building hundreds of these homes we've been able to compile all that information throughout the years and what we've seen in this product is about .25 children per household. And in the age group, the majority of those children are falling in from birth to 5 years of age. In this product. As Denny mentioned on the elevation that you're seeing here, this is the two stories with the tuck under garage on the main entrance and then in the green space, this court yard area between the buildings here, the elevation of the homes will be two story and patios on that side into the courtyard as well as a couple units on the end with a patio courtyard. The next product is our court homes. These are also two story townhomes. The square footage is larger than the village homes. We range from about 1,100 to 1,350. The price range also is increased from about $112,000 to about $130,000. We off'er three floor plans in 6 and 8 homes per building. The buyer profile on this is also very similar to the village home, except in the essence that they need a little bit more income. It's a buyer that wants a little bit more house. Has a little bit more income to spend and so they move into a two car garage unit. A little bit more square footage. It is typically your first time buyer as well and we've seen about. 16 children per household in this product. We off'er in this community we do have multiple elevations. This one here is kind of a hip roof and then we also have.., elevations. The elevations do get mixed up within the community so it's not just one elevation throughout the entire community. Joyce: Could I back you up for just one second. On the village homes, there's a question I was going to ask. Number one, you've got some bayed out windows in our rendition here. I assume that's a premium or something like that or is that natural? Mark Gungther: That is a different, the end unit is a different design. So that would be incorporated into the cost of that. And then in the comer, these are actually, it's a single level home. Single level.., so that's the four different floor plans that we're offering. Joyce: The other question when we're talking about elevations is, we're looking at the gabling right now. They're just small gables here... Mark Gungther: Correct. Joyce: Thanks. Mark Gungther: The next product is our manor homes. Those are all... In this product we have two floor plans. They are both split level townhomes ranging from about 1,200 to 1,500 square feet. Price range is about $145,000 to $165,000. These are available in 3 and 4 homes per building. The buyer profile on this is typically 50% are move up buyers. The other 50% are first time buyers. Just like the village homes, court homes, manor homes and the club homes, these are all association care communities. All the snow removal, ground maintenance, etc is all taken care of underneath the association. So they're looking for association care as well. You typically see a few more children in this community. About .32 children per household. And the last product that we're presenting here is our club homes. We offer three floor plans in our club home communities here as well. The square footage on here varies from about 1,222 square feet and we also put 3 homes per building in here as well. The square footage varies in these homes 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 because we off'er them with one level, as well as some of the homes will have a basement. And the buyers that we've seen most recently are deciding to finish their lower levels so the square footage goes up as well as the finish price, which will range from about $145,000 to $220,000. These cater mostly to our active adult communities. Average age is around 55. This is typically their last house that they're going to purchase or they're just nearing retirement and just preparing for it. They're seeking, the primary goal is seeking that one level living as well as the ground maintenance, association care. And we typically don't see very, see very, very few children in here. About. 15 children per household and those range in age of 15 years and older so living at home or just getting prepared to move out of home. So those are the four communities. All homes presented to you this evening, we have they'll all be predetermined exterior color packages and we can discuss that as well. All the elevations you see have brick. Typically it's all maintenance free products that we install in there between brick, vinyl siding, aluminum soffit, facia, and shingles as well so, with that I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this community and questions on product, we can either hold those or have Jim present the rental townhomes first and then we can discuss it. Joyce: Why don't you present the rental townhomes and then questions. Jim Deanovic: Hello, my name is Jim Deanovic. The part of the development that I am responsible for is right in here, and Met Council would speak to affordability, life style and integration and those would be affordable rental townhomes. A majority would be 50% of median income and the elevations would be very, very similar to Pulte's elevations on their two story models that are three building, four building units. The colors would be very similar to that. We just feel real strongly that we go from a rental to a start up to the life style that they've set forth in their plan. Joyce: Any questions for the applicant at this time? Kind: I guess not. I was, I want to ask materials questions but maybe that's the next phase. Aanenson: Yeah. That's something that the staff has talked about. Certainly we feel again it's on the comer of TH 5 and 41. It needs to be wow. Brick. More articulation. Certainly. We're looking for direction from you on it too. Joyce: I think that's something that we should comment on. At the comment stage. Kind: Well I don't have any questions of the applicant. But I do have comments. Joyce: Any other questions? Dennis Griswold: Yes, I would ifI may, like to make a couple comments. While I have it up on the board. This is the artist rendering of that comer of TH 5 and 41 with the units in the background. There would be the pond with the boulder treatment behind it and the fence and the landscaping behind that so that's kind of the preliminary concept of what we were looking for there and would be happy to work with you on refining that. Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: I did have a question. Now what's, give me some insight on the fence. Does the fence go all the way around this, the southern half of this development? Dennis Griswold: It starts at this point. Right where, there's actually a little wetland right here and the fence would tuck into the existing trees and it kind of... and it would be angular in areas, working it's way around behind the pond. Angling in certain areas and die off at this point. And at that point it tie into a mass of evergreens and other plant materials and berming and plant materials.., here and along the sides of... That's the concept. Joyce: Could you explain, could you give me a little.., decorative or is it functional. Dennis Griswold: It's a decorative fence that would probably be 6 feet high. It would not be...more of a decorative fence... Give some separation... That's the thought. The other thing I wanted to comment on was that our concept of what Pulte at least is proposing on this site in terms of density is to use the guide of the 4 units per acre and the 4 to 8 units per acre through the site. And use that as the determiner for our unit count and our density on this site. We are purchasing the portion of the Savaryn property east of County Road 41 only, and we're purchasing the Mill's property which is all east of TH 41. We have no control at all on the portion west of TH 41, even though it is the same tax number and it's being reviewed with this development, we're not trying to ask for any density transfer from that. That is Mr. Deanovic's property and we have no claim to that. Aanenson: Can I make a comment on that? That's a big concern of the staff and it's been pointed out in the first meeting. It is part of the same tax parcel. It has a primary zone on the majority of the property. There's nowhere to transfer that density. This is an area we've identified that we want to preserve. If Mr. Savaryn or Mr. Deanovic picked up Mr. Savaryn's property, we think it's good planning practices to address that now. They choose not to transfer the density, fine. But then look to the conservation easement but I think it needs to be addressed as part of this project. Whether they choose to include it or not, because if it's just split off} given the later density, there's nowhere to transfer it. I don't think that's good planning. Jim Deanovic's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Aanenson: Which is the reason why we supported this as part of the PUD. Conrad: What's your vision for the commercial area? Dennis Griswold: Right now the vision is limited basically that it is a comer of the property that we feel would be appropriate for a neighborhood commercial area being at that intersection and it could tie to the property to the east. We understand that the access recommendation is that there be a combined access onto the frontage road for those two properties with a right-in, right-out onto the north/south portion. So we are, we haven't at this point shown any site plan because we don't have a specific user in mind but we feel that that would be an appropriate location for it. I know there was some discussion tonight and at other times about would the property west of that 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 access point be appropriate for it and it's an area that is low. MnDOT was looking at it for a holding pond. We would like to work with them on that location for their ponding requirement and actually turn that into a feature by having a fountain in that area. And have the backdrop of the trees and landscaping coming up the hill behind it so as you look towards the northwest from TH 5, there would be a pond there with... While that side would more directly connect for pedestrians coming down to that neighborhood commercial, it is contemplated that there would be a path system all around that area and that we feel that it would be more appropriate on the other side of the access point. Aanenson: Can I just comment. That goes back to your original question and Dave pointed out in his.., will be a signalized comer... Conrad: Kate, what do you think we should expect when they come back in terms of flushing out a little bit the commercial layout? Right now it's a box. It's a block and we don't know. Is that, will you have at least some, will you require at least a little bit of planning on that commercial site after we approve or disapprove the PUD? Aanenson: Certainly. I think it'd be similar to what we did on Mission Hills and that there is commercial zoning adjacent to 101. We put together a laundry list that everybody was comfortable with. That became the uses permitted. Or conditional. And then we also put design guidelines so pitched roofs, materials, all that would also be, you know whether you want this to relate to what neighborhoods. I think that would also be part of the specific standards for that commercial district, and how it relates to the other piece. It should be one of the conditions. I can double check to see. Yes, number 23. I think that can be further articulated by saying address the adjacent properly and how that relates. Joyce: I like the idea of having conditional uses like you were saying. A list of that so that's something we can look at as far as... I think Ladd brings up a good point. A little better pin pointed. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for Kate. You're asking us to look at you know broad picture tonight. Sounds like they're in some disagreement at this point as to whether this parcel west of TH 41 is going to be included. To me that sounds like basic step number one is define your area. Are you comfortable with where you are right now? Or do we need to wait until we get a little better defined area before we move forward with this? Aanenson: Well it's the stafl~s recommendation that, while they believe they're not benefiting from the density transfer of that piece is approximately 12 acres. It would be guided when it came in you know residential low density, up to 4 units an acre. However many they could get on there based on the primary zone. The stafl~s position is there's nowhere to transfer it elsewhere on that properly. It's not big enough. There is properly on the other side and because it's, we're saying you can't segment the two. Blackowiak: Right, because they're the same tax number. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Right. And they're doing it with the project and whether they benefit, if they're getting increased density, then that's a benefit to the PUD. They could choose to use that. But I think the staff's recommendation would be to leave it as part of the PUD and I think, what I thought I heard was that they were not receiving benefit as far as density from it. And while that may be true. Blackowiak: It's part of the property. Aanenson: Right. Blackowiak: So, what is your feeling? I mean do we need to tell you to go back and talk to them and iron out step number one? Aanenson: Give them some direction. Blackowiak: Define your property area and then come and talk to us. Have a little more information. Aanenson: I would just say, just leave it as a condition. That's how we had it, yeah. Do you want it included or not, and then you send the marching orders. If you don't, right. I mean they can, if they don't want to do it, that's sending clear your direction. Jim Deanovic: Can I speak to this? Joyce: Come on up to the podium. Jim Deanovic: You know I don't want to, if we eliminate that density on that piece, that piece goes to a value of zero. You know if we're not utilizing the density, which I know we are not on the other piece, I don't think that that's fair. It's as simple as that. I understand the conservation and all the trees and everything else and I think that that has to be taken into account on a separate, whatever would happen to that piece after that. I mean the owner is here, let him speak to it. Joyce: I'll let him. Paul Savaryn: My name's Paul Savaryn. It's been a family farm for 30 years and just address that triangular piece. I'd recommend you drive by there but Kate's wrong on her characterization of it. It's 12 acres gross. Tanadoona Boulevard is on the north side of it. We've had that rented out for crops for the past 30 years and we receive rent on 7 acres so over half of it is tilled. And the trees, although they're dense and they're on the triangular, the steep triangular angle, there's nothing especially spectacular. It's just a dense growth of trees and I think any development in that would probably want to make use of it, but the fact is, as it gets narrower, there's less and less you can do on that southern end. So as far as that piece of property goes, I think it should have a use for itself and I have many in mind that probably could work there but it is now sold to, in the works to Mr. Deanovic. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Okay, let me just rephrase the issue. We've got a piece that's a part of it and they want to segment something ofl~ You have to assign it something. We can't just leave it there. Joyce: I think what we've got here is, it's nice that we're going through this conceptual PUD. Iron this out.., area of this but I think what Alison said, I think they need some direction. I hear what Kate is saying. It's not whether we segment this off or not, and then give them some direction so they can come back to Kate... I'm not going to get hung up on this right now tonight. We need to proceed forward because we have a whole project here that.., one segmented properly. Although it's noted that it is an issue. Fair enough? Okay, let's get a motion to open this up for a public hearing then. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission at this point. Step forward. Bud Olson: Mr. Chairman, public safely commissioners. I'm Bud Olson. I live at 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard and my piece of land, let's see does it show on that? Okay. My piece is right here and my neighbor Brace Geske is also here and he's just north of me by one parcel there. He'd be right there. Just some of my, I'm kind of pleased by the fact that it's not going to be Mill's Fleet Farm so I appreciate the fact that we're working on some other kind of concept for this comer. Some of my concerns are, first of all sewer and water considerations. Brace and I are just kind of a couple of loners out there right now. Lundgren's got their project in over at Longacres and we didn't have much, we didn't know about it. So when we look at the future of our properties we're looking at, where's the sewer and water coming in for our two properties. My home is 30 years old. It's got septic and well. I don't know how much longer this is going to work for us so one of the considerations that I have in this whole project is how will you address the two loners that are sitting out there regarding the project. I know the church has petitioned for that sewer line to go across and I just don't want to be forgotten. So that's one of my considerations. A couple others that I have is directly behind my parcel is a 2 1/2 acre spot that is part of this land process and it is part of this project. Aanenson: It's topographically separated. It's on the other side of the wetland. They can't get a road to it. The Olson's properly is in front of it. It's land locked. Bud Olson: Right, and I was waiting to hear some concept ideas for this whole thing and so that piece concerns me. Across the road is the 12 acres that is part of this discussion already that we've had. I have a consideration or concern for what we do on that side because that directly impacts the front of my properly across the road there. Those are a couple other concerns. Being in the law enforcement profession I have a deep concern about this density when you consider the frontage road that's coming out to TH 41. As you drive that I'm sure you know there's a curve right into that road and I'm sure MNDOT's done studies and looked at that but I still have a car density issue. That TH 5 and 41 is a high traffic area. We have a lot of crashes there. It's another intersection here where we're going to add a large volume of traffic into that neighborhood so I have some considerations about is that traffic controlled? Is that going to be 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 traffic controlled there for the purposes of getting in and out of that neighborhood. That is a consideration of mine. Future usage of Highway 41. With this density and this number of families and we've got kids that are going to be in this neighborhood. We have a school district that the school is already maxed out over at Bluff Creek. How will that impact this neighborhood and where do my children go? Where do the children of Longacres go? And this project some considerations for the school district. Also, there are parks but I don't see much green space here. I'm looking for where do all these kids go on their bikes? Where are they going to travel to? Where's the park system going to be involved in this process here, so that's another consideration I have great interest in. The rental units, I'm curious to see if there's going to be any on-site management there. We know in law enforcement that on-site management does a lot to control what happens on that property, so again from the law enforcement perspective I think it's important to know, will we have on-site management that will be watching those properties? I think that pretty much handles it. I am concerned about the usage of Highway 41. Will the trail system come north? If it does, it will come right through my front yard and how much impact that will have on the pedestrian bike traffic that comes by my neighborhood. So those are some of my considerations on this. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Dave, is there any comment on the... ? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. That is one of the items that we've requested the applicant to do is petition the city for extension of sewer service to the area. We have received the petition from the Westwood Church group for that. We'll be in the process later this fall of putting together a feasibility study for the Westwood, what I'll call, what I call a frontage road is West 78th Street. Or the extension of West 78th Street. And we'll be putting together a feasibility study for that later this fall, early winter. In that review we will take a look at all the adjacent parcels that are included in the sewer district. Mr. Olson's property and the property owner to the north were excluded from the Lundgren development to the north because they were outside of the sewer district based on the comprehensive plan so those parcels will all be looked at with this new area coming on line here in the year 2000. Joyce: Actually that touches off another comment. I'm just wondering, do we have a traffic study going on for this development? Is that something that's a necessary consideration? Hempel: That is a point that we did think about. I guess as far as access points along there, we did try to consolidate some of the access points and create a looped road system in our comments. That's why we probably need a little more detail than a conceptual review than usual because we did want to flush out a lot of issues to make the applicant aware that there are some issues out there with regards to traffic, sidewalks and so forth. Those will be reviewed as the plans get further detailed. Look at sight lines, spacings, working with MnDOT on the turn lanes for the intersections and whether or not they need to be traffic control warranted for those intersections. And so forth. All be coming down the line as the project... Joyce: It's an expense obviously. Hempel: Correct. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: But it might be something that... Aanenson: Right, and again this project is predicated on the upgrade of Highway 5 and the frontage road and there will be signals with that. Joyce: Okay. Blackowiak: Kate, when you say predicated upon, in other words when Highway 5 is upgraded before this begins? Aanenson: That's what we're saying. Their time frame was 2000 and we're saying that the water would go in as a part of the road, then sewer also would need to be in place before we issue permits so it's pretty optimistic to say they'll be under construction in the year 2000. Blackowiak: So you're saying that Highway 5 needs to be in completed. Aanenson: The frontage road, which is the first, because the frontage road gets built first. That's access the by-pass during the construction of Highway 5. Blackowiak: Correct. So could conceivably the builder come in and start building while we're being by-passed from a frontage road or no? Hempel: Highly unlikely. Aanenson: Highly unlikely. It's very optimistic, yeah. I don't think so. That was something that. Blackowiak: Big picture I mean. Big trucks. Lots of traffic. That doesn't sound like a good combination. Joyce: This is still open for a public hearing so if anyone else would like to come up. Seeing none, close the public hearing. Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Mr. Chairman, I'll throw out my comments. I think we've had a good overall discussion so far. Direction for staff'.., maybe make a few comments about a few points... I guess my general comments are I like the project. I like the mix of products. However I do have some concerns with the village homes and the court homes, that area. Individually the village homes... that layout that I've seen... I'd like to see the road shifted around maybe to create different angles. I have a feeling.., more towards the center as far as the.., in the development mainly because I'm concerned with the height. That it would give the appearance of more apartment like structures. Because we're not going to have a lot of vegetation.., for many, many years to give screening and 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 buffering for this comer of TH 41 and 5. I guess I'm concerned about the massiveness of those buildings. I'd prefer to... if that would be possible. Also not really.., pond at that comer. I guess there have been discussions about more vegetation and I would encourage more berming in that area for the sake of the residents because it will be very noisy on that comer so I guess I'd like to beef up more of a buff'er and green space on that 41 and 5 area. Also I think just the basic layout needs to have more.., green space .... manor home area is great the way it's laid out. Something that appeals to me... I'm sure that can be worked on. Feel comfortable with the amount of commercial.., preserving what is there worked out really well. Joyce: Great, thanks. Good comments. Anyone else? Kind: Mr. Chairman. I agree with LuAnn and I won't repeat, echo many of my feelings, but I want to add to the comments with the village homes. I'm really not thrilled about the idea of a three story home with single car garages. And no double garages worked in here. I like the idea of mixing the lower priced units physically with the double car units. The more expensive units like we did in Walnut Grove where they're mixed in and not segregated off to the side. And I think that we can have.., single car units that's being recommended here. The court homes are much more appealing to me. They start at $112,000 and I think would meet our affordability requirements. The court home style versus the three story, single car garage village homes. I really want to emphasize LuAnn's point about the contiguous green space. I think the spaces are wasted by having those village homes looking at the open courtyard. Nobody else gets to benefit by that.., and it sure would be nice if some nice sight lines from Highway 5 to see some green space. Let's see what else? And I do have some comments, I guess it would be more along the lines of direction for what I would like to see in the next stage regarding I guess architecture. I really encourage the Pulte folks to go take a look at Walnut Grove. I think that there's some real nice things being done there, and my favorite things about Walnut Grove are that each style of building has kind of a unique look to itself. It's not each building looking unique but each style. So all the court homes have kind of a similar look about them. Not each individual building. I am not a big fan of changing color of roofs on each building or changing the color of siding on each building to make it look like a single family detached, because it's not. And I really prefer subtle color pallets and one of the things I like about Walnut Grove is how there's a unified roof color and materials are common but have a unique look to each type of home. The craftsmen style, it's a classic style that I like. I'm not suggesting that this also be a craftsmen but I think we really need to be careful of picking a style that's going to look dated and trendy. And the open gazebo space at Walnut Grove is really neat and maybe that's more appropriate than a totlot. I don't know. I think that's it. Burton: Mr. Chairman I have just a couple short comments. I guess I commented a little bit earlier and the comments have been echoed. I think that we need to have more green space and to preserve it and I think a lot of it could be achieved with the layout. It just seems so dense to me. Especially in the southwest comer. Then one of the audience comments was about recreation areas and I do see that there are recreation areas for tots. I don't see that there are any other recreation areas and it would be nice to see other options like perhaps ice rinks or basketball courts or something like that so the other older kids, and the adults too have other things to do there. I guess and then the wetland issue I would like to make sure that as we go forward that we 4O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 stringently adhere to the setback requirements and not make exceptions since we're so early and they can get plenty of notice that that would be the case. I'd like to strongly enforce that. And to also preserve the natural features as much as possible. I think that's it. Blackowiak: Well yeah, I think I'd like to start out by saying that I strongly support what Kate said about treating not only this parcel but also the triangular parcel west of TH 41 as the PUD area. I would like to see that. The PUD area defined as such. I don't feel that leaving that little sliver of the parcel is appropriate. We need to plan accordingly, and whether, I'm not talking benefits. I'm not talking density transfer but I think it's good planning to put it all together. One tax ID number. That's how it is. Treat it as such. Secondly, overall I think you need to look at the commercial and make sure that it is attached or works with some way the parcel directly to the east so that we don't just leave a couple little commercial here and a little commercial there because that doesn't make a lot of sense. When we're looking at PUDs we keep saying higher design standards. What is the community getting and I think that we need to do some real basic planning before we even start getting into the whether we like the village home versus the court home versus you know. That's all fine and good and that's...but like I said, overriding, I think we need to define this parcel as, including the west of TH 41. And specifically the commercial. Village homes, boy. Awfully dense and I use the word intense and I think they're very intense for that comer. I would question whether it will even meet the parking requirements Kate. I'm not sure. One garage per unit doesn't sound quite right to me. So I just don't know if that's the place for it. I agree with what Matt said about the recreation opportunities. I heard all these low numbers for tots. You know. 16 per unit or something so they're not going to be playing there. We need to have something for the people that are going to be there so gardens, basketball courts, gazebos, open green space areas. Something for the other people because according to, what I'm hearing there aren't going to be lots of tots there. And finally, I don't know about the primary zone but I would really encourage us to look at where the primary and secondary zones fall and get a real good idea of distances from things and what we're trying to accomplish. What we're trying to save up along this north end. And what we're going to do with this little land locked just east of the Olson property, because that really needs, I'm just assuming we're just leaving it. So if we're all comfortable with that. And let's take a look at that.., carefully along the north end and see what we can do. See what we want to accomplish there and maybe there can be some passive recreation opportunities in that area to be addressed. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Actually I was hoping this was going to come in all commercial so probably, and I'm serious. This is a commercial site and I'm sure the neighbors like single family. I'm sure, but it's a commercial site where we could make some money. I'm vacillating back and forth. I basically like what's been presented. If we care at all about affordability in Chanhassen, it's an opportunity. Even the 3 or 4 of the, well 3 of the home plans are affordable so it's hard to make affordable housing. So we should all check on that. I think some of the, every time we see density then we worry about is it looking good but then boy, then get rid of our comprehensive plan. Tell them how to make affordable housing. That doesn't negate what the rest of the commission has said however. So it's not easy to give direction on stuff like this. Off'er affordability and I think Pulte's a good name. They do make a good product... A couple 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 concerns I have. Given I give up my commercial need there, given I give that up, you've got to make the TH 5 and 41 intersection attractive. You've just got to. I'm not going to tell you how to do it. You've got to tie it to the Arboretum and make it look, probably staff has a good sense. You've got to make, I really, I think what we all react to is the blocks, especially in the village home. It does look stamped out. That's how you make money. It does look very predictable and that bothers me but that's what a builder like you can do very well, so I know that's your strength. From a conceptual standpoint, it bothers me a little bit. I'd like some variation in there. I think the connectivity in that area is real important and that one I'll make sure you do. The rest you'll probably persuade me one way or another but I just don't want block. You've got to solve that one. You heard some comments about the three stories and I don't know. I think we've got to put, that's how you bring affordable housing in and you bring affordable housing in not by putting it next to Lundgrens, but by putting it right here. So there's got to be a check up here, but I think you can do some of the things. The connectivity, I know you can do. I know you can make some green aisles going through here. I know you can. I know you can do some pathways. I don't want a pond just to be a pond because of the highway, MnDOT says we need drainage. It sounded like you were doing it so I heard that, make it work for the people that are there. Not just a fountain. Make it work. That commercial, for sure you've got to, there's such nice neighborhood commercial things that I've seen that integrate in and that's why I really don't like it across the road. It's a little bit of a barrier and it stops. It makes people drive versus walk, but maybe we have to have it where you got it. I would like to see how your schematic of how you might be laying that out back Kate. I'm not going to approve it just a box. I have to at least have a good faith estimate of where we're going with that. I'm not necessarily and I'm not sure what we zoned it for so now I'm winging it but I really, it's just got to integrate. If we allow gas stations, it's not a SuperAmerica. It's one that's sort of integrated with the family type atmosphere that we might have at a market or whatever. It has to be really a true neighborhood type of commercial center. I don't care how you solve the land to the west. I'll contradict maybe the rest, some of the commissioners and stafl~ I don't know legally how we deal with it. I wish you could use the density transfer. That's a great way that we have to get what we want and help you and if that doesn't' work, I don't know how we do it. You heard we don't want so much density so I don't know. I don't know how to size that. I think some of the other things they said here are pretty good. Even though you only have 50 kids in this site, I'm surprised the Park and Rec didn't give any. Aanenson: They put 2 1/2 acres they wanted totlots, right. Conrad: They felt comfortable, okay well I guess you're hearing some challenges to that so they have their opinion and we have ours and it looks like a lot of parcels and where's the park. I think if you didn't put the word tot in here we would have been comfortable. To be determined whether. Yeah, that's my. I think what we're getting is some good, well constructed, affordable, predictable, good builder stuff here. If we start knocking out some of the things where they've, the higher density stufl~ then we're screwing around with affordable housing in Chanhassen so it's your opportunity, our opportunity to get it. Again, I don't know, but I think you've got to solve some of those other things that you heard up here. Those are important. If you can show me how you can vary the predictability of those neighbors close, you know the village homes. I kind of 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 like how you, I like the green space between them. I think that's kind of neat but I think you've got to do something there to help us put a lot of folks in there. In terms of walking. That's all. Joyce: ... I think your initial presentation is nice. I like, it's well organized. Nice materials. It's laid out real nice for us so that's helpful so next time around you know.., in that regard. I don't have a lot to add. The only thing I can say is when I look at this, the part to the north of the frontage road seems okay and this part always bothers me. I mean it's just as simple as that. So it's kind of a flow of the project. We went to seminars and stuff Kate where we had the neoclassical looks and things like that where we really condensed some of these higher density buildings into one area to leave green space and I think that's kind of what we're saying because it really looks chopped up. Aanenson: Well that's what we tried to do with the village but you're already seeing resistance because it's different. We're trying to compress some of that towards the front. Try to keep it, make that transition from Longacres. Joyce: I challenge Pulte to give us some sort of, something like that. I think both Deb and LuAnn made some good points. LuAnn saying the elevation on those things. I think you can alleviate that by what LuAnn said maybe blending the court homes. I didn't like, I personally think you can work on the elevations as far as the articulation on those village homes. I think more gables, more bayed out windows, things like that gives it a little more.., look. I think it was plain looking. This is just personal stuff I'm throwing out there but yeah, I mean I'm just saying what everyone else is saying. It's just you've got these cookie cutter blocks and if there's some way of pushing all this density into one area to take advantage of some green space, yeah. It'd be different but I think you get more benefit out of it. Aanenson: Can I just get some feedback from you. If we push the taller ones toward the middle, you're going up in elevation. You're going to see them more. That's why the staff pushed them towards the intersection to give a sense of entrance so maybe it might be helpful to come back with a couple different, before we spend a lot of time at the next evolution. Joyce: I mean if we had a couple of options. Did we do that with Walnut Grove? Aanenson: Oh yeah. A year of options. Joyce: I mean they gave us some options. They came in and they said here's 2 or 3 ideas, what do you guys, and you know you got the response back. People liked it. Aanenson: Yeah, because what I'm saying is, if we're going this way I think you have to realize, you're trading one thing for another and I want to make sure we understand what we're trading. That was a concern that we had. That by pushing them up, you're going to see more of them. And keeping them as a lower profile but maybe we can come back in an open discussion and come back with some different versions as we move this along. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: I think we have a concept. Now it's a matter of working with it. Yeah, it's going to take some time but I think thought and scratched and we got that Walnut Grove thing and I live next to it... We finally came to everyone agreeing to it and shaking hands and being happy. Conrad: Kevin, what's the price range down there? Joyce: More than my house I'll tell you that. Conrad: Yeah. Kind: They have some units... Joyce: Yeah you're talking about, but I'm talking about, we're talking about, see when we started with those zero lot homes, they were, they looked like mobile homes. And what they turned into are these bungalows and they're gone. For $250,000. If you're talking affordability, yeah. I agree. But you've got also the $80,000 homes next to those nice homes and you've got some affordability. Kind: That's what I like. They're mixed in within. Not just segregated off2 Joyce: Yeah there was, the neighborhood blended in from single family to very nice bungalows to some affordability. Conrad: The price range is pretty compressed, and so again as you went from 1 to 150 to 180 to 210 to 240, I heard some ranges that were between 100 and 150 for most of their product. I was pretty impressed so, I don't know. I'm not trying to argue affordable. I still like commercial. What we get here.., the density's okay. Figure out how to push it one way or another but do we like, or do we want to cut density by 50%. Joyce: Kate had a good point. You've got 100 acres. There's not much density you can cut. How much density can you cut? Aanenson: Well there's a wetlands in there. I mean you have to take out, there's gross and net. Joyce: ...80 acres. Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: You're going to have 350. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. You're getting 400 units on there so it's how you want to segment those. That's the $64,000 question. What I'm hearing is we need to come back with a couple different iterations for you. I mean we spent, staff and Pulte, this is the third or fourth iteration. Our recommendation, they were thinking all one product. We should try to get some different product. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: What I'm saying is, I think this comer has to be worked on. That's my personal opinion. I think I heard from everyone else they have a problem with that. It's a gateway into the city. Aanenson: Right, and we tried, again the staff's position, just so you understand is we tried to make a transition. Similar to Walnut Grove. Stepping the density towards the highway, which was given the higher density, and tried to do that but what I'm hearing is just some of the other issues. Open space. How the, as Ladd said, the predictability. Some of that issues and I think we can come back with some different, before they go too much further, come back with some other. It may be even before council. Conrad: Yeah, this shouldn't be a dialogue between us but you're okay with the density there. You just don't like how it's mixed around. Joyce: What I don't mind about the density is that you have, you don't have homes up here either though that are, I mean it's, this right on Highway 5. It's probably, I'd review it. I agree with the fact that yeah, it seems like it's an industrial property.., outside of the downtown so I disagree with commercial. Conrad: Or office would be fine. Joyce; This would be a better office. If you had an office thing in front of me, yeah. I'd be happier. Blackowiak: Yeah, office in the southwest quadrant. Leave the homes up here as they are. I mean that to me that would be ideal. Joyce: That would be ideal. But this is going to be developed one way or the other and we could just toss out the whole idea. I don't find it really offensive, I just have a problem with this comer I guess is what we're trying to say. Conrad: But that's a tough comer. Do you not like so many units on it? Are we trying to strip out units from this comer? Joyce: What it looks like, to give it a better flow, yeah. We'll leave it at that. Like I know what I like and I can't tell you what I like but I don't like this right now. Conrad: But what they'd like to hear is if we want to strip out units some. That's the point of this conceptual deal. If we think it's got 20% too many units or we think 5 more acres should be commercial, let's tell them right now. They don't want to come back and we say well, yeah. So are we comfortable with the density? Joyce: You know what, I think that if they use a little imagination they wouldn't have, if they've got to strip out 5% of them to make it look nicer, it might be worth their while. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Conrad: But they could have the 36 units from across Highway 41. Where are those? Aanenson: Good question. Conrad: We've got to give them those units I guess. They have a right to but anyway, it shouldn't be a dialogue but. Kind: Mr. Chairman? Joyce: Yes. Kind: To answer Ladd's question, I'd like to see less density in that lower area. What I'm hearing from Kate that we in the comp plan have promised that 400 units could be on this. Aanenson: No. They... get that many, no. I'm saying if you look at it on the gross, that's approximately what they could get. It would be lower density on the north side of the frontage road and it would be even higher on the south side, up to 8 units an acre. What I'm saying that right now it's averaging about 4. They still probably maybe 2 1/2, maybe closer to 5. Conrad: It's low density folks. It's low density and you're trying to strip it out. Aanenson: The 80. I added the 12 on the other side in. Conrad: It doesn't look pretty and high density doesn't look necessarily as pretty as single family. Joyce: Well I think it could be more imaginative. I think you can be creative with this, and that's what I want them to come back with. Something a little creative. I think if you have some options, and work with the staff because Kate has an idea here. It's brewing that she might be able to offer you, and I hear what she's saying. That we don't want these big massive three structure buildings up on a hill. I can see a problem with that. I think I'm just going to leave it at that. We're going to bring this, we'll vote on this right now? Aanenson: Yes. You can go a lot of different ways. Conceptual, you have to make a recommendation to planning. I mean to the council, excuse me. Conrad: The concept. How could I summarize what we just said? Aanenson: You have three options. Table it, recommend denial or recommend approval with conditions. Joyce: I need a motion then. If everyone's done. Conrad: Are we making the motion, yeah. So this is going to the City Council for a conceptual plan review Kate? 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Correct. It says, and I can quote, the PUD ordinance. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing, report it's findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Conrad: I've never done this before. Aanenson: Yes you have. Conrad: I never have, so you're making me go into waters that just, on a concept plan it's give them some direction. Aanenson: Yes you have. Conrad: These are very specific things that probably I haven't reviewed because they look too detailed for a concept plan. Therefore I'm real uncomfortable saying I agree with all these. What I do agree with some of the directions that we gave up here. So I think, because it will come back, I don't know what. Kate, you've got to tell me what's legal. If we need a motion on it, then I'll make the motion. If that's what the ordinance says, I heard we had to process this with the 120 day deal. Aanenson: No. You've got three options. You can table. Conrad: Previous deal, okay. Aanenson: You can table it. Joyce: Make the motion. Conrad: I don't have to but I may want to. Aanenson: That's fine. Or you can change the recommendations. Those are, staff put those in for guidelines. If you want to put something different, make them broad brush, that's fine. Conrad: I would recommend, I'll make the motion. That the Planning Commission, do we have to do approval? Aanenson: No. You can table or deny it. Conrad: Yeah, but we don't want to do those. There's no point in doing those. Aanenson: You have to make a recommendation. Blackowiak: Unless we want to see some other options. Conrad: That's right. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Blackowiak: I mean conceptually, are you in agreement with it? Conrad: Well the validity of a concept plan is to get everybody's perspective. The developers would like to know what everybody's thinking, especially the City Council. They make the last decision. I have no need to keep it here and have us screw around with it and then have the City Council say that's not really what I want. We agreed Ladd with you that it should be all commercial. Don't need to do that. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that they review the conceptual planned unit development #99-2 for the Arboretum Village and the comprehensive land use plan amendment subject, reviewing the conditions in the staff report dated September 1, 1999 with the following additions. After 31, I put all my notes away. That 32 says the Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. Planning Commission is looking, next condition 33. For a creative approach to the intersection of TH 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site. I've got to leave the chunk of TH 41 off of my motion. It is in the staff report. I don't know how to deal with that. They've recommended it be considered part of that and I don't know that I can contradict or counteract that or contradict it right now so I'm going to leave that in. That was the other issue. Parenthetically we did note the comments from the public so we're not ignoring, I think everybody heard what you were saying and they're good points. That's my motion. Joyce: Does anyone want to second that? Kind: Thinking about it. Blackowiak: I'll second that. Joyce: Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends to the City Council that they review the Conceptual Planning Unit Development #99-2 for Arboretmn Village and a Comprehensive Land Use Amendment reviewing the following conditions presented by staff and the Planning Commission: 1. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. Submit streets names to the Building Department, for review prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The utility systems, upon completion, will be owned and maintained by the City. The private streets shall be constructed to support 7-ton per axle design weight in accordance with the City Code 20-1118 "design of parking stalls and drive aisles." The private streets shall be located in a strip of property or easement 40 feet wide. 5. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will provide wetland buffer edge signs for the applicant to install after the utilities have been completed. The applicant shall pay the city $20 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater 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 stormwater 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. Stormwater 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 enter into a PUD agreement/development contract 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., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from units not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 12. The applicant shall incorporate berming into the plans adjacent to West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5 per city code. Additional buffering/screening should also be considered along TH 5 and TH 41 for noise abatement. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of- way except landscaping along the frontage road in accordance with the Trunk Highway 5 Corridor Study. 13. The lowest floor or opening elevation of all buildings shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level of adjacent ponds, wetlands or creeks. 14. If importing or exporting material for development site grading is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans for review and approval. 15. The applicant/property owner shall petition the City for sanitary sewer service. 16. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any draintiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain-tile as directed by the City Engineer. 17. Direct access to all lots shall be restricted to the interior streets and not onto West 78th Street, TH 41 and TH 5. Access to the commercial parcel may be limited to a right in/right out along Century Blvd. and a full shared access off West 78th Street with the parcel to the east. The exact location of the access points are subject to City and MnDOT review at time of site plan review. Cross access agreement will be required at time of final platting 18. Site grades adjacent to West 78th Street, Century Blvd., TH 41 and TH 5 shall be compatible with the future widening of Trunk Highway 5 project. 19. Provide a public street and sidewalk/trail system south of West 78th Street which will loop back out to West 78th Street. Sidewalk/trails shall also be provided along the public streets north of West 78th Street. Eliminate the trails along the wetland in the easterly portion of the site. Provide trail connections to TH 5 trail and future trail connection to TH 41 between West 78th Street and TH 5. 20. Landscaped median islands maybe permitted within the public streets contingent upon the developer entering into an encroachment agreement with the city and the medians do not pose a traffic safety issue. 21. Future extension of the noah/south street is not needed. Shorten street to minimize impacts to wetlands and trees provide cul-de-sac. 22. Each housing area become a neighborhood with some distinct characteristics. 5O Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 23. The commercial development needs to be further defined with neighborhood uses only. This too needs to have materials that are residential in nature. Neighborhood uses are those goods necessary to meet daily needs. 24. A road be tied into the two access points on West 78th Street to give a better sense of order. 25. The applicant shall be required to maintain these preserved areas when the preliminary plans are submitted. 26. Criteria must be established to determine which wetland classification best suits this area before a setback can be established. 27. Preservation of the wood lots on the properly. 28. Construction of the interior trails as association connectors at the applicant's expense. 29. Construction of the wetland trail as a comprehensive trail segment with appropriate public easements being granted and trail dedication dollars used for construction. 30. Plans be submitted for the manor home and rental townhouse tot lot prior to approval. 31. The tot lot/play area in the court homes be expanded to 2 to 2-1/2 acres in size be centrally located and be connected to appropriate pedestrian routes. 32. The Planning Commission is looking for a more creative approach in dealing with the same or less density south of the frontage road but maintaining affordability. 33. The Planning Commission is looking for a creative approach to the intersection of Highways 5 and 41 in terms of the ponding, aesthetic, attractiveness to tie into the Arboretum and the feel of Chanhassen. 34. The Planning Commission is looking for more connectivity in terms of pathways, green spaces, playground areas in the plan. 35. Planning Commission is looking for a more detailed vision of the commercial area. 36. Planning Commission wants to review the traffic implications of the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: ALTERATIONS IN THE BLUFF ZONE, REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING AND BUFFER ORDINANCE, AND YARD (PORCH) REGULATIONS. Aanenson: It'd been around. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Joyce: It's been around the block. I missed a couple meetings hoping it would go away. Blackowiak: How much time do we have in our work session? Aanenson: I think that'd probably be better. Blackowiak: Would that be appropriate to discuss this. Burton: Do we keep them? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: Why don't we do that. Blackowiak: I'm just thinking that personally I'm getting. Aanenson: Well it's the first day of school for you. Blackowiak: Yeah. Would we have a better discussion if we have a little more time or do we have a full agenda that night? Joyce: Do we have a work session coming up? Aanenson: Yes. First meeting in October. Joyce: So can we just, why don't we put that in there. I think that's a good idea. Thank you Alison. Blackowiak: You're very welcome. Joyce: Because actually I think that's probably where it belongs anyhow. Blackowiak: Because it doesn't need a public hearing or anything. It's just discussion. Aanenson: Discussion. Just education. Blackowiak: Okay, well let's do it at our work session then. Kind: Which one are you talking about? Joyce: 5, 6, 7 and 8. NEW BUSINESS: 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 1, 1999 Aanenson: Just let you know on the 15th we do have the hotel coming in on the property next to Applebee's. And then there are two variances. The hotel next to Applebee's, that will be in. Also, the school, Chapel Hill Academy. I'm not sure that it will make it on for the 15th or not but they're in for site plan review and they came in originally we had a condition that ties them to go through the process to keep it moving. They have submitted so we have some issues there so I'm not sure it will be quite ready and then that's the 15th. Then the first one in October would be a work session and we're going to focus a lot of that towards transit.., but then we'll also look at some of these others too. And if you have something that you'd like to discuss.., drive you around and look at the project, so that will be part of it. Other issues. Oh yeah, if there's some other issues that you would like to address, let me know. Sidney: The church. Blackowiak: Oh and Kate also, an update on the variance status. The status of the variances we have either approved or denied. You started doing what has happened at Council... Aanenson: There's a couple I'd like you to go look at too. Blackowiak: Okay. That was not a good sounding comment.., so I mean I'd kind of like to know where we're at with that. Aanenson: Yeah, I think that's helpful to go back and look at projects to say you know did it work.., it's kind of a good check and balance so we'll go out and do some field work too. And we might try to start a little earlier because it is getting darker. Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 53