Loading...
PC 1997 01 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY IS, 1997 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: JeffFarmakes, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Kevin Joyce, and Craig Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer; and Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: T.F. JAMES COMPANY FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL OF 3 LOTS INTO 3 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND WEST 78TM STREET, WEST VILLAGE HEIGHTS 3m> ADDITION. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: As we talked earlier Bob, just to maybe give us some sense for the rest of the commissioners as to the probability of a driveway and where it might go. Generous: There was a site plan submitted last fall for this property and the driveway came in right on the common property line between Lots 1 and 2. In addition there is a service road, frontage road within the West Village Heights development connecting the West Village Center, which the Byerly's all the way over to... so someone could conceivably internally go to all of the developments on that block. Peterson: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to make a presentation? Generous: The City is representing the applicant on this. It was due to our vacation and realignment of the roadway. We're bringing this forward for the applicant. Peterson: I assume you refrain from making any further comments? Generous: Yes sir. Peterson: Do we open this for a public hearing then? With that, do I hear a motion to open it for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: We have a motion to open it to a public hearing. Anyone who would like to make a presentation. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Commissioners. Ladd. Conrad: No, nothing. Looks fine. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: No comments. Peterson: With that, I have none either. Is there a motion? Conrad: I make the motion Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the conditions in the staff report. Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the replat for West Village Heights 3rd Addition subject to the following condition: 1. Access for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, West Village Heights 3rd Addition shall be limited to a joh~t driveway offWest 78fl~ Street." All voted in favor and the motion carded. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INC. REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PARCEL; PUD REZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL; CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PUD REQUEST FOR MIXED DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 67 COTTAGE HOMES AND 192 VILLA HOMES; PRELIMINARY SUBDIVSION REQUEST OF 295 LOTS, 2 OUTLOTS AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GALPIN BLVD. AND HWY 5, THE HIGHLANDS. Public Present: 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Nalne Address Bill Scose Brian Erdman Brian & Jennifer S. Monteith Nancy Mancino Julie Woj fanow ski D. Cook-Roxmingen Willian~ Thompson Steve Janson Tom Campbell John Hennessy Mark S. & Wren Feyereisen Cindy & Henry Wanserski David & Cinda Jensen Joan Joyce Bo~fita Mihalko Naoxni Noddner Allan Olson Virginia Bell Amy O'Shea Rick & Margaret Manning Steve Monson Pan~ Schwarz Rick Murray Lee Glover Tin~ Whitten Bob Payette Joe & Jean Bray Dean Gregory Andrea & Mike Salvador Wendy Stone Richard Neff Terri & Hani Gidani Joan & Ken Weis Jon Noeldner Charles Peterson Susan Reimers Bob Generous presented the staff report Peterson: Technical question first. Due to require a motion ~Jfis eve~fing or not? 2187 Brhhker Street 2091 Brhhker Street 2159 Brhhker Street 6620 Galpin Blvd. 2145 Brhrker Street 7471 Tulip Court 7491 Tulip Court 2199 Brhrker Street 2065 Majestic Way 7305 Galpin Blvd. 7501 Windmill Drive 7521 Windmill Drive 2173 Brhrker Street 2043 Brhrker Street 2198 Brhrker Street 7511 Crocus Court 7461 Windmill Drive 7476 Crocus Court 7475 Crocus Court 7460 Windmill Drive 8850 Audubon Road 7509 Tulip Court 15 Choctaw Circle 15 Choctaw Circle The Rottlund Company Saflu:e-Berquist, Wayzata, MN 2126 Majestic Way 2101 Majestic Way 2086 Majestic Way 2103 Brhrker Street 2150 Majestic Way 2117 Majestic Way 2101 Majestic Way 7511 Crocus Court 7496 Crocus Court 7495 Crocus Court on this item. the fact tiffs is now a conceptual approval, will that Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Aanenson: Yes. It does go to file City Council. Alfliough technically file conceptual approval has no legal stand'mg. If it came back under file preliminary. If you were to give it conceptual approval and even added to conditions and made any modifications, when it went to file City Council fliey would also review fliose and make any modifications fliey would have. If file application came back under preliminary, and you felt it didn't meet what you gave it conceptually, it doesn't have a legal standing. If fliey haven't reviewed responded to what our issues were, we're not going to give you preliminary approval. So whatever direction you give fliem tonight, if you've inissed something, you still have anoflier opportunity under file preliminary process to add additional. Joyce: So nothing's bind'mg as far as what we do tonight? Aanenson: Tilat's correct. Peterson: Questions of staff? Joyce: I have a couple quick questions here Bob. Number one, a couple tunes hi our packet it said 8 and 10 unit towifliouses. It says it on page 1. It says it on page 7. I just wanted to clarify. Tiley're 8 and 12 units aren't fliey? Tilere aren't any 10 unit houses at all. Generous: Tilat's correct. Joyce: All right. I just wanted file Coinmissioners to be aware offliat. Tiffs 1night be a premature question but I was just curious to ask, because of file comparison to file Nor~Jl Bay cottages. Is file City considering target'mg fliose cottages for file kind of financing fliat was used hi fliere? Tile TIF financing or anything like fliat fliat you're aware of? Generous: Not at tiffs tune. Aanenson: It's never been discussed. Joyce: Never been discussed. One oilier item. On file project fliere was a pond on file eastern side offliat project. I understand fliat's temporary. Dave, maybe I can ask you fliat. I understand it's kind of a temporary pond right fliere. Hempel: Tilat's our request. We do wifli our regional stormwater management plan show a regional pond just to lJie east. Tilere's a low lying area fliat's very conducive to stormwater pond'mg. Tiffs easterly pond fliat you see would be a temporary sed'unentation pond and also rate control to meet file pre-developed runoff rates so we would not be flood'mg file properties downstreani. Joyce: Once it went from temporary to anoflier status, would it connect to anoflier pond or would it? Hempel: It would remain ~]lere unt'fl ~]le downstreani regional pond was constructed on ~]le property to file east. Once ilia was constructed file pond could be removed. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: What would be slotted to be iii ltiere? Hempel: It could be slotted for open green space. It could be placed on a bu'fldable lot. That's been done in ltie past in some developments. Joyce: So ltiere could be mi option to bu'fld on ltiat? Hempel: If ltie plat is designed ltiat way, yes. If ltie iiltent is hi ltie future, yes. Aanenson: To take ltiat ful~tier Kevin. If you're concerned about someltfing like ltiat, I ltfimk ltiat's certahfly someltfing you can certahfly address hi ltie PUD contract. That's ltie purpose of PUD. If ltiat's someltfing ltiat you wanted to address. Skubic: A little bit more clarification of ltie proposal. Would we be vot'mg on ltie rezoning, ltie land use amendment to~fight? Generous: No. Skubic: That is not part ofltie. Aanenson: That's never done unt'fl we're ready to record ltie plat because we wouldn't want to rezone it unless ltie project's for certahi and ready to go and be recorded. Skubic: But wouldn't we be implicitly approving it if we approve ltie concept? I mean because ltiat would be required for concept approval wouldn't it? Generous: Concept has no standiilg. It provides direction for ltie applicant. It's ahnost like, ltie way it's advertised tells people if ltiey want to do lifts project, ltiese are all ltie things ltiat have to be done. Joyce: If we deny lifts, will lifts still go to City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Oltier questions? Conrad: Just a couple things, and ltiey're probably not questions but I ltfimk as we, at our public hearings some issues ltiat I'm real iilterested iii and maybe staff; Kate or Bob you cai talk about it right now but maybe we'll flow into it. I'm real interested from ltie neighbors talking about ltie transition from ltiek property, from ltie Windmill Run subdivision into lifts. I'm curious about specifics and ltie transition. From staff s standpoint I'm curious about ltie Hennessy property incorporat'lonorlack ofincorporat'lon. Also interested in how Bluff Creek fitsinhere visually, wtfich we probably haven't seen, and maybe ltiat will be a later on issue but it's ltie most sigxfificant asset iii ltie property and it's not visualized for me so ltiose are issues ltiat I sure hope we talk about iii ltie upcoming minutes. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Bob, do you want to address any of those prior to the applicant making a presentation? Generous: Tiley inight be able to address it. Tiley've already been working on some revisions. We haven't had the plan sets to look at. We are requirhig that access be provided for the Hennessy's. Tilere is the PUD requires a larger setback between the properties so we are gett'mg some separation from that. Tiley did try to, they contacted Mr. Hennessy to see if they could purchase the property. Aanenson: As far as the Bluff Creek, ifI could just to that. Tilat's one of the issues that we flfi~nk needs to be further articulated and agahi under the concept, we're just trying to flush the issues out but that's something certahfly we flfi~nk that needs to be further developed. Peterson: A couple of the conditions that I hadn't seen before that I was more interested in. Item number 15 where it says that it shall include a draint'fle system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from the units. I haven't seen that before. Is that...to tiffs property or? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, actually that has been incorporated over the last few years. A lot of tunes we've just brought that forward to the applicant before even doing the report. Be aware that tiffs is going to be a requirement and make it a requirement as a part of the construction process. Tiffs was taken out of the previous staff report from back in 1994-'95 when it was first coming out that we did have a problem with sump pump discharge. Streets creat'mg ice problems tiffs tune of the year or the algae slhn bu'fld-up in the summer so it's been working very well for us and the last few years we've incorporated that in the recent construction projects. Peterson: Tilmnk you. Talk about, staff you made a recommendation that the lots shall be, a certahi amount wider hi the single residential area and you didn't really specify how wide. You kind of left it open. Was there a specific reason why you didn't give a recommendation as to the width? Slightly. Generous: Well no, it was to get input from Planning Coinmission, residents. Peterson: Probably my questions also. With that, would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Coinmission? State your name and address please. Rick Murray: Yes Mr. Chairman, I'm Rick Murray with Residential Development and with Bob's help, since there's a number of our neighbors in the audience behind us, it's probably easier to view it on the screen than it is the boards. Commissioners, good evening. Thank you for allowing us to have this presentation and thank you for the opportunity to get input from both yourselves and the neighborhood. We have had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood and with Mr. Joyce. We had them at the Rec Center last Saturday and some of the input that we received was very helpful. The stafl] the ongoing conversations with staff over this past month and a half has also been very helpful. The plan that's up there and the plan that's in your booklet was not the plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday. The plan that the neighbors and I discussed Saturday, and the plans that you received on Saturday, most of you, were revised to reflect meetings that we had with staff about density and the distribution of units. A couple of 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 road locations. The parts of your staff report that talk about the separation from properly lines that are permissible in a PUD. There was some information that we simply didn't have in the original drawing. Bob, if you could put up. This plan still incorporates our basic concept, and the concept is literally having us absorb the transition between the single family housing to the north, within our own plat, and transitioning that down to the high intensity use that we, well is exhibited along Highway 5 and that we feel will be exhibited along Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The north end of the site, the loop road that connects Galpin to the existing neighborhood is designed as a residential loop. The T intersection was at the direction of staff and the intent there was to slow traffic down and discourage a short cut or cut thru through our site down to Arboretum Boulevard when it's constructed. The low density transition through the site comes about 2/3 of the way through Mr. Hennessy's properly. It's the north 33 acres. I don't happen to have that on an overhead. If you walk through our densities on this particular site, we tried to stay within the low density features of your ordinance. The top tier, Bob if you could put the next overhead up, just a moment. And the reason I'm jumping into densities is that's what the neighbors and we discussed for the most part of Friday, or I mean on Saturday. And I'm sure that we'll listen, that we'll hear that again this evening and hopefully be able to address some of the specific questions. The low density that transitions through the site is about 2/3 through Mr. Hennessy's properly, which is just north of the access road. I'm just south of the access road. In that first tier off just south Bob. Right there. Just to that tier and it goes across to where the pond is on the eastern properly line. North of that is approximately 33 acres and that's what the comp plan designates as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Now the north side of our site, that north 13 acres has got 33 units on it and that's at 2 1/2 units per acre. The area that's contained in the cottage homes is approximately 15 acres. There's, well it's actually slightly more than 15 acres because the density that's calculated in the cottage homes is 3.9 units per acre. The density that's calculated in the villas is 10.7 units per acre, and of course the south end of the properly where the Bluff Creek corridor is 5 acres and obviously there's no density in either that or the right-of-way. The density that would have been on that Bluff Creek area and the right-of-way area, both areas which will be owned or restricted and benefit to the community, has been transferred and is transferred to the medium density area of the site. Transitioning on this site was actually much easier to do prior to the movement of the Arboretum Boulevard to the south as a frontage road along Highway 5. When Arboretum Boulevard actually came through the middle of this site, approximately where the access road to Mr. Hennessy's site is. Bob you might point that out because that's, and that's exactly where when we did our first calculations we were under the impression that north of that line or where the old, or the existing preliminary plat is, was the low density area and south of that line, the line's just a little bit higher than that I think Bob. Anyway, the initial calculations that my engineering firm had received was 26 acres north and 24 acres to the south. We thought we were dealing with 300 units. That's why the previous plan had 292 units on it. We were in error. The information that we picked up was inaccurate. When it was pointed out to the staff; we revised that plan and this is the plan that's been revised to address the 268 units. The density is transferred off off the area has been put over into the medium density area, which is shifted from literally the south part of the properly to the south and eastern part of the properly. It's shifted there because we were looking for reasonable transition between our own product lines. The transition between the single family to the north and the cottage homes, or the detached townhomes in the central area, takes place across the back yards and the ponding area. The transition between the cottage homes, which are 3 1/2 - 3.9 - 4 units per acre, to the villa homes, is 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 more intense and we tried to do that through the public road, which is a pretty standard transitioning tool. When the road was on an east/west axis, that transition more or less took care of itself within the aspects of your comp plan. Because it had low density, low density housing to the north and medium density housing south of Arboretum Boulevard itself. When we revised this particular plan, the 5 acres that's on the Bluff Creek corridor was revised to be 100 feet from the creek bottom and the line that goes across there is a surveyed line. That is not in compliance with your staff recommendations at this time. The staff recommendations would move that line about 125-150 feet up into the soybean field. The surveyed line is the edge of the vegetation and we were proposing a 20 foot setback from the edge of that vegetation with our buildings. Staff has indicated that the Bluff Creek corridor, the City's spent a lot of time, energy and effort on looking at that and they wanted to see a greater buff'er area. Greater protection area. We haven't had time to address that yet. That would be the impact, or roughly the impact on this particular plan. If that is incorporated and it ends up being 5 1/2 or 5.2 acres. The issue gets back to where would we get to this 10.7 units per acre on a medium density because it exceeds your medium density. And the answer is, we got it from the donation, so to speak, of the right-of-way to the south. The excess right-of-way to the south and the Bluff Creek corridor to the City. There literally are somewhere around 40 or 45 units that need to be displaced. To the north where we kept the single family in lieu of 4 units per acre, there's 13 acres and we displaced another 1 1/2 units. Or 20 units to the north so the redistribution of units on this site was approximately 60 units and that's where, although the densities stay within the low density requirements for the 13 acres to the north and for the 15 acres to the west, the grouping of the density within the villa areas hit 2.7. Adjacent to the villa areas, which is transitioned to the west by the public right-of-way, adjacent to it to the east is the area that Dave referred to as this stormwater management plans. Regional ponding area and it's to the south of that is medium density guiding property. So it would be a similar usage with a regional or community ponding area incorporated around it. The pond that we show there, to answer Kevin's question, will be much reduced from as it's shown here. When we drew this it was, we were under the impression that staff had wanted a permanent pond that would be kind of a tier to the regional pond. Since talking with Dave again and after we had finished this particular plan, that pond would be a temporary pond. It would probably end up being about a third or a half of the size that it is represented there. Most of the area in that back yard, or all of it will eventually be green space. About 50% of it at this point in time would end up being green space and be incorporated into our plan. Single family. Each of these units, and I'm going to introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes in a few moments and he's going to go through the particulars of both the cottage homes and the villas. I'll speak to them very briefly before I introduce Tim. The single family area, the lots that we're proposing there range from 65 feet, in the southeastern tier, to 80 feet along the northern tier. They all face the public right-of- way. They would all be served by a public road. There's a large percentage of them which will end up being walkouts. Especially those in the southern tier of lots. Where the opportunity exists in the northern tier of lots we're encouraging our engineers to incorporate those as walkouts as well. They're just better received in the marketplace. The cottage home, these single family of course transition across back yards and the ponding area to the cottage homes. The cottage homes reflected stepping down through the site, using the terrain of the site. We have a slope that runs from the north to the south down to Highway 5. The cottage homes on, and this is being a little bit broad brush but the cottage homes on the north side of the private roads will predominantly be slab on grades. The cottage homes to the south side of the private roads will predominantly be 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 walkouts. So we step our way down the site. The cottage homes are all served by private road which are association maintained and association owned. As far as a burden on the public works department, that's a burden on the homeowners association and not the public works department. The cottage homes are bordered on the west by the new public road running north and south. On the south by the Bluff Creek corridor and on the west by Mr. Hennessy's properly. Mr. Hennessy's properly is about 50% guided for low density and about 50% guided for medium density. The units in the space that we have abutting his properly, actually abutting his properly in that very northeastern, northwestern section is 3.4 units per acre. It's slightly less dense than the rest of the cottage homes as a whole. Staff recommended that we supply an access to Mr. Hennessy's properly. We supplied an access approximately where it would best use or might best fit the area of his properly that would logically be developed. There would be an association covenant that would allow him access through and across, ingress and egress through and across our private roads incorporated in our association documents. Transition into the villa units is through the public road and they abut the properties, the abutting properties to the east, as I mentioned, we medium density and the regional park area. Staff report spoke to a contour line, and that's the contour line in dark blue. That's along Bluff Creek. We haven't addressed that yet. We are looking at several options to see how that will best fit. We're here today, or this evening to solicit your comments and your suggestions. We're also here to listen to our neighbors and encourage them to make their comments and hopefully come out of this evening's meeting with some suggestions that we can go onto the City Council with incorporating them into a plan that works well for the community, the neighbors, and our properly. With that I'll introduce Mr. Whitten from Rottlund Homes. He's going to speak to the particular types of homes. Tim Whitten: Thank you Rick. Good evening. I'm Tim Whitten. I'm Vice President of the Rottlund Company and I'll try to cover the things that Rick didn't cover. I'm going to use some boards...the best position for the easel I guess. I guess I jump back and forth a little bit. First I'll speak about the cottages. There 61 cottages proposed on the site that Rick had mentioned, and the cottages are detached townhomes. They're targeted towards the empty nester market and the retiree market. As mentioned before we have this product going in the North Bay project, just north of Lake Riley. We also have introduced this product in a project in Plymouth, Minnesota, and so we have a little bit of history and our buyers are kind of halfway between empty nesters and retired buyers. And it's designed specifically for that product for most of the product on this site and what we proposed in the past, it fit on one level and that's what our buyers are looking for. And what's a little bit different on this site is that because of the terrain we're introducing a new version which is the walkout version. So you still have the same living space on the main floor, but included is a walkout expansion space. The units vary in two types basically. There's a two bedroom unit on the main floor, and three bedroom unit, and they vary in square footage from 1,350 square feet to about 1,600 square feet. And we have designed it in the site plan orientation purposely to angle along the street at about a 30 degree angle. And that is to create more variety in the site plan and to create private spaces. So along this streetscape as opposed to the lining up all the units straight onto the streets and having all the garage fronts face the street. You turn it at an angle so you get a broader view of the units and to get a view of the front door. Now on half the units we're really promoting the front porch and the other half of units will have side entrances. It also creates private spaces so that this becomes a private entrance space, front yard, this unit as well as this one, this unit. The same with the rear yards. Creates more private spaces. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 As opposed to being zero lot line where you really have one side that has no windows of the adjacent unit, we're actually mixing it up a little bit where this portion has no windows... landscape screening and this becomes private space for this unit. It also allows for the units to have exposure on all four sides of the units. It also lessens the amount of units that we have within the narrowest portion of... These are platted as townhomes so our plats are, they actually have the properly line with a box around the units. To equate it to a lot, it'd be approximately a 47 foot wide lot by about 120 feet deep. Rather than platting it as individual lots, we're platting it as townhomes. That is mostly for the reason of the association and the maintenance of the properly. That's one of the things that these buyers are looking for. No maintenance advantage. These are going to be priced, and we have history in Plymouth of this product, between $140,000.00 to about $200,000.00. Right now we're going up to about $180,000.00 but with the walkout version, of which we have quite a few, that will move the price up a little bit higher. On the plans themselves we have a number of different exteriors, just a couple of example exteriors that we have. To give you a little bit of an idea of the two different types. One is the.., which promotes the front porch. It also allows for side entry garages. It's shown in the plan that we can create some variety down the street by having some of the garages load in the side. Then we have the three bedroom version, which is a side entry to that. But in effect with the four different plans, basic plans that we have and each plan having two to three different elevations, just kind of the sampling of the number different elevations that we can create, that we would have, like I said, two elevations for each plan. Vary from two to three elevations per plan. They vary from hip roofs to hip and gable combinations. The gable roofs. And then with the four different plans that we have and then with the four to five different color palettes that we would incorporate, in fact those units can be flipped from one side to the other and side loads. We could virtually have a different unit on every site. Every 61 of the units on this site. To talk about the villas a little bit, and if you're familiar with the villas in Mission Hills. It's something along those lines where we have the, as mentioned before, we have the 8 unit buildings and the 12 unit buildings. With the new site plan that Rick presented, we're incorporating some, what we call row type villas where they're actually more traditional townhomes where they can have walkouts and the reason staff request was to because of some of the grading situations that if we can incorporate a product that would not only give the diversity but also adapt to the grades a little bit more. So we are also including that into the mix. Here, this is a focus on an 8 unit building. So we have the back to back type units, which this is, and we also have the more traditional row. As another, also on the cottages we incorporated the walkouts type to adapt to the topography. We kind of come from a history of grading sites to adapt to the product and here we're trying to actually create the product to adapt to this particular site. We have two types of units in this building where we have the end unit, which have two car garages and the interior units which have single car garages. The difference between this building and the Mission Hills, like I said, we've actually enlarged the interior units slightly. We added 2 feet. That allows us to get a little bit bigger unit on the inside but it also allows to add that space to the single car garage so we oversized the single car garage. It's a little bit compared to what we have done. The row townhomes are similar to this where they're arranged in 2 car garages on the outside and single car garages on the inside. They're slightly larger and they have the walkout expansion option. This particular product, our smallest unit approaches 1,200 square feet and our larger units are about.., square feet on the ends. When we get into townhomes, we're approximately 1,250 square feet for the interior ones and about 1,450 square feet, not including the lower level of the walkouts. That type of product. The 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 architectural style is really we're focusing on a colonial townhome type of look. Where we're adding some shutters and lap siding and that's the kind of look that we're probably.., work with staff as far as the, and the Commission and the Council regarding the color palettes and so forth, and how much variety deemed appropriate. All the products that we're showing are, would be vinyl siding with asphalt roofing and brick accents and to promote the maintenance free aspect. Price range in these go from, it shows $80,000.00 in the packages. It's probably going to approach a little bit more of a $90,000.00. The lowest price range for this type and probably moves up to about $110,000.00 to $115,000.00 price range. Here, as in our townhome version, we go from about $100,000.00 to about $150,000.00, depending on the location of the site. Some of the points I just want to highlight on this particular product, or both products, is that it's all owner occupied. One of the things that historically that we have found is that both these markets have very few children. In the villa products we have about .2 per unit. And in the cottages, .1 is actually a little high than what our history so there's very few kids. In one development we had, in 40 units there are 2 children in the cottage type. As mentioned, it is all private streets and that we have associations that will maintain the exterior and the landscaping with sprinkler irrigation systems. And they have regulations to, and covenants of which to guide them. And the empty nesters and the townhomes, we get this information from our traffic consultant, is that to factor in just an understanding of the traffic because I'm sure that's going to be one of the issues that are brought up. Is that the amount of trips per day in the empty nester product is about 4 trips per day. In our villa is about 6 trips a day and that compares to single family which is about 10 trips per day. One of the things that we're kind of focusing on and we're doing this in other projects is the product diversity. We're finding that in established communities like Chanhassen where the people that have lived in Chanhassen for 30 years are looking for an alternative. Don't really have that alternative so the cottages are an answer to that. Also to the children of the families of Chanhassen, to have a place where they can actually buy a home in a moderate price range or below $120,000.00 is something that isn't as available to them as we might like and so it's really addressing those two markets and giving some diversity in this housing type, that I think this development does offer. And I'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the housing type at this time or at any point. Thank you. Peterson: When you talk about the townhome villa.., what percentage of those units are there from the total? Approximately how many units are there going to be from the townhouse down? Do you have any idea yet? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Peterson: How many of the townhome villa style, the number of what those would be. Tim Whitten: The villa style, we have a total of 174 and how much would be row townhome and how many would be the back to back? We have three buildings of the row type to make up for the grading. The grade issue along that pond and I think there's 18 of those units. So it would be subtract 18 from 174. Joyce: Are those sixplexes? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Tim Whitten: Yeah. Peterson: Will there be two associations within this development then? Tim Whitten: Correct. Peterson: The villas would have one and then the townhomes will have the other? Tim Whitten: Yep. They have some different interests and concerns and so we found it best to have it separate. We've also, if there's common elements, we have developed master associations that can be an umbrella so you can tie the two together. So if that's of interest, that's something we can certainly look at. Peterson: One of the points that staff recommended was more play area perhaps or, and part of your rationale for not putting it in there was some of the.., earlier? Tim Whitten: Yeah, that's something that we come across with both these products on occasion is that, is putting in the totlots. We're open to putting in an amenity. We're not always sure that a totlot's the appropriate one. And so in some cases we actually make recommendations to the City and we could even put aside the same amount of money and the same amount of land and put it in escrow and have the association kind of decide what's appropriate. Or if the City could determine what it is. We're not against the land space or totlots or anything. It's just really what is appropriate for that type of user is the only issue. Rick Murray: ... that area that will become green space.., it might be more appropriate that that gets incorporated into some sort of gathering spot. In discussing with the staff'.., maybe it's a better gathering spot.., so that's been, we're investigating that too. Peterson: Thank you. Conrad: Different designs you mentioned of the cottage type. How many would there be? Tim Whitten: Well we really have four plans. We'd have two types of the sod line grade. We have two types of the walkouts. And we are actually looking at generating another type of plan. So somewhere between 4 to 5 different plans of which each of those would have different elevations so as you would go down, I guess if you multiplied it by at least 2, and in some cases we have 3 elevations for some of the plans, there'd be somewhere between I suppose a dozen to 16 different elevations available. Then what we do is for the colors, we're trying to be that balance between better alternative townhomes but not as diverse necessarily as single family so you get some threads and consistencies of architectural elements and colors and materials. So as opposed to having five different bricks, maybe we'd have two. Having five different colors, but we'll mix them up. We typically have about a five color palette so then you take that 12 to 16 elevations and multiply it times the 5 different color palettes and that's what we, plus like I say, this could be reversed. There could be a side loaded garage or it could be a front loaded garage. And with that we can create a lot of diversity. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain, is that correct? We don't have different sizes or profiles of these units? Tim Whitten: I'm sorry, could you say that again? Skubic: The elevations you're speaking of are due to the terrain. Tim Whitten: These elevations? No, it's actually just the designs as I'm speaking about the elevations. Along with that there will be a variation due to the fact that some of these will be walkouts and that's added to this. Peterson: How many meetings have you had thus far with the neighbors? One? Rick Murray: We had the one open house on Saturday and then 4 or 6 neighbors that met with us on Thursday. Peterson: Questions from commissioners? Thank you. I'd like to have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Joyce moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: With that in mind, obviously we have a lot of people in the audience this evening. We want to hear your respective thoughts and opinions, and also realize that time is, we don't want to have you or us be here until 3:00 in the morning so if you would please limit your comments to those that you feel are relevant and that may not have been said before. As the meeting goes on, I will apologize in advance ifI interrupt. With that, would anybody like to make a presentation to the commission? Cinda Jensen: I'm not bringing up water because I'm going to talk long but just because I have a little sore throat here so. My name is Cinda Jensen and I live at 2173 Brinker Street and my husband David Jensen is going to help me out with a couple of transparencies here too so. Now I think we're going to work from transparencies that show this second site plan, as opposed to the first site plan since, even though we're talking conceptually, if we do get into a few details, we're going to work with the developer's second site plan which shows a total of 268 units. Okay. And Chair, I think I was at one of the last meetings with the twin home development that ran until 1:00 in the morning so I will try to keep my comments concise and non-repetitive, but at the same time I do have several points to make so I'd like to refer to my notes if you don't mind. Okay. First of all I need to point out that several of my neighbors in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood, which is just north of the proposal that we're talking about tonight, have asked me to speak on their behalf, so I am representing more individuals. We'd like to voice a very strong opposition to the proposed Highlands development plan. And we're opposed to this plan for a number of reasons but bottom line, we feel that this plan is not in keeping with the City's comprehensive land use plan. We think that it is not also in keeping with the City's preliminary recommendation for low density for the majority of this area that was made back in March of 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 1995. We also think it's not in keeping at all with information that several of us received directly from City Planners before we purchased our homes in this area. And we also feel that this represents dramatic increases in density, not only to our neighborhood but also to the comprehensive land use plan. We do not feel that the City should amend it's comprehensive land use plan and we don't feel that the density should be increased in this area. I want to point out here that we certainly recognize the field that's behind us is going to be developed someday and we are not opposed to development. We're also not opposed to Rick Murray and his development stafl~ It's his current plan that we're opposed to. With that said however I just want to reiterate that we do not want to see the City amend it's comprehensive plan and increase the density in this area and instead we would rather see the City endorse development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan which still can achieve some of the objectives that the City would like to see. I think we can be creative here. This particular property can be developed in other ways besides amending the comprehensive plan, and we feel that it can still be developed that will show natural and gradual transitions of density and still incorporate different housing types. In just a little bit one of my other neighbors will speak and part of what she would like to share is a rough proposal of an idea of how we think this land could perhaps be developed that would recognize diversity in terms of housing styles but would still stay within both the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan and would not move away from what the comprehensive land use plan is showing right now. At this point though I would like to discuss two items, and the first item I think is very important. It's a reminder for those of you who were on the Planning Commission 2 years ago. Mr. Conrad and Mr. Farmakes and regarding the situation with the twin home development proposal that was in front of us at that time and the concerns that our neighborhood had with that twin home proposal. For those of you who are new to the commission since then, hopefully you've had a chance to find out some of the history on this particular twin home development proposal that was in front of the commission 2 years ago. Either by reviewing the Minutes of both the Planning Commission and the City Council Minutes surrounding that particular proposal. But at any rate I believe it's important to recall, and I should qualify that. I think we believe it's very important to recall the fact that many of us in the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood specifically received information from the City Hall that informed us that this particular 33 acres of this land was to be developed as single family homes detached, SFH. Another reason that we were opposed to the previous development is that we did not see a gradual and natural transition of density types with the way that the plan was laid out, and if you review the notes you'll see that. I'm sure many of us in this room have selected to live in Chanhassen for a number of reasons, many of which we probably share. Maybe it's because of the less crowding, parks, the open space, great churches, great schools, neighborhoods, and businesses and so forth. But whatever we all chose reasons to live in this community. I want to say in the case of my family, we looked and saved for just the right community for over 3 years and approximately 2 years ago we moved our family from St. Louis Park to Chanhassen. And when we were looking for a place to live, I can remember at the very top of our list we had, we were looking for a community with a small town feel and we looked at a number of communities. I can remember dragging all 3 of our kids along in the car and checking out Aflon and Stillwater and Delano and St. Michael and Anoka and Chaska and a whole lot of them but we felt that Chanhassen offered what we were looking for and we felt that it really did have that small town feel. From our first interest, and this is I think real key here. From our very first interest in Windmill Run we visited City Hall on two occasions and we specifically talked with city planners 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 and we asked them exactly what was to be developed around the Windmill Run and Royal Oak neighborhood. We were shown the comprehensive land use plan and we were told that this land, approximately 30 acres south of us, was to be zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And I want to underscore zoned the same as Windmill Run with similar homes and similar lot sizes. And it was upon that information that we made our decision to build our home at 2173 Brinker Street. The fact is that several families in our neighborhood, and if you look at the Minutes from the meeting from November 2nd of 1994 or December 7th, or if you review letters that this neighborhood sent to both the Planning Commission and City Council members, you're going to find that a number of people did the same thing that we did and they took the steps to contact City Hall to get information of how this land was going to be developed. Many of the individuals in our area were told that this area was going to be developed as single family detached homes. Similar to our neighborhood. And I've got to just tell you that I had a picture and my picture was, we have about 30 acres in our development with 58 homes and they weren't all developed at the time that we moved in. But I had a picture that about, approximately that same amount of area to our south was going to be developed very similarly with similar homes and similar lot sizes, and that was my vision. I mean that's what I picture this, a continuity of our neighborhood to the south, and I know that I'm not alone on that and a number of neighbors feel the same based upon the information they received from the City. But here we are today with another developer, a different developer who's proposing to even further increase the density on the same 33 acres of land than we were told would be developed as single family homes. We don't think it's right and we also don't really enjoy bringing up this issue of misrepresentation but the fact is it happened. And we think it's important to the development plan that's in front of you today. The second item I would like to discuss is with regards to density, which is obviously a very big issue and Rick brought that up earlier. We'd like to point out, actually I'm going to take one step further back and I'm going to come back here. I do want to show one transparency at this time that also speaks to the fact that we were, received misinformation from the city. This is a map, most of you have seen this because this has been sent to your house by one of our neighbors, Dawn Ronningen, who lives in Windmill Run. This was a map that she was given when she visited City Hall before she purchased her home and one of the city planners used this map to outline what was going to be developed to the south of Windmill Run. And you can see up there where the HC/2 letter is. You can see SF, single family showing for about 33 acres right south of us and then there's an indication of mixed medium density below that. At that time when this was shown to her she was told that SF would be developed with similar homes and similar lot sizes. She also looked at several other communities before they moved here and Eden Prairie and Chaska were two of the communities that they looked at, and in their guidance SF stands for single family detached. So I think it just is another point showing that, how obvious it was to us that this was is exactly how we thought this land was going to be developed and we were going to see an extension of our community. Thanks for letting me go back. Now David do you want to just put the next transparency up? 66%, 66% or 33 of the 50 acres that this developer wants to develop is currently designated for low density development, and obviously this would be an enormous benefit for the developer if they could have all of this land reguided as medium density. We do not think that this makes sense for our neighborhood or for the City to increase the density here. The developer's currently showing a site plan that places 268 units on approximately 50 acres. This represents 180% increase in density as compared to our Windmill Run/Royal Oak neighborhood where we have 58 homes on 30 acres. Now granted 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 the developer is showing single family homes up on the upper tier, but many of those homes are on smaller lots sizes than what would even be called for under R-4, low density zoning. I want to point that out. Plus if you look at the definition for low density, it says predominantly single family detached, so once again our expectation from our neighborhood, all the way down to the line. David, do you want to point the line across. That is, we've overlayed two transparencies. The one that has the line on it with the slash marks. That's showing, that's picked up exactly from the comp plan that shows where the land designation is. R-4 to the top, low density and R-8 medium density on the south. Another big density issue for us is that this developer is introducing high density, I repeat high density housing into an area that is not guided by the comprehensive plan to show high density housing. We are showing right now 15 acres. Dave, do you want to point that out? 15 acres of property, or one-third, approximately one-third, just short of one-third of this entire area is showing high density housing right now. And that is you know clearly not on the comprehensive plan. In addition you can see how far it climbs into the low density housing designation. I understand in talking with Kate Aanenson that 6 acres of the 50 acres is required for, a full 50 acres is required for public roads and a small wetland. And I also understand that these 6 acres are calculated into the net density for the land, which according to the site plan we would have looked at would have been 6.8 as a net density. I also understand though in talking with the City and the developers that several other acres are, of this land, are seen as land that should not be developed. For example the Bluff Creek easement. The City has informed me that although these items are necessary for the development, they need to be there, they do not count toward the density calculation and instead the density is transferred or compressed back into the developable land. In addition I think the developer does benefit with all of these private roads. The private roads through the cottages, the private roads through the villas, because these roads also do not need to be included into the density calculation. So I ask, with a sizable chunk of land that's already seen as land that should not be developed, which already compresses the density into a smaller area of land, it does beg to question why would the City even want to consider amending it's comp plan and even further increasing the density on this property. Particularly in an area which contains the headwaters for both the east and west branches of Bluff Creek. Recently I asked Kate Aanenson if all of the land in Chanhassen were to be developed as designated in the comprehensive land use plan, would we have sufficient land for medium and high density and she said yes, according to the calculations based on our growth numbers. She also showed me the progress that has been made with the 1995 land use effort, which I understand has allowed us to be able to increase medium density to the overall comprehensive land use plan. So with all of that, I ask again why would we want to take the comp plan and amend it and further increase density in this area when we have a very sensitive area and we're already compressing density back into this land? I want to point out one other thing in terms of density. That on nd November 2 of 1994 when the previous twinhome development was being proposed, Kate, you made a clarification to the commission stating that the City was not recommending medium density for this area. And I'm certainly not trying to put you on the spot but I do want to recognize that the staff has supported staying within the comprehensive land use plan previously for this area. The last thing I'd like to say on density is just, I find it odd that the community has to come out to defend the comprehensive land use plan and that if the City put that much effort into developing a land use plan, and then when it comes down to actually needing to use it, which is today. I mean this is the time, and we don't use it, what good is the plan? What's the effort, you know all the effort that goes into it. It seems like lost effort. If diversity of housing types is 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 an objective of our city, we believe that this still can be done without amending the comp plan. In closing we'd like to simply ask that you, commission members, reject or deny the developer's current proposal to amend the comprehensive land use plan and to increase the density on this area. We do not believe amending the plan is in the best interest of our neighborhood or our city. Instead we ask you to look for thoughtful development of this land which stays within the comprehensive land use plan, benefits the neighborhood and the city, and incorporates the ingredients of a well planned community. And in just a minute one of our other neighbors, Joan Joyce will speak and one of the things that she plans on sharing is again a rough outline of a possible way of looking at developing this land that would still stay within the current land use make-up as well as introducing diversity of housing types and keeping natural and gradual transitions with regards to density levels. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Joan Joyce: My name is Joan Joyce. I reside at 2043 Brinker Street, and I'm one of the many property owners in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development that was told by, told that the majority of the land south of my neighborhood was going to be single family homes on lots similar in size to the lots on Windmill Run. A majority of our decision to build our home, to build where our house is, was based on the concept communicated to us from the planning staff at the City Hall. A continuation of our neighborhood would be in fact single family homes, detached, on lot sizes, on lots that are equal in size to ours. We were not at the time told single family housing included iwin homes or any other diversity of housing other than single family detached. It is very unfortunate to feel as though we must continue to compromise our expectations of what the City had in mind for this property as compared to what is now being proposed. It is also unfortunate to see that there isn't more of an attempt to create a more definitive neighborhood that allows for safe streets, less traffic, and a sense of community for the neighborhoods in this area. I've become very familiar with the term diversity of housing over the past 2 1/2 years, and although I think every community needs some diversity of housing, I strongly believe that there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish this goal. I'd like to show you an overview of this area that we're considering with regard to this proposal. I thought it necessary to take a look at this with regard to how this whole thing connects with the existing property to the north, Windmill Run/ Royal Oak development, and as you can see the lot sizes in the Windmill Run/Royal Oak development are about 3 homes per acre. This gives you a comparison of exactly the density difference beiween the iwo areas. Personally I think it's ridiculous. There's very little green space to the south. I can only imagine the view of any one of a number of homes from the northern tiers looking up to the top of the knoll that a lot of this development is going to be placed on. To me it's almost going to be as close to looking at some sort of a skyscraper when you see row after row after row of homes looking down upon this single family neighborhood of detached homes to the north. To me it's a hodgepodge of overly dense, poorly planned, cookie cutter houses with little or no green space and no personality whatsoever. This is diversity at it's worst in my opinion. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I don't see any transition beiween the housing types. The high density in the cottage homes, the high density villas and the cottage homes are to me thrown together. There isn't any natural break beiween the iwo. I think the developer's claiming that division to be a road, which to me is not a transition. It makes no sense to me at all. We do have another overlay here that I would like to put up. And I'd like to say that 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 I'm certainly not a developer. Therefore I don't claim to know specifications needed to reflect setbacks, easements, drainage, or anything like that so this is more of a conceptual plan. I think it reflects a better match with what the comprehensive plan really is. I've also drawn in the line noting the difference between the low density on the comprehensive plan and the medium density. Dave, can you point that out please? Right there. That I believe is where the line is reflected, upon referring to the comprehensive plan. I think this makes a lot more sense. It also incorporates the Hennessy property, which we all know pretty much where that is. That is a single family detached house on that property. I think it's important to be sensitive to the idea that this ought to be incorporated into a neighborhood and not just left unconsidered and stacked up against a bunch of cottage homes on very small lots. I firmly believe that these proposals definitely need to be turned down. I don't think it's even a matter of approving a conceptual plan. It just, I think there's so much to be done to better accommodate what ought to be put in this area that I think the whole thing ought to be just turned down. And I'd like to give you a copy of the overview of the two comparisons between the two so you have these for your files. I'd like to thank you for your time and I'd like to ask if you have any questions at this time. Peterson: Commissioners, any questions? Joan Joyce: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wish to address the commission? Virginia Bell: I'm a little shorter so I'll move this down. My name is Virginia Bell and I live at 7476 Crocus Court which is part of the Windmill Run development as well. I'm also opposed to the concept and to the idea of amending the comprehensive plan here and I wanted to talk for just a few minutes about the comprehensive plan. When this proposal came out I went to the library, or actually I asked one of my neighbors to go to the library and get a copy of the comprehensive plan and I read through it. And I might admit at the time that we moved in we did not move, I did not read through the comprehensive plan. But in reading through it I was struck by the fact that the vision that is encompassed in the black and white here in the comprehensive plan is the vision of Chanhassen that I had when I moved in and when we chose to move here. Looking at one of the sections called housing, I read that Chanhassen's adopted goals and policies call for a diversity of housing types and styles. While providing this diversity the City has established a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. That's the vision of Chanhassen that was included in the comprehensive plan that was approved by the City Council, approved by the Met Council and it's frankly the vision that I had of Chanhassen when I moved here. It's the vision that was communicated to me by the planning stafl} by the people at the schools and the other people that I talked to. I too, like my predecessors, visited the Chanhassen planning staff before we moved in and spoke with them. What is being proposed here is obviously not low density and it's obviously not predominantly single family homes. As you've heard from the speakers who preceded me, most of the property that is being discussed here is guided in the comprehensive plan for low density. And low density is defined in the comprehensive plan as from 1 to 4 units. It is also defined as predominantly single family housing. What is being proposed here would transform the neighborhood that I live in, the Windmill Run neighborhood, and the Royal Oaks neighborhood, into a neighborhood that is not 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 predominantly single family but instead is predominantly multi-family housing. If you look at the numbers, I've heard the fellow from Rottlund Homes tonight talk about his product. He's talking about entirely a townhome product. Everything that is going in there, the cottage homes and the villas are a townhome product. So what we have left is a neighborhood, including ours, an extension of our neighborhood going down, that becomes predominantly multi-family. That was not the expectation that I had or that my neighbors had and that's not what it is guided for and is represented in the comprehensive plan. I think the issue before you tonight is whether or not you want to approve an amendment to the comprehensive plan that is such a fundamental and basic amendment to the plan that results in the transformation of an area that's been guided for low density into an area that will become high density and medium density. That is a profound change to the comprehensive plan, particularly in a community which has stated that it has a policy of being primarily a low density community consisting primarily of single family homes. As many of you probably know, the State legislature has recently enacted a statute which gives even more weight to our comprehensive plans, which says that we can't put in a zoning ordinance that is contrary to the comprehensive plan. Obviously the legislature believes that there is a lot to a comprehensive plan and as Cinda said, why put in our effort into this comprehensive plan if we're simply going to amend it every time a developer wants to make a change. I think reading through the comprehensive plan I was struck with the way it all sort of fits together. It's a web. In guiding the various areas for low density or medium density and high density, the other services in the community are tied to those densities. And by amending the plan and upping the densities, you're obviously making changes. Impacts to the schools, transportation and other things. Another reason not to amend the comprehensive plan. In conclusion I, on a personal note, I think I live in a wonderful community and a wonderful neighborhood and the kind of neighborhood that I think we ought to be trying to emulate. There are 50 or more kids under the age of 10. There's a lot of diversity. We have a lot of people. We have single parents. We have people from other places, other countries. It's an absolutely wonderful neighborhood. And I'm really, I'm happy and proud to live there. I think by doing what we see in this plan tonight and transforming this neighborhood from a single family neighborhood into a multi-family neighborhood, predominantly multi-family, there's a possibility to destroy that wonderful sense of community that we have here in Chanhassen and I hope you don't vote for that, thank you. Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Ken Weis: I'm a little taller. My name is Ken Weis. I live at 2101 Majestic Way. I'd like to talk a little bit about services. The gentleman from Rottlund discussed services in the fact that the community would be serviced by their own system, but the road is not specifically the problem. Today we have service problems with the growth of Chanhassen, specifically on the mail side. The delivery of mail is getting later and later in the evenings. Density of housing. As he suggested in his plan, we have multiple families in the area with a higher density in his proposal which creates a larger avenue of cars and activity, which just puts additional strain on Galpin, on the service roads and on Highway 5. We currently have, as you well know in the last couple days, several incidences of traffic accidents on TH 5 with the density. If you add another 150 homes over the normal allotted density, it creates that much more traffic. So Galpin will have to be expanded. Highway 5 will have to be addressed, so on and so forth. Thank you for your time. Any questions? Thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Jon Noeldner: I'm a little taller yet. My name is Jon Noeldner. I live at 7511 Crocus Court and all of you probably received a letter my wife and I authored dated January 6th. That was mailed to you. I just want to reiterate a couple points that my neighbors have made, and those being we're new neighbors to the neighborhood. We just moved in the end of October. Like the previous people who built there before us, we bought an existing home. I, myself went to the City Hall. Looked to check where the frontage road is going to be going. Looked to check how the land uses south of us was going to be, and at that time which was about 6 months ago I'd say, I was told this is zoned as this under the comprehensive land use plan, that's how it's going to be built up. Single family homes and I wasn't told anything else and that played a big important factor in us purchasing our home. I just wanted to reiterate that fact and hope that you vote not to approve this development. Thanks. Brian Monteith: I guess I'm short. My name is Brian Monteith and I moved in about 2 years ago February and I also authored a letter to you all and sent it to your homes, I hope you don't mind, dated January 6th, and I just wanted to say a couple things. I moved here from Washington D.C. area, the suburbs of Maryland where it's very, very highly dense population with a lot of development that went on, that's very similar to what's being proposed here. And just what I'd like to say is that the overall quality of life that we enjoy today in Chanhassen is going to be severely compromised if we're able to allow this to continue. And I state this because I know it because I've lived it and you really don't want to go through anything like that. It really detracts from the overall things that we take for granted today as being overall the part of life in Minnesota that we've come to enjoy since moving here. The other thing that I'd like to say is that the figures that were proposed earlier by the gentleman from Rottlund,. 1 kids per house in the Mission Hills development over there must be very, very highly questioned because once again coming from an environment where I came from, there were absolutely more than 2 kids per house in those types of homes and I just find it very hard to believe. The reason I bring that up is that the impact to the schools, Bluff Creek in particular, who if you've been there and if you have children that go there, you will know that they really can't even afford to have one more kid attend that school because it's over crowded as we speak. I haven't heard any plan, or I haven't seen anything that says that we're going to add additional schools in the time frame that would be consistent with the building of this development and I would urge you to take that into consideration. The last point that I'd like to make, which hasn't been brought up yet, is the overall impact to traffic in our neighborhood in Windmill Run. Today, in a typical summer, my children will be out with the other children in the neighborhood riding their bikes in the street. I think by extending the road of Windmill Drive into this new development, it will severely impact the overall affect of traffic increase in our neighborhood. What I think that does is a bigger issue than what we're talking about here, which is density. It puts my children and other children in danger and I am very much against that as a part of this overall development, so I would urge you to take my comments under consideration and hopefully voting this down. We moved to Chanhassen, very happy to live in Chanhassen but we didn't think we would be impacted by something like this and I believe us all to be reasonable people here. I'm not here for any other reason than to do what's right and hopefully you will be as well. So thanks. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Before we get too much farther, I guess I'd like to pause just for a second before anybody that would be in support of this, loses their fortitude to come forward. So if there is anybody in support of this project, I'd ask that they come forward now. I had to ask. Anyone else that would like to address the commission? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Fannakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Thank you all for your comments. Commissioners. Ladd, do you want to take a stab at this one? Conrad: Sure. Someday we'll get this land developed and we won't have to keep meeting like this. I appreciate, I think the last time you were in I said this and I'll say it again. I appreciate the work and effort you've done. It's always a pleasure when people present as well as you have and makes some good points. Again we're hit, and it's hard to tell you what we know and maybe we don't know much up here but it's hard to get into issues and get us out by 1:00. It becomes a balance. Obviously what we've got to do is figure this out. A few things, as I've always said, I really support neighbors and their neighborhoods and try to meet expectations. On the flip side of the coin, before I say too many positive things that way, Chanhassen really does have some problems. The housing diversity is, we don't have it. We're not providing the homes that we need to have so this plan, and I'll state up front in terms of PUD, is not bad. It's looking, if you can do PUD's, which we never get to do. We do cookie cutter things basically. That's what we do. That's how Chanhassen develops. Here's a chance on the positive side for Chanhassen to do something that's a little bit different. And again I heard you say a lot of valid points. It's just hard to not appreciate what you said. Yet, and it's easy to discount diversity but we don't get it. We don't get developers coming in here with diversity. Period. And when you do, you've got to take a look at it so, that may tell you, I'm not real popular today but I'm willing to look at this. From the standpoint. There are 50 some points of staff concerns. I guess what I'm saying tonight, I would entertain looking at this again. I'd sure be interested how City Council reacts to that because I think, as we talked about before, there were expectations and communications made and that always bothers me what people bought versus what we're thinking of doing if we make a change. Specifically on the plan, the concerns, I think we've talked about them but I'm just going to relate to my concerns that I saw here. Besides maybe the 50 some points that have to be addressed and some of them are template things in the staff report. The issues that I really have, when you get into mass, bigger projects like this is visual diversity and I tell you, that's a tough one to deal with. I really don't want, if we ever get into housing diversity in Chanhassen, that doesn't mean it's stamped out. It means that we have some variety here. I just don't want to put up quonset huts when we start building more of the lower income or townhome. The products that are selling, we don't have products in Chanhassen that are selling right now so that's why Rottlund's considering this. To put up things that are selling. That doesn't mean we have to take it. It's got to fit but on the other hand, we need the design alternatives and that's why I was asking some of those questions on design alternatives. I've got to be positive we're not putting in blocks here. There has, and I just have to be positive about that. Every time we preach bringing in denser things and every time you see it on paper it looks awful. I tell you, it scares you when you 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 see it all of a sudden, you see them all and you say well is that creative and is that whatever and it makes me nervous. Yet on the other hand, there's some nice things to what I saw. The overall, if we were to go forward with this, the overall density or the overall quantity of housing has to be under what it was originally guided for in terms of density, and I think the developer's coming back and saying those things so that's maybe not appeasing to the neighbors but it has to fit into what it originally was guided for, overall. The Hennessy property has to be incorporated. I think I heard some things that it is, but it, I wish it was part of this overall property. It looks like it's going to be a chunk out there that's not incorporated but that incorporation is important. The totlot was an issue with me. I really like, again you want places for people to recreate and gather and do those things. Whether it's the totlot or a gathering place, again every time you see a footprint of stuff like this, you say well where are people going to go? Well that leads me to the Bluff Creek aspect and Bluff Creek is the biggest asset this project has and I didn't see how it fit. There are a lot of words here that said we've got to do things but I just didn't see how Bluff Creek fit into the overall plan of this and that's got to come back. We have to see how it's integrated. We have to see how it becomes an amenity to Chanhassen and to this development and to everybody in the area. I need to see the Park and Rec recommendations on this also, and I don't think they've met yet. That's just, again that always bothers me when we don't get to see what they are talking about and incorporating it into what we see. We have to turn the ponds in this property into an asset. The holding ponds rather than just being there so I'd like to see how those can be turned into an asset. Those are my comments Mr. Chairman. Those are my comments. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff regarding the 92 twin homes. Is that still a possibility if this does not go forward? Generous: Sure, they can come in and final plat that. Skubic: Thank you. Aanenson: It does expire in. Generous: In March. Skubic: March 13th it says. I concur with what Ladd has said. That we certainly need some diversity in the city, but at the same time on this particular development we certainly are concerned about the neighbors and preserving their investments and I think their investments are both financial and emotional. I'm sure you're not pleased with what you see when you look out your back yard. It certainly has a price of some sort associated with it. I think that both the applicant and the residents have to make a better case. There is an economic sacrifice if this does go through as proposed here. I know it's talked about on both sides but I'm not convinced that this development will decrease the value of the homes in Windmill Run. Perhaps that can be quantified somehow. And I also agree that the Hennessy area, the homes around it should be single family or residential homes as opposed to what's there right now. I think I could support something, some sort of a PUD here. Not nearly as extensive as what we have here. One of my 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 concerns is, when I look out from Windmill Run and I look at the knoll area and I imagine all these symmetrical homes on a hill there that's not going to look like what you expected out there. It's not going to look like a single family development. So that's one thing that I would hope could be alleviated in some way so that the visual view on that knoll is more pleasing. I'm not sure what that means, probably single family homes. There's also questions about the contour required around Bluff Creek. I think there was a contour line of 966 feet and.., from the creek to that contour varies significantly and I understand part of it goes onto what was previously a cultivated field and I don't understand what benefit it would be to preserve the creek to have the preservation area extended to that area beyond the tree line. Regarding, more regarding the density, I suspect that with this development so close to the elementary school, that we probably would see a greater population of children in this area.., what the applicant has suggested. This is a different geographical location than what it was compared to I suspect. I don't, I doubt that the other ones were across from an elementary school. That's all I have to say. Peterson: Thank you. Kevin. Joyce: Well I'm a little more, a bit more familiar with this property than the other commissioners I think but I will try to be as objective as I can about my comments. First ofl} looking at this, maybe you fellows have more insight than I do but I'm totally confused. I've seen three plans so far tonight and I don't know which ones to follow. I mean we got a plan Thursday. I know I met with the developer and looked at another plan and then there was a plan presented tonight that took into consideration the Bluff Creek easement and I guess this is a conceptual plan but I look at it as kind of a conceptual, conceptual plan. I'm really kind of uncomfortable about it because I just, I think having 50 conditions like this, that the developer really is just kind of throwing something up and seeing if we'll bite is my feeling. I would have liked to have seen a lot more preparation. I think a couple phone calls could have reduced a lot of these conditions. Given us a better view of what they're trying to present to us. It's very difficult for me to take the three plans and incorporate them into something that, see what they're trying to do here. I know that Rick Murray tried to explain it verbally but well it's an important project I think. 50 acres with a PUD and I would have liked to have seen something a little more organized and I didn't see that tonight. So that was just I guess a consideration of the process itself. Specific points I'd like to address is that you have the 33 acres that are guided for low density and 17 acres are guided for medium density. We've already heard, obviously there were expectations from the neighborhood about what those 33 acres were to consist of. They thought, were led to believe, whatever that the lots were 15,000 square foot lots with 3 per acre. In actuality the City's guided the 33 acres at a maximum of 4 units per acre or lots of at least 11,000 square feet. I guess I'll revert back to the first plan. I looked at the single family portion of the first plan that had 34 single family homes on it and of those homes you had 5 of the 34 exceeded 15,000 square feet. 17 of the 35 were between 15,000 and 11,000. Then we had 12 of the, excuse me, 34. 12 of the 34 were below 11,000 square feet. So even in the single family portion of this development, over a third are below what we consider R-4 square footage. The plan also suggests putting, not only high density in the 17 acres that it's guided for medium density but it's actually putting 12 plexes, high density in something that's guided low density. I think that's a stretch. I have a very hard time considering a proposal which is just 8 plexes and 12 plexes on R-4 guided land. You know you're in essence doubling and tripling the guided density. I think that really should be 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 considered in any sort of conceptual plan. The developer's using a PUD to distribute the density inside this project area to get it to medium density. My opinions of, or ideas of what the intent of a PUD is, there are various that we get in our packet. Preservation, desirable site characteristics, sensitivity development in transitional areas, create a unified internal order. Gives us some flexibility for higher quality than a standard zoning district. It certainly allows for diversity of housing types that the City certainly does need. I think the PUD essence is really to enhance a property. That would be more than what normal zoning would allow for. And I think there should be a compelling reason to have a PUD. I think that's part of the idea of a PUD. That we're doing this for a certain purpose. The way I look at this project however, I don't see any green space. I don't see any gathering areas. To me it's really not that imaginative. It's certainly not that unique. And I see that the developer's using the PUD process to kind of use some mathematical gymnastics to put as many units as he can on this property to make it available for as many possible units as he can under the guise of a PUD. So I've got a problem with that. One aspect of this development that is addressed through the PUD is certainly the intent of the diversity of housing. Or I'll use that, how many letter word. More than four letter word, affordable housing that we hear so much about. I believe that's really the catalyst for this project. We all know the City is under a lot of pressure because of the mandate of the Livable Communities Act. I know that the planning stafl~ Kate and Bob, are under a lot of pressure by the goals that were set by the Metropolitan Council. I also know developers are eager to build these 8 plexes and 12 plexes because they're profitable and they're easy to sell. But if this is the only criteria we're using to develop these things and change comprehensive plans for the sake of diversity or affordable housing, I kind of see it as the tail wagging the dog rather than the other way around. I just, if that's the purpose for all our planning, what's left. There's property due east of this development that is guided medium density and high density, but once again going back to the PUD, I don't see the compelling issue why we have to change to an R-4 density up to medium density with pockets of high density in this area. I also don't think the citizens of Chanhassen that happen to live near or adjacent to an open field would have to worry about 12 plexes being rather close to their homes because, regardless of land use, because of this issue of affordable housing. I think the City has a comprehensive plan that should be followed. I think my neighbors made a huge decision, certainly the biggest investment of their life, and they use the comprehensive plan as a guide post and I think the City should live up to it's agreement with the people who bought in this neighborhood that the comprehensive plan will be followed. But I'm very uncomfortable moving this even past the conceptual stage and I would vote against it. Jeff Fannakes' microphone was not working and did not pick up his conunents. Peterson: ... direction you could give the developer. Farmakes: I would like to see these.., to put with, in other words not be cut off.., the point was made to the development to the east. That's an important point... We don't want to see a wall of high density corridor for 4 miles running down Highway 5. The point is that's probably what we're going to see based on what proposals are coming forward... Peterson: Thank you. My comments are not that dissimilar to my fellow commissioners. I think that I am actually not opposed certainly to having a PUD on this property, or on these properties. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 I think that there is strong potential of having that. What I have seen tonight I don't feel as though presents me with a compelling reason to rezone, particularly we talk, Jeff mentioned the Highway 5 corridor. I think that we are having this development in the Highway 5 corridor even puts a higher standard on what we put on that properly. That means that it needs to have a higher standard of a uniqueness that a feel is there within the design. I think that the single family homes were kind of left out of the conversation tonight. I do like the, I think the townhouses have... architectural lines. From my perspective they still may be a bit dense but I like the styles and the way they've integrated them into the contours of the land and they seem to have.., at least a certain amount of variety and I got some sense of that tonight. Again it's conceptual but I certainly want to see more definition to that before I move ahead. That was one part of the presentation tonight that I did find interesting. I too agree that the open space is an issue. The Hennessy properly is an issue. Bluff Creek integration, or the lack of integration needs to be worked on .... density of the villas.., closest and most visual to Highway 5 doesn't fit in there as densely as it is presented. I too, I think we need to do some more work before we move it onto Council. I don't think that I'm comfortable at least with.., something that is still at this stage of progress. With that, do I hear a motion? Joyce: I'd just like to throw this motion out. I don't know how far it will get but I'd like to throw the motion out that the Planning Commission deny this conceptual plan. Skubic: ..discussion? Peterson: I think we're going to need to. Comments to that. Skubic: That would mean it would be passed onto City Council is that correct? Aanenson: Correct. Skubic: If we table it it would come back before us and... Conrad: My preference is to get it to City Council. I think the neighborhood is here. They've expressed their concerns. Their concerns will stay the same. I'm interested in where the City Council would be in terms of their commitment to certain of the issues that this brings forward. And I don't want to, personally I don't want to screw around with it. If we don't see a commitment on their part to even consider this. So my recommendation would be to so note this case and to have staff2 I'm not making a motion right now, but I'm telling you if Kevin's doesn't pass. I would so note this without a recommendation pro or con but to have the developer and staff incorporate our comments and prepare better material for the City Council to review. And to get their feedback. We are in the concept plan right now and I think, I'm really interested in how much more time we want to use if the City Council's not interested in exploring a PUD. If they're not, I really don't want to, I don't want to fine tune this because we're going to be wrong. And these folks are going to be back and I guess my perspective is they should hear what the City Council has to say. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: Kate, this is not binding then? If this goes to City Council and they approve it, we can really come back to square one again, is that correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. Conrad: Yeah, we're not committing to anything Kevin. Joyce: Well that's my motion. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Is there another motion? Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission notes this planning case, whatever it is stafl} and recommends that the staff and developer works to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the recommendations that they heard tonight by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or to work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. Peterson: Is there a second to that motion? Skubic: Second. Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission notes PUD #96-4, The Highlands, and reconunends that the staff and developer work to prepare better materials for the review by the City Council and to incorporate the reconunendations that they heard by the Planning Commission and to eliminate or work out many of the 50 some points that were addressed in the planning staff's report. All voted in favor, except Joyce and Peterson who voted in opposition, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Peterson: Kevin, would you share with us your opposition. Joyce: I think Ladd made a good point. I think, in my opposition I have to ask you a question. Are you saying that you're denying this? Conrad: I said I've noted it. No, I have not denied it. Joyce: So how's this going to City Council? Conrad: The way you see it. The staff will work on it. They'll probably, I would assume the developer will have one firm plan presented. I would assume the developer and the staff will incorporate many, well I hope they'd incorporate some of the things that we've been talking about. You know I've got some issues on Bluff Creek and issues on gathering spots and what have you and Kevin you've got issues on, you've got a lot of issues. They probably can't incorporate those but views and vistas and design. You know my assumption would be that there's going to be some work done by the developer and staff to make the presentation a little bit more solid to the City Council. My hope would be that the City Council expresses some kind of 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 opinion about whether a PUD is appropriate here, and the densities. That's my, because there's no use in us screwing around with it if the City Council is not prone to doing this. And a lot goes back to communication that's had in the past and expectations and see how sensitive they are. They are the elected body and I guess I, normally I'd want to send up something a little bit better and I'd want to see what it is but right now I think there's some overriding issues that no matter what we do in terms of sending them a prettier piece of paper, the overriding issues may be more important than the specific detail that we have. Joyce: I agreed with your position on not tabling it. I think bringing people back in every Wednesday night to try and figure this thing out is not right. I feel that what you're saying though is a neutral stance and I can't vote for that so I have to take a negative stance to that. That's my reason. Peterson: My primary reason for voting nay is simply I would rather send a cleaner plan to, and ensure that the clean plan is going to Council prior to that and I can empathize with your position. I'm almost on the fence but I'm more biased towards sending Council a cleaner plans for them to review prior to. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate the comments. PUBLIC HEARING: SBA~ INC. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 150' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 1455 PARK ROAD. Public Present: Name Address Gary Ooll Jason Funk Terrie Thurmer Doug Cowan Michelle Johnson, APT 1455 Park Road 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: These power lines that come out here... A1-Jaflk It would blend in with existing electric poles that are behind that building. There's a row of electric poles back there. It doesn't have the reflection. When the sun shines on it, it won't be that bright reflection that you would see. Aanenson: Similar to what we did on the pedestrian bridge. We explored painting that. We actually looked at the two and there's actually less reflection when we left it. If you look at it, that actually kind of blends into the sky. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 A1-Jafl2 That's all I had, thank you. Peterson: Are there questions for staff'? Conrad: Is there barbed wire on this fence? A1-Jafl2 On? Conrad: On the fence. A1-Jafl2 On the fence. The last of the fence, it is barbed wire. There are three strands of that. Conrad: And that's legal? A1-Jafl2 Under a conditional use permit. It has to be 8 feet, yes. Actually I had to look that one up because I was under the impression that we couldn't do that either and I discovered that yes, they are permitted to do so as long as they apply for a conditional use permit. And as long as it doesn't, the overall height does not exceed 8 feet. Peterson: Meaning we don't have to approve the conditional use permit for the barbed wire. Aanenson: And findings why you don't want it, sure. Conrad: I guess I'd have to defer to staff's judgment on this. On barbed wire but I've never seen barbed wire on anything in Chan in the last 12 years so. Aanenson: We had one and we went to litigation on it. A residential area. Conrad: Really? It just, somebody could make a case I guess but, and actually this was not the one. The next one coming up with barbed wire is more of a concern to me but again I guess that one sort of bothers me. Peterson: Other questions? Joyce: I'll just, for what it's worth, as far as the landscaping. A1-Jafl~ Pardon? Joyce: I said for what it's worth as far as the landscaping and the arborvitae. I went away for Thanksgiving and came home and I had six beautiful arborvitaes in my back yard completely stripped by deer. Not a leaf on it. So I wished they develop my area behind my house so no deer come running through. I'm just throwing that out. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: No more questions? Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Terrie Thurmer: Hi. My name's Terrie Thurmer and I'm with Steven Bemstein and Associates. Their address is 7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 235 in Edina. I'm here tonight on behalf of Sprint PCS and I worked with your former planner, John Rask on the draft of your recently adopted ordinance from November. I just wanted to let you know that our proposal does meet all these requirements and it will be in compliance with all of the performance standards of the city, including the landscaping plan. As for the barbed wire, we don't care. If you want to not approve the barbed wire, it's not a big deal at all. My preference personally is it's ugly but you do what you want to do. With me tonight is Jason Funk. He's the sight selection specialist with Sprint PCS and if you have questions related to this specific site, he'll be glad to try to answer those. And I just wanted to add that the presentation in the staff memo by Sharmin was very thorough and I'm not going to be redundant. I just wanted to like to add that both SBA and Sprint PCS are in agreement with all the conditions, modified, being recommended by staff and ask if you have any questions for me or Mr. Funk. Peterson: Questions. Terrie Thurmer: Thank you. Peterson: May I have a motion to open this for public hearing. Conrad moved, Fannakes seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please do so now. Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing. Fannakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Jefl~ Farmakes: I don't have any questions. Peterson: Kevin. Joyce: No, I don't have any questions. Peterson: Bob. Skubic: The fence and the barbed wire are a little different than what I expected for these sites. I was expecting nice concrete buildings like we have for the lift stations. However in this location here where it's beiween the railroad grade and the loading dock, I'm not so concerned about that but I would like to remove the barbed wire. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: Yeah the same. Barbed wire I'd just rather not have there. The only other thing, and this seems funny that I'm concentrating on it. On the fence itself. When it's a chain link fence and there's not a top rail to it, that seems strange to me. So again there's some minor stuff but it doesn't look finished. It doesn't look you know, we've got a major facility here and we, I don't know. My recommendation is no barbed wire and then to finish the top of the fence off somehow. So it can feel more professionally looking, if that makes sense. Peterson: One more question came to me. What I asked of staff earlier today, is there a potential, even though this plan is not requesting it, but is there the potential for a building to be needed on this site? The future potential. Did you hear the question? Terrie Thurmer: Is the question is do we need a building? Peterson: Potentially. Is there the potential to need a building in the future? Terrie Thurmer: No. The equipment that we're using.., it's all the quality control inside the building. There is no need for a building. With cellular towers they had to have the air conditioning and all of that. These are self contained. We don't ever need a building with what we're proposing tonight. Peterson: Okay. My only comments would be that the detailed landscape plan be completed and agreed to by staff before it goes to Council. With that, is there a motion? Conrad: Sure. I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit #96-5 for the 150 telecommunication tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. Number 1, you're to add on the words before it goes to the City Council and then I'd add, I guess point number 6. That there is no, that the fence does not have barbed wire and that the fence has a better finishing top to it. Boy, isn't that well worded? Peterson: Very well. Conrad: Yeah thanks. Peterson: Is there a second to that? Joyce: I'll second that. Conrad moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit #96-5 for a 150 foot teleconununications 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 tower and an 8 foot chain link fence as shown on the site plan received December 11, 1996, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan before it goes to the City Council. The tower shall comply with requirements in ARTICLE XXX. TOWERS AND ANTENNAS of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The tower shall have a galvanized finish. 4. There shall be no artificial lighting or signage. The applicant shall submit documentation at the time of building permit application showing the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum separation distances between antennas. A description of the tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that can be accommodated should also be provided. There shah be no barbed wire on the fence and the top of the fence shah be changed to look finished. AH voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: AMERICAN PORTABLE TELECOM FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 135' TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER TO BE LOCATED AT 80 WEST 78T}~ STREET. Public Present: Name Address Gary Goll Jason Funk Terrie Thurmer Doug Cowan Michelle Johnson, APT 1455 Park Road 2900 Lone Oak Parkway, Eagan 7625 Metro Blvd., Edina 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington 1701 East 79th Street, Bloomington Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of stafl~ 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: There was no need for notification on this to anybody? There was no one within 500 feet I take it, because I didn't see any. Generous: It was notified. I just didn't, I forgot to attach that. Joyce: The only concern I have is looking at some of the residential areas that I know aren't 500 feet away and that's our policy to just, it concerns me that someone's going to look up in the air one of these days and see that thing and not know why it's up there. I don't know how, I don't have any direction on that but it's obviously, it's an issue. I mean you know. Aanenson: You're right. You're right. There's 20 names that were identified. Properly owners. Joyce: Okay. Conrad: Is it staff's feeling that this is not a visual issue at this location? It was a lot easier accepting a tower in an industrial area. Now we're in a commercial, residential, very easily seen from TH 101 and TH 5. Do we have so much pollution, visual pollution there already that the position is this ain't going to make any difference. Aanenson: The eastern end of the city was the, was what triggered the whole ordinance amendment. We knew that area was deficient. Providers have been, have identified this area as deficient as far as service. That's what kind of forced us to provide a mechanism for a tower being placed. We felt visually that this was probably the best, as far as aesthetic. We didn't want it right on the entryway to the City. It's interesting to know, we went back and we were looking at the high tension power lines that went through the city 10 years ago and there was a lot of discussion about the visual impacts. The negative side is we kind of lose, after a while we just get used to that negative pollution, which is kind of bad. We certainly don't want to encourage them but it's try to look at, but the building in front. Hopefully that would take away, the professional office building in front. Someoftheimpactsofit. Setting it back instead ofhaving it right on the comer of TH 5 and Dell Road. But certainly it's something we look at every time it comes in. Is this probably the best location we can get. Especially when we find there's another one in close proximity that wants to come in, which is the better of the two, even though one's ahead of the other .... 500 feet, it might be the people that are 1,000 out that might see.., more off'ended by it. But I guess I tie it back to when we went on the tour, we went down off of Lyman Road. The one that was there. A lot of people forget that that one was... Yes, to answer your question, we do try to look at... You've got to keep in mind that they need to get a certain topography elevation in order to make it work, but it is nicer putting it in an industrial park. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Is the applicant here and do they wish to address the commission? Michelle Johnson: My name is Michelle Johnson. I represent American Portable Telecom, which is also referred to as APT. It's located at 1701 East 79th Street, Suite 19, Bloomington, Minnesota, 55425. Also here with me tonight are Doug Cowan, John Barstow and Duke Winn representing APT if there are any further questions from our engineers or anything that come up. I think the staff has prepared a very thorough report. Rather than just duplicating everything I'd 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 like to comment on a couple of things that were raised here. First the barbed wire. We said we do intend to build an 8 foot fence but we have no problem eliminating the barbed wire from the top of that fence so that is no longer an issue. In the planning report there was a statement about the, a concern that there might be some encroachments onto some city easements. We're willing to configure the site so that it will not encroach upon any of those easements. As far as moving the site to about 50 feet away from those trees that were existing, we are willing to work with the staff on that as well. In our preliminary discussions with the property owner on that, he had expressed an interest in possibly removing those particular trees and replacing them with evergreens or something that would be a little more fuller because apparently he's had problems with those trees having to continuously cut them back in order to prevent them from going onto his parking lot and destroying that parking lot. So he did profess an interest in that so we might be able to work out something with staff and I guess I will have something a little more definite worked out before the City Council meeting on that. As far as the aesthetics point that was brought up, we do feel that because of the utility poles and the light poles and stuff that go along those highways there, it actually serves to lessen the visual impact of the tower. It's the vertical elements, just the series of vertical elements rather than if it was just out in a flat field where it'd be a lot more noticeable. When there are all of those other things, people tend to get very used to it very quickly and no longer notice it anymore. I don't have any further comments at this time but we are open to questions. Peterson: Questions from commissioners. Skubic: I have a question regarding co-location. You say that you're at the edge of your range right now at this location. Now if we co-locate somebody on there who might be 20 feet, the separation distance is 20 feet I believe it is. Will that further restrict their range and make it more difficult to co-locate? Michelle Johnson: Different systems require different heights on the towers. We are, our towers are capable of holding another system, another co-locator. That's another thing I wanted to mention that we are willing to provide that letter saying we're open to co-location, and we have had two companies express a preliminary interest in looking at that site to see if they could possibly co-locate on that in the future. It doesn't limit, because the systems are different, they require different heights of their antennas. They require different distances between the towers. So it really doesn't limit the ability to co-locate as far as other towers. Towers are only capable of holding a certain number of antenna structurally so it won't hold an infinite number of co-locators but depending upon the type of company that comes in, what height they need, we would be open to allowing them to work with us. Skubic: Thank you. Conrad: I guess I don't understand the plan. Is it, visually the previous one was a little bit easier for me to understand. On this site, in this area that's 35 x 30 feet, we have a tower and then what else? Maybe Bob you can answer. What is the building? Generous: It's not a building per se. It's like boxes. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Conrad: Okay. It's still similar to the other one then, that we just approved? Michelle Johnson: Yes it is. The cabinets are about the size of a vending machine so they're not in any way considered a building. They're about 3 x 5 x 3. Conrad: So the 40 meter monopole, that is the pole we're talking about right? Michelle Johnson: Right. Conrad: Okay. I get the schematic a little bit better. An arrow was going through what I thought was a building, not the pole. It runs through the building to the pole. No more questions, thanks. Peterson: My question is... but is in reality, are there going to be any cellular towers even put up that require buildings? Are the buildings essentially done with the progression of technology as we see it today? Michelle Johnson: I can't really speak for other companies. I can only speak for what we're doing. I know it depends on the technology for how much they need. The technology is progressing so that smaller and smaller buildings are required. So it's possible that no one will come in again asking for a big building but I can't guarantee that. It depends on what their system requires. If there's a cellular company still working. I know one of the ones we were talking to, they do require a building so. Generous: The Chairman of, the cellular tower next to this had a building. Joyce: How quickly after the approval process, how fast do these things go up? Is that a very quick process? Michelle Johnson: Maybe for construction I'd better refer to John. Joyce: You can answer from there. John Barstow: Yeah, we would.., immediately after we get approval... We'd have to get a permit and start construction. Joyce: How long, when would it be completed? John Barstow: A month. Joyce: It's like a month process then. Two weeks? John Barstow: ... dig the foundation. Wait a week for the foundation to carry the stacked steel.., so it's about 2-2 1/2 weeks... 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Peterson: Other questions? Thank you. Can I have a motion to open it for a public hearing and a second. Farmakes moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hearing. Peterson: Anybody that would like to make a presentation, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jay Littlejohn: I wouldn't go so far as to characterize this as a presentation. My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been before you many times. I represent Air Touch Cellular. We have the other application that has been filed. It is on the comer properly that is directly east of this. The pole that we need, I don't remember exactly, is it 76 feet or 78? Generous: 72 and then there's. Jay Littlejohn: It might be 76 or 75 to the tips of the antennas. The pole's considerably shorter. We are, we've been in touch with John and everybody else in this company and tried to work, to see whether it's possible for us to go there but I sense some trepidation as to whether this site is a good location as opposed to ours. There is that option open that perhaps they'd be on our tower as opposed to us on theirs. I don't know what your position is but mostly I'm here tonight to just answer questions as it relates to the other application if you're going to be looking at which one comes first or if it's just a matter of they filed their application first and so we'd be looking at going on their site. I'll throw that out. You can deal with it as you will. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to comment on that if you'd like our. Peterson: Please. Aanenson: ... lot for visual... Jay Littlejohn: That's all I have. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else like to make any comments? Seeing none, is there a motion to close the public hearing and a second? Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. Peterson: Comments from commissioners. Any comments? Joyce: Not really. The only reason I asked this fellow how long it would take to build it is I guess we'll get some feedback real quickly. There's really no other comments. It's certainly not as desirable a place as the industrial site. So I'm kind of interested in seeing how it goes, how it's received but I don't have any problems with it. Peterson: Bob. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Skubic: Looks good without the barbed wire on there. This is, I think a little more visible site than the previous one. I think we have good landscaping around this fence here. More so than the previous one. Peterson: Ladd. Conrad: I'm kind of uncomfortable. This is not my vision for where these towers were going to be, and I do agree. I'm not going to, we've got some towers, we've got some utility poles that are just, it's terrible that we have utility poles, power poles running up and down TH 5 the way we do but, and I think visually from TH 5 this may fit in but I guess I can't see it and I've got to say that I didn't go there today to try to figure this out. The other area I felt real comfortable with. This one I'm just really, it's fitting into neighborhoods. It's fitting into traffic areas and I can't tell. I guess that's my bottom line. I just don't know. I didn't see a landscape plan which we don't require for this. There was some verbiage about landscaping but it really, I just don't, I just have a real funny feeling that I'm approving something that I really don't know what I'm approving. And maybe that's my fault folks for not going out and taking a look. I know the site very well you know. I know the site very well. I've just not gone out there with the express thought of saying, how does a 130 foot pole fit here and what's the visual impact. So I don't know. I can't make a real good. I think the stafl's comments are right. I think there can't be any barbed wire. I'm nervous about how finish looking this looks. But on the other hand I don't know who's going to see it other than the apartment buildings. But if they see it, I want it looking decent so I don't know. I'm sorry for such bad, not expressing myself better on that but I'm not real comfortable. Peterson: Jefl~ Jeff Farmakes' microphone was not working and his comments were not picked up on tape. Peterson: I agree with Ladd. I really want to protect the Highway 5 corridor as much as we absolutely can but I have a sense that we really can't do anything about it. Aanenson: Well like I say, we know that this area is the area that we're deficient, even in city use. If you look at what's there in that area. If you put it on the south side, even on the south side of TH 5, you've got residential back up there. You're limited so. Joyce: There is no option. You're going to have a pole somewhere. Aanenson: It's not the best place to put one from the beginning so if you were to take, taking that position, there's no good place. This is the next best. You've got residential behind all the areas there. Peterson: Other that that, I think the comments other commissioners made about landscaping, and integrating that formally into the conditions... With that, do I have a motion please? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 Joyce: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #96-6 for a personal communications service wireless telecommunications facility, including 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom subject to conditions 1 through 7. 7 being a formal landscaping plan. Peterson: Is there a second? Skubic: Consider a friendly amendment to alter number 5 to completely exclude barbed wire from the fence. Is that necessary staff'? Aanenson: That's fine. I think if you want to just make sure that's clear. Joyce: I'll certainly accept that. Skubic: I'll second it. Peterson: Any discussion? Joyce moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #96-6 for a personal communication service (PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including a 135 foot monopole tower and associated equipment at 80 West 78th Street for American Portable Telecom, subject to the following conditions: Filling within the City's drainage easement shall be prohibited. If the site improvements encroach upon the City's drainage easement, the applicant and property owner shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The applicant shall escrow $50.00 with the City for drafting and recording of the agreement. 2. Ground mounted equipment shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation. The applicant shall document that the tower is designed structurally, electrically and in all respects, to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. 5. Barbed wire at the top of the fence shall not be permitted. Applicant shall move monopole site to the west to reduce tree removal and visibility of equipment. 7. A formal landscaping plan must be submitted before it goes to City Council. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 All voted in favor, except Conrad who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Conrad: And let me just make a note. I think when we, and this goes back to policy here. When we put something like this that's so visible in a very public area, I need far better materials than I got tonight. This just does not do it. It just, we're putting, because it's a technical product we're assuming it's just going to technically fit in and I don't buy that and that's a, I need a landscaping plan which Kevin's got in there now but I just have to see how this fits better. I think we need better presentation materials when something like this comes in. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The City Council did approve the site plan for Jay Kronick, the greenhouse with the addition to the retail space. They also approved the first reading of the wetland ordinance. So that can go on for second review... If I could maybe just take a minute and talk about ongoing items. Our next regular meeting will be February 19th. To let you know what's on. We're doing a minor comp plan amendment regarding wetland. When somebody can extend a wetland permit that's not recorded. Just a minor change on that. We'll be looking at the Legion site as far as a site plan review. That will be a big item. Conrad: What's going in? Aanenson: Restaurant, ... bank, strip center. Conrad: Do you like it? Aanenson: Yeah. I think it's moving the right direction. Just so you're aware of it. There is somebody working on trying to put the car dealership on the property right next to it, which is the Mortenson piece which will probably be in March. At this point staff has said that they wouldn't support the recommendation but they're still going to go forward with it so, just so you're aware of that. Peterson: Is it the same people but a different? Aanenson: Correct. Same people. Same people, different location. Then we continue to work on some other large projects, including the Gateway property. They're going to come in and do a PUD. That will be for the 19th. We do have a work session scheduled for the 5th and that will be in the senior center. You'll get a notice. It will probably start earlier. Just to let you know what we're looking at putting on there. I want to go through with you the comprehensive plan process. We'll be updating the comprehensive plan for 1998 to get in compliance with the State law. Kind of laid out a plan and we'll be meeting with Mark Koegler. We've actually done quite a bit of it already but we want to kind of explain you the process... Also lay out for you the process we'll do for the Bluff Creek. We're calling it the overlay district but the implementation of that and the process we'll take for that. Also Bob's finished doing the past, present and future trends going on 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 1997 to share with you where we are as far as development trends. Some of the information that we've gathered as far as, not only population but housing. Where we are in meeting your goals. Kind of give you a check and balance on that. Another thing that was brought up, kind of a continuation of last year. Just discussion that kind of kicked off with the Post Office docks in industrial/commercial and abutting residential. Those standards. Looking at that. Also we talked about the PUD ordinance. Discussion of what we've looked at that. And then also just to talk about some goals. Kind of carry over what we did last year. Kind of a review. What we accomplished last year and then kind of establishing what you want to look at into the next year. So we do have a pretty full plate but I think it will be a good meeting. So that's for the 5th. And again we'll send an agenda out to you... Oh, one other side note. Hopefully on the 27th Council will be able to interview potential Planning Commissioners and we should hopefully have everybody on board for that 5th meeting. That would be kind of nice. Conrad: We saw some great candidates tonight. Aanenson: You need to approve the Minutes too tonight. Peterson: I was interrupted. Aanenson: I'm sorry. I just kind of zinged right past there. Peterson: Would somebody note the Minutes from the last meeting please. Joyce moved, Skubic seconded to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 1996 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: Ongoing items? Aanenson: I don't have anything unless you had something you wanted to share with me. Peterson: Is there a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Skubic seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 39