Loading...
Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 20, 2003 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Kurt Papke, and Bethany Tjomhorn STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; Mak Sweidan, Engineer, Angle Auseth, Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Bob Mastad Jason Osberg Peter MacDonagh Kathy & Larry Schroeder Andy Kayati Tim Moore A1 Gomez Cy Kerber Linda Peterson Doug Schroeder Jon Turner Sue Suter Carl F. McNutt Ella & Herb Kask Scott Pharis Brian Carney Mary Frey Carrie Krych Chris & Leslie Erickson Dennis & Ann Baker Eric Theship Rosales Tom Cook C. Hicks K.H. Brackelsberg Troy Pappas Bill Jensen Maria Strand Lois Degler Kent Ludford Brian Grundhofer Deb Lloyd Ann Nasset Mike Solheim Sathre-Berquist Tollefson Development Inc. Kestrel Design Group 7720 Frontier Trail 8715 Valley View Place 1812 Valley Ridge Trail 8748 Valley View Place 8743 Valley View Place 2040 West 65th Street, Excelsior 1361 Sunridge Court 2051 Boulder Road 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard 185 Pleasant View Road 115 Pleasant View Road 1815 Valley Ridge Trail 6566 Shadow Lane 1822 Valley Ridge Trail No. 2127 Boulder Road 1831 Sunridge Court 9219 Lake Riley Boulevard 9201 Audubon Road 2037 Boulder Road 1941 Crestview Circle 1961 Crestview Circle 1961 Crestview Circle Town & Country Homes 8631 Valley View Court 1630 Lyman Boulevard 8615 Valley View Court 185 Pleasant View Road 7302 Laredo IRS/1780 Hillshire Lane Integrated Real Estate Service Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAKESHORE, SIDE YARD, LOT AREAl LOT WIDTH~ AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 9221 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD~ TOM AND SUE SUTER. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Lillehaug: I can start. Since the existing garage is at 2.4 feet now, does that mean that they are also extending the 11.5 foot portion of the house the 2.4 foot then? Auseth: The 2.4 is going to go back to 3.3, and then the 11 lA will go to 3.3 as well. And then it will go in after that. Lillehaug: So they're revising the garage? Auseth: Just the eaves on the garage. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff?. Slagle: I just want a clarification. The impervious surface that we were working with before was what, for my. Auseth: It's 35 percent. Slagle: No, what was it before? The last meeting we were at. Auseth: 34.9 percent. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: The proposal was? Auseth: It's 6 square feet. Sacchet: It was over 40 last time. Auseth: Oh I'm sorry. The proposed? Sacchet: Yes. Auseth: I'm sorry, it was 41 percent. I apologize. Claybaugh: I have a couple questions here. Let's see here. You identify that we're measuring to the eaves for the setbacks. Has the extent of the eaves, whether it was 1 or 2 foot overhang, has that been changed? Auseth: On the garage. Claybaugh: Has the actual footprint any closer? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Auseth: The footprint is 1 foot in from the eaves. Claybaugh: Okay. Is that what it currently is and what is proposed for that setback? What I'm trying to determine is if the eaves have been shorten up but the footprint is still closer to the property line. Auseth: We did not address the eaves last time so. Claybaugh: I'll address that to the applicant. Secondly there was a handout here for us when we got to the meeting here from Kestrel Design and I'm not sure if I should address this to the applicant but I'll give it a try here with staff. It says that the, due to the hard surface intensification above the city standard of 25 percent, we'd identified that they were 35 percent over the hard surface coverage and I was just trying to correlate that 25 percent figure on this report wondering, the applicant as well. Alright, that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Bruce, any questions? Feik: Yes I have a few. Page 7. The top. First line in the fa:st paragraph you talk about this is enhancing the structure. That' s really sort of a misnomer. It' s really a new structure is it not? Auseth: Yes but the garage is existing so it's an existing lot of record. Feik: But what we are, the proposal envisions raising the entire existing residence, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Feik: Also on page 7, the second paragraph. The second to last line we talk about the applicant is proposing to decrease the east side yard setback. Do you really mean, are we, let's see. Decreasing the variance or are we increasing the setback? Auseth: It was at 3 foot 3 currently. Feik: And it will be going to 5. Auseth: It will be going to. Feik: So we'd be decreasing the variance. Auseth: Decreasing the variance. Feik: Or increasing the setback. Auseth: Decreasing the variance. As well as the setback. Feik: Increasing the setback. Auseth: Oh sorry, yes. Sorry. Sacchet: The good thing. It's getting better. Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: And then we spoke today. Would you please summarize, if you would, our brief conversation regarding the eaves and the setback requirement and how the eaves can and cannot project in that setback please. Auseth: Sure. When the house was built, the eaves could, even though there's a variance, the eaves could encroach 2 ½ feet into the setback. Currently as the code reads, Section 20-908, if there is a variance granted eaves cannot encroach into the setback, which is why we are measuring all setbacks from the eaves rather than the footprint. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? Papke: Yeah I have a question about the hard cover. We're down to 35 percent. Do we care where on the lot that hard cover is? It seems as if by moving the house back away from the lake, the pervious area is now closer to the lake. Does this make any difference in our consideration? Auseth: It's beneficial to have the impervious surface away from the lake. Papke: Okay. So from that aspect, beyond just the number, we also are improving where the impervious surface is located? Auseth: Correct. Aanenson: That' s where the staff came down for the favorable recommendation. Papke: Right. Sacchet: Any questions Bethany? Just to be real clear. It appears to me like the applicant's addressed all the concerns we had when this came in front of us and actually improved all, and dramatically improved the impervious surface and improved also the other ones. Is that a reasonable statement to make? Auseth: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. That's all the questions. Thank you. If the applicant wants to address the commission, make a presentation, please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Please speak into the microphone. Tom Suter: Yeah, Tom Suter and I've got a couple other people here, if you could come up. Peter MacDonagh and Dale Mulfmger. Dale was the architect on the project. Peter's the environmental design landscape architect that's on the project that we've since added to the team. At the last meeting this handout that I provided tried to summarize the key issues that the committee brought up at the last meeting from a summary perspective and let me try to address those. Hard cover. We reduced the hard cover from the prior request of 41 percent to a 35 percent level which is what the existing hard cover is. We changed the, and the way we did that is we changed the patio area nearest the lake to become a pervious surface. Now we're going to address some other materials but Peter will address that. We changed the walkway to the lake making it impervious with possible exception of the stair steps. We do that for safety reasons so we don't have some safety issues there, and we're changing the walkway from the garage to be a Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 partial pervious surface as well. On the lakescaping and landscaping, which was also brought up at the meeting, we have since submitted a letter as part of the packet which you have which addresses our interest and desire to deal with a lakescaping strategy and to develop both the in water as well as out of water buffer zones to address that. We've since then also retained Peter and the Kestrel Design Group which has extensive experience with wetland, lake and restoration projects and design characteristics. We've dealt with the tree issue which was raised next to us to the southwest, which was on the Hamilton side. We've had 3 separate arborists show up. Give us opinions on that. We've also solicited input from Jill, the city arborist and we've come away with a final conclusion at this point is that several of the trees need to be trimmed and pruned. They'll all be retained at this point until we stake the yard, and stake the house at which point between Jim and Laura Hamilton and Sue and myself will come up with a proper determination of how to deal with it. At the time we met with Jill, because of the nature of the trees, the type of trees, Jill's recommendation was actually that they could be probably removed. They're not a good tree. We could replace it with something of better quality but since we don't own those trees, that would not be a proper recommendation since that was not written into the report. Setbacks and overhangs, all the current plans currently identify the overhangs and their impact on setbacks because of the request. Current setbacks have been changed and it's referenced in the staff report. We do have to go back beyond the current garage structure for transitional area for support and some other interior characteristics which Dale can certainly address, and then we bring it in off of that previous setback to improve the intensification on the southwest side. We've also brought in from the east side, from the Baker side and brought it in and tried to minimize the impact over there. The overall height of the structure which wasn't brought up at the meeting but needed to be addressed, after doing the illustrations Dale's group came back and our feedback right now is that we're at 29 feet 6 inches, measured the way the city wants it measured against I think the standard or the maximum's 35 feet. So we're well within that. The other side note that we want to make here, which I think is important to understand is that our desire is to not just take the home, demolish it and turn it into the landfill. Fill material. My wife along with others are working on a demolition strategy that is incorporating support from the Green Institute, from a recycling perspective so that we can recycle and reclaim as much of the current structure as we can so that it's just not going in and being trashed in a landfill, and we're quite a ways down the path on that. At that point I'd like Peter to address his handout that he put together for us which starts to address the landscape, the lakescaping issues at a high level and some of the things that we've at least in concept have agreed to. Since we've only been in a contractual relationship with Peter's organization for about 2 weeks now, we don't have that much finely detailed but we can talk about the concepts that we plan on using. Peter MacDonagh: Peter MacDonagh. Hello commissioners. With the Kestrel Design Group. Adjunct faculty of the University of Minnesota Landscape Architecture Department. The four issues that we addressed in terms of the hard surface and trying to mitigate those was using infiltration, evaporation, detention and retention of the runoff. The first item that we looked at was mitigating some of the roof runoff and we plan to harvest some of that with cisterns. As it says here in the report, that would be incorporated into the architecture, so it would be screened and that would be used for gardening purposes. Rain gardens, so downspouts. Some of the water that will be harvested from there will be in rain gardens. Rain gardens are very shallow retention basins for lack of a better term but they're only about 6 inches tall and they typically dissipate the water within 72 hours so it's not a mosquito breeding deal. Then the access path to Lake Riley. I have to mention that. What we have in mind is an organic substrate. Something that again has a high infiltration rate. Higher than turf grass and as Tom mentioned, the steps for safety purposes would need to be a hard surface. And then the other two, or other three items, side yard, sidewalks and back yard patio. We are currently investigating Ecostone which is a pervious pavement is another word for it. Ecostone just happens to be a proprietary product and it will Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 mitigate it's runoff for about 70 percent of storm events. It's a higher infiltration rate than turf grass. It will mitigate. It will take a 1 inch to 2 ¥2 inch rain event. That's a long term number. In the front end it's going to take a lot more than that before the bed gets saturated. So it's outwardly appearing as a hard surface but it's self mitigate. And the other items that we're going to be looking at is lakescaping. Currently there is no buffer on the lake, and we are planning, the owner is planning to put buffer where none currently exists, and incorporate into the buffer, we also will have some of these rain gardens. They'll be an appropriate landscape solution. Not a wild land look but more of a biomorphic garden look. And so as I said, that will be above the ordinary high water level so it will mitigate more runoff from the lot. And then the last part is that the owner is willing to have the house function as a demonstration site for some of these techniques and as a person who promotes these in our work, this is an unusual thing and we are very glad that he's willing to do that, and that's an opportunity I think for Chanhassen to use it first as a lakescaping demonstration area. For the lake in general and Chanhassen in particular. Or in general rather. And then the other item is some of these infiltration measures that I've outlined. Any questions? Papke: Could you define biomorphic for me? Excuse my ignorance. Peter MacDonagh: It's organic shapes rather than a Euclidian geometry. How'd I do? Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just wanted to address something in the report here. Let's see here, with the second paragraph down. It says surface intensification above the city standard of 25 percent and I was just trying to correlate those figures. I had 35 percent in the staff report that we were over. Tom Suter: My understanding is that the city standard is 25 percent and since we knew that going in that we were over the current, we're 10 percent over I think on the existing structure, we felt that it was important that we went maybe beyond what would be ordinary and customary from the landscaping perspective. That's why we brought Kestrel Group in to help deal with the fact that we are over 25 percent limit. Did that? Claybaugh: Yes. The cisterns, are those above grade or below grade? Peter MacDonagh: They're above grade. Claybaugh: They're above grade. What type application are you considering for that? Peter MacDonagh: The most common retrofit is a rain barrel but these, they're something like that. They have a spigot on them and gravity flow. Sacchet: Any other questions? Anything else from the applicant? Actually I have a question. Now just to be clear, you pointed out that the partially pervious/impervious surface they were actually calculated as impervious for the calculations. Or how did that work? Really more a question for staff but I think you implied that even though they were partially pervious, they were still calculated into the figures for impervious? Correct? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: And then the other that's more an architect question. You're actually changing the roof of the garage or you're just taking off the part of the eave or what are you going to do there? Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Dale Mulfinger: I'm Dale Mulfinger with Saul Architects and also the University of Minnesota. What we' re trying to do is create a look of a story and a half house as viewed from the street and a one story with walkout as viewed from the lake side. So to the extent that the house rises, if you will, 3 floors. By that I mean basement, first and second, that only occurs if you will in the middle of the house and neither from the lake nor from the street will you see the highest portion of the roof. Getting back to your specific question regarding the garage. Yes, we're taking the low roof off the garage and we're putting a habitable roof, by that I mean the equivalency of a storage truss, over the garage so it's living in the roof. It's not literally a one full floor. Sacchet: So he gets a new roof and you make it more functional in the process. Dale Mulfinger: Yes. Sacchet: That answers the question. Tom Suter: And then shrinking the overhang... Sacchet: To bring it in, got it. Claybaugh: As long as we're addressing architectural details. Coming back to the overhang. As staff stated previously, I just wanted to clarify as we're measuring to the eaves previously, that wasn't the requirement. I'm curious as to where the footprint on the existing building is in relation to the lot line. How is that changing? Tom Suter: The garage is staying where it's at because of the foundation. Claybaugh: Right, I understand that. Tom Suter: We're salvaging that. In the previous report it was written that it was a 4.4 foot setback. It was then brought to the attention that the eaves had to count against that which is why the number became 2.4 because it's 2 foot eave on the house today. But if you take the...out of the picture for a minute because there's some confusion with that. Claybaugh: But is the footprint any closer to the lot line is what we're trying to clear up. Tom Suter: The back end of the garage we're having an extension piece of somewhere between 9 and 11 feet and then at that point we're coming in a foot to a foot and a half further than what. In the past, in the previous it was going to be a straight line, if you will, all the way down. Now we bring it in a foot to a foot and a half down that side. So we tried to minimize the intensification which was raised at the prior meeting. Claybaugh: Right. Tom Suter: But without, if we bring it in much further you pretty much compromise the structure internally with having it usable. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: If there are no further questions, do you have anything more to add? Thank you very much. Now this is not a public heating, since it' s an old item of business but if anybody from the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 public would want to address this item, please come forward at this point. State your name and address. Please sir, if you want to. Yeah, from up there please, if you don't mind. If you want to state your name and address for the record please. Dennis Baker: My name is Dennis Baker and I live at 9219 Lake Riley Boulevard which is on the east side of the subject property. All I'd really like to say is I've talked to the Suter's and feel that what they plan to do is definitely an improvement in the property. The property presently is too close to the lake, which is the most important thing. To the point where you can almost fish off their deck. And they're going to improve that. They're going to improve the lakeshore and the design of the house is very appealing and my wife and I have 50-60 feet between our house and the property line on the east side of the subject property, which is plenty of buffer. So I'd just like to say I hope you approve it for him. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak to this item? Doesn't appear to be so I'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments? Discussion. How about we start with you Craig. Claybaugh: First off I'd like to compliment the applicant by addressing the issues that we raised so thoroughly, comprehensively. It would always be nice to see more progress but certainly given the effort that you've put into it I feel that I can support it. I still struggle with the square footage on the property, having gone to a two story. But at this stage I am prepared to support it. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: First off I'd like to say that I don't think I've ever seen an applicant put as much detail and work and effort into their plan. If it looks as if, the renderings that we saw last time looks, it's going to be gorgeous. But I would like to go through the staff report a little bit as it relates to the findings because I'm having some difficulty. Is there a hardship? Well, the property already has reasonable use. I go down to number C. Does it increase the value of the property? Absolutely. Go down to number D. It is self created. I look at this as if a new construction. Would we approve this if this was a new construction. We are raising the entire existing habitable structure, and I don't think we would approve this if it was a new structure. I think it's too much on too little land and I can't support it as it is. I think it's gorgeous. I think, I'd love to live there. I said that last time but I think it's too much on too small of a piece of dirt so I cannot support it as presented. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Steve. Lillehaug: I agree with Bruce. The applicant's increasing the house size right now, like Commissioner Feik said. They do have reasonable use of that property based on the existing size of the house. As indicated, they are trying to minimize the intensity on the west side, but you're still increasing the intensity of the non-conformance on the west side. No matter how we look at it, it's increasing the non-conformance and that goes against the ordinance and I do not support it. It's awfully close to that property line. You indicated that you want to use this as demonstration purposes, which is great but I don't want to use it as a demonstration purpose to show how we go in direct conflict with non-conformances and increasing them. I do not support it. And I hit on this last time also. When I looked through this report there's a table in here indicating adjacent properties and their non-conformances. By looking at that table I don't know if they were variances that were granted with the property when it was developed or if they were after the fact variances so that's why I have a hard time attaching these after the fact variances for the non- conforming lot with this property because if we grant these variances that are already due to the Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 non-conformances on the size of the lot, then we're kind of setting a standard here that it really doesn't indicate. Give us any indication of were those variances attached when the property was developed or are they after the fact because I don't, maybe Roger our city attorney would disagree with me but I won't support granting those after the fact variances in there. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich. Slagle: I just have a couple thoughts. First and foremost, I would comment the applicant and his team for their thorough work, with the exception of the side yard setbacks, I would like to use it if we could as a model because I do think the sensitivities of the lake are being taken into consideration. The setback from the water. The improvement if you will of that I think is really what's driving me to support this, along with in tandem the concerted effort, I mean really almost beyond what I've seen before of this applicant and his team so I'm prepared to support staff's recommendation. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt. Papke: Beautiful project. I just have one question. I'm not quite clear on the historical precedence here. Have there been any other properties along Lake Riley Boulevard there that have been tear downs and re-builds to this extent? I'm just not quite clear. I'm very sensitive to the precedence issue but I just want to make sure I'm clear being a new commissioner here tonight as to what you know, has there been a previous precedent of a similar nature. Aanenson: Sharmeen's worked probably on most of those variances so her indication is, they've either been additions or tear down' s. It's similar to some of the ones in Carver Beach that are on the lake. Papke: Okay, so in the table here all of the...issue, this would not be setting a new precedent of that nature? Aanenson: That's an opinion you could form, sure. Papke: That's it. Sacchet: Bethany, do you have something to add? Tjomhorn: Well I'm coming on the tail end of this. I was here actually for the first presentation so I remember a little bit of what happened and I just think it's an improvement to the community. I think it's an old property and I like what you're doing with it. I like making things better. I like that you've paid so much attention to the lakeshore and the natural habitat around it and so I'm inclined to support staff' s recommendation. Sacchet: The concerns that were raised by Bruce and Steve, the hardship, the self created, I would interpret those to be pre-existing. And I would agree with you Bruce that if this would be a new applicant we would not be able to approve it. However, the situation is pre-existing. It's a hardship that it's a non-conforming lot. It's a non-conforming structure and I would argue that the non-conformance is reduced because I think the most sensitive non-conformance is the lake setback. I mean the main concern for the city is the distance to the lake. I mean that's the most critical thing and that's dramatically improved and considering that every other one of the non- conformances have been to some extent mitigated with the revision of the plan, I'm definitely in support of this proposal. Yes, it does increase the value of the property but I would argue that if Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 changes are not made for the prime purpose of increasing the value, I mean the owner is doing that to live there. To improve the property to live there. Not to improve it to get a monetary gain. And I do want to commend the applicant for really addressing all the concerns we brought up last time. I mean that in itself is exemplary and needs to be commended so I'm in very strong favor of passing this. So with that I am willing to take any more discussion. Feik: Well I guess I'm wondering what is, what's the compelling reason here? We're bringing the house back from the lake. That's a good thing. Sacchet: Definitely. Feik: Every other variance is increasing. Every other variance is increasing. I don't see any compelling reason here. Sacchet: I wouldn't agree that the other ones are increasing. Feik: The side yard setbacks are getting smaller. The footprint of the property is getting larger. I don't see quite frankly the compelling reason to go forward. Sacchet: Maybe I missed something. Feik: And please help me out here because I'm having a tough time with this one. Sacchet: Let's address this. Lillehaug: If I can add too. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: We had a resident to the east say that his buffer and setback was increasing between the houses. I wish we would have heard from the resident on the west because it's the opposite for that house. Feik: Yes it is. Lillehaug: So with my concern is the non-conformance is increasing on that side of the property is that property owner, you're increasing the length of the house on that side and increasing the intensity of that non-conformance on that one side of the property line. So yes, I agree that it's great to move this house away from the shoreline, but you're adversely affecting that direct adjacent property and that's one of my, that's my main concern. Feik: I would prefer to see the applicant buy 10 feet from the neighbor to make it work. Sacchet: I don't know whether 10 feet helps the other side frankly. Feik: This is 10 feet. Sacchet: I would argue that the setback is not really intensified in terms of how much setback there is. It's intensified over how long a stretch there is a closer setback. Is that an accurate statement to make? And that was one thing that was held against the applicant last time when 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 this was in front of us, and I do believe that the applicant made a sincere effort to reduce that encroachment. Feik: Oh I don't disagree with the effort. Sacchet: In that sense I think there is a balance between the intensification and the mitigation. And that weighed against the big plus with taking the house back that I think that's where I'm balancing. Craig, do you want to add something? Claybaugh: Yeah I'd like to just direct the commissioners to page 4. Come back to the permitted use. One of the things that we spent a little time on at the first meeting, and haven't covered this meeting was what the definition of standards for single family dwelling are in 2003 versus what they were in 1951 when this structure was built. Okay, time hasn't stood still. The standards haven't remained the same so to say that the applicant has reasonable use by today's standards, that point can be argued. Granted, it is a single family dwelling. So on and so forth. It has different attributes for a single family dwelling, and the benefit but are they of today's standards? Okay. The house was built in 1951. It's reasonable to think that something is going to have to happen to that structure in the near future. It's not going to remain as is. We run into this situation around Carver Beach fairly frequently. It's just they are undersized lots. It's a difficult situation to address. We struggle with these each time but that's the point that carries the most weight with me is that by today's standards it's reasonable for them to want to place a new structure on there with increased square footage. I identified that, I struggled with the extent of the square footage. Having it be a two story with the size of footprint, but I do assign a lot of weight to the upper and the mitigating factors that the applicant has introduced to the project and for me it balances out. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Feik: One quick comment and then I' 11 be quiet. Sacchet: You can always vote against it. Feik: Just for a rebuttal for what you're saying is, our ordinance says what is acceptable is 600 square feet and they clearly have 837 in the existing structure so I would state that it certainly does have a reasonable use. Claybaugh: But that's 600 square feet for a two story, 960 for a rambler. Feik: With that, thank you. Sacchet: You can stand on your point. I appreciate that. Any other points? With that I would like to have a motion if possible. Claybaugh: Make a motion. Sacchet: Please. Claybaugh: Make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance #2003-7 for the 13,535 square foot variance. It encompasses the first paragraph with conditions 1 through 6. Sacchet: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion and a second. Slagle: I have a point of clarification. Sacchet: Need clarification, okay. Slagle: With that change of eaves from the 4.4 to 2.4, is that taken into consideration in this first paragraph? So we're not missing anything. Sacchet: Good point. Aanenson: You referenced the plans dated in the staff report. They would reflect the correct dimension if you want to reference those in the motion for clarity. Sacchet: Okay, so it refers to the right plan. Okay. Claybaugh moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance 92003-7 for a 13,535 square foot variance from the 20,000 square foot minimum lot size; 55 foot variance from the minimum 90 foot lot width requirement; a 38 foot variance from the 90 foot lake shore width; a 6'8" foot variance from the 10 foot west side yard setback, for the first 11.5 feet of the house only then reducing the setback to 5 feet for the eaves; a 4-5 foot variance from the 10 foot east side yard setback; and an 18 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the reconstruction of a single family home on an existing 6,465 square foot lot based upon the f'mdings in the staff report and based upon the following conditions: A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or the variance shall become null and void. . The submitted survey shall be signed by a licensed surveyor, engineer, or landscape architect and shall include: a north arrow; show a 12 inch or greater trees on the site and along the neighboring property lines; and the existing shed to the east. . No grading within 37.5 feet of the Ordinary High Water elevation. Type m silt fence must be provided during demolition and during construction on the lake side. Type I silt fence shall be installed along the side property lines. Silt fence shall be removed when the construction is complete and the site has been revegetated. . As part of the building permit submittal, a grading, drainage and erosion control plan must be prepared for city review and approval. . The applicant shall use all reasonable means to protect and save the trees along the western property line. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. A landscape plan must be prepared for city review. 6. Develop and install a landscape and lakescape plan. All voted in favor, except Feik and Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 2. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO BRING IN FILL IN EXCESS OF 1,000 CUBIC YARDS~ 1916 CRESTVIEW DRIVEl BRIAN CARNEY. Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Any questions from staff?. Claybaugh: I just wanted Matt to cover the turnaround again. Was that something that's proposed or is that something that they are in fact. Saam: No. Yeah, that wasn't on what I just handed out. We just came up with that tonight. If you look at this, we don't want cars having to back all the way down onto Galpin and. Slagle: Did you say back down or back up? Saam: Alright, it would be back up. That's another good point. Claybaugh: We don't want anybody backing off the cliff Matt. Saam: So the thing is just, as a condition just make sure there's sufficiem turn around area for cars to turn around and pull forward out towards Galpin. Claybaugh: Is that something the applicam is prepared to do, was my question. Considering you have sight line issues. Saam: We'll need to ask him yeah. I never talked to him about that issue. That just came up tonight. Feik: One quick one. In the handout you gave us tonight, you mentioned aligning this driveway up with the adjacent driveway across the road, would that move this drive north or south? Much or? Saam: No it wouldn't. I looked at it. This drawing that I have right here is not to scale. But I took a quick measurement. It appears that where he's proposed the new driveway, it lines up fairly close with the existing one. That's something that we'll guarantee on the building permit. We'll just make sure that that happens. Feik: Okay. Saam: So, but I did want to bring that up for safety sake. We want to line up those driveways. Don't want to have them offset. Feik: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve. Lillehaug: Yes I have a question. This is an interim use permit only for the fill, so this permit is approved, does this ever come in from of us again? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saam: No. If you approve it tonight it will go to council and if they would approve it. Well whether you approve or deny tonight it will go to council. If they approve it, you won't see this again. Unless you would request some type of variance or. Lillehaug: ...any further development on it though we won't see it again then. Saam: No. Lillehaug: Okay. Then I have a couple questions. The tiered retaining walls, I hit on this previously. He has two 4 foot tiered retaining walls. I would probably make an argument that that lower retaining wall needs to be higher than 4 feet, but regardless of that, in my mind a tiered retaining wall needs to be looked at as one retaining wall. So does the city agree that this would be a retaining wall that would need to be engineered? Saam: I believe it does. Or the building department already looks at tiered retaining walls as one. I guess I didn't verify that but I believe that is the case. Lillehaug: Okay. As far as an as-built survey, would that be required upon completion of bringing this fill in? Saam: I don't believe so. I believe it's required not, it's not required until after the building permit. After the house is installed. We could, yep you should could sure add a condition to do that, yeah. Lillehaug: Yep, that's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Rich. Slagle: Yeah a couple questions. Matt, can you give me your opinion on the concept of planting, if I remember right, shrubs or trees along the edge of the driveway. I mean would those really stop a car slipping down the driveway, potentially going off of this double retaining wall? Saam: I guess after 2, say after 2 weeks installation, no. They're not going to stop it but I would think in the long term, yeah they would. Slagle: Let me ask you this. There is a house south of here of this property on Galpin, I believe it's the owners who used to own the land that Longacres is built on. They have a long driveway to the north of Jerome Carlson. Excuse me, to the south. And they have a long driveway which just recently they installed guardrails along their sections of their driveway because of drop off' s. And I'll almost guarantee you their drop off's aren't like these drop off's. So I mean do we have any perspective of what I' 11 call protective measures for situations like this? Saam: When you say perspective, do you mean. Slagle: Guardrails. Anything that would be safety related versus whether one to delineate a road, or a driveway which is what is here, or, I mean I'm looking for protection from cars. I mean let's just say this gentlemen doesn't throw salt on his driveway one day and it ices up and the Jones' come over for supper and down they go. I mean I'm just saying is there anything that we take into account? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saam: I believe for retaining walls that are over 4 feet in height, a fence is required. We don't typically require guardrails fencing along driveways. None that I know of. Aanenson: Clarify that. It is an interim use. You may attach any conditions that you believe are reasonable. Slagle: I'm just trying to understand what reasonable is in this sense of staff. I will say to the rest of the commissioners that I will be prepared to add as a condition. Sacchet: Well let's wait with comments please. Any more questions? Claybaugh: What is the slope coming off that road? Both to the north and to the south. I mean you' ve identified it as a cliff and. Saam: Oh, coming off the driveway. Claybaugh: Very negative images, yeah. What is the actual slope? Saam: On the north side it's approximately 5 to 1. Over along the east side here and in this area it' s 4 to 1. On the south side of the driveway it gets up to 3 to 1 and that' s the maximum slope. Claybaugh: Okay. Saam: Or the steepest point. Claybaugh: And then really the trees that you're looking at putting in, for the first 10 years they're just going to be markers to help identify... Saam: I guess you could ask the applicant but that's what I was envisioning 2 inch trees. Claybaugh: It's not going to stop any cars but it will serve as a marker. Saam: That's why maybe a shrub and working with the City Forester, maybe a shrub. Something that would get bigger would be better. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Papke: I have another naive, new commissioner question here for staff. Just on the code here. The bottom line is there's a variance being asked for in excess of a thousand yards of fill on this lot. Is there any latitude for the size of the lot or is that, is the code fixed regardless of the size of the lot? Saam: Is your question regarding is there a maximum amount of fill he can bring in? In relation to the size of the lot. Papke: Is it at all proportional to the size of the lot or if this was a 10 acre lot, would there still have to be a variance is my question? Saam: Yes. I didn't touch on that. The reason he needs to come before yourselves and the City Council is because he's requesting to bring in over 1,000 cubic yards. Whether that's 5,000 or 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 1,100, he needs to come to you. If it was under 1,000 cubic yards, staff could administratively approve it. Papke: Right, but the flip side of my question was that limit is fixed regardless of the size of the lot. Aanenson: There's no proportionality. Papke: There's no proportionality. Saam: Yep. Papke: I just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you very much. So all the questions. With that, if the applicant wants to come forward and address the commission, please do so. State your name and address for the record. And particularly interested to hear what's changed since you were here last time. Brian Carney: My name is Brian Carney. I live on 6566 Shadow Lane. About a half mile up the road. We have not gotten anywhere as far as negotiations on what we're going to do with the neighbors. If they're going to gain me access through their property or not. There was also talk about them possibly wanting to purchase a piece of land from me. We have a meeting set up for next Saturday at 9:00, but at this point I'd like to just proceed with the plan of developing the lot into a single family home. Not knowing what, you know what lies in the future with our talks or meetings or whatever. I also would consider putting some type of fence, you know strong fence or guardrail along the driveway to help, you know for safety reasons. I don't think bushes are going to do any good. I don't think trees are going to do much good for the first 5 or 10 years so I guess I would be willing to put something along the driveway that would fit, you know look decent and be of use to safety. The reason why the walls are the height they are because I didn't want to get them engineered. I kept them at the level of 4 feet so I didn't have to get into the engineering part. I believe that if the walls were done correctly I think they would adequately hold the soil because of the soil that I'm bringing in is very compactable. And as far as the turn around in the driveway, I have every intention of having a turn around as a part of the driveway. I would never expect anybody to have to back all the way to Galpin on a driveway so. With that I'd just, I just want to keep moving forward with this and. Sacchet: Any questions from the applicant? Thank you very much. Again this is an old item of business. It's not formally a public heating but if anybody wants to come forward, address the commission on this item, please do so now. State your name and address for the record please. Charlie Hicks: Good evening. I'm Charlie Hicks. I'm at 1941 Crestview Circle. I'm one of the properties that is contiguous with the property that is in question and I'm to the east. Unlike last time I was here I believe I referred to it as the west. My intention is to start a dialogue with Mr. Carney. We're meeting Saturday morning and once we finish our discussion on bimorphs, we'll talk about the property itself. I just thought I would FYI you on that. That's our intentions. Sacchet: So you're intending to come to some sort of an agreement? Charlie Hicks: We'll start a dialogue, yes. Sacchet: Dialogue, okay. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Charlie Hicks: We'll hopefully come to, I'm not council so I can't be as ambiguous as I'd like. Sacchet: You're ambiguous enough. Okay. Charlie Hicks: Thank you all. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please do so now. State your name and address for the record please. Troy Pappas: I'm Troy Pappas at 1961 Crestview and a follow-up to Charlie, I am part of the meeting. We are going to try to come to an agreement on the property. Our intention is to not have anything go from that property so if we can come to an agreement, to get this matter resolved. Get the dirt that' s there out of there and back to natural resources. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? If not I'll bring it back to commission. Comments, discussion. Steve, you want to start please? Lillehaug: Yep. I hope your meeting goes well. This is a tough driveway. Are we over stepping our bounds by attaching some conditions that typically wouldn't be attached to a landowner and his development of this property? In my opinion we're not over stepping it. Hauling in 1,000 yards is a significant measure. It's my intentions to look out for the safety and well being of the new property owner. That property does have a for sale sign on it. That tells me there's going to be an unknown owner there so what I'll be doing is attaching a few conditions. One will be regarding the wall that I hit on before. That it needs to be engineered. I'll be attaching a condition requiring an as-built survey. I'll also be attaching a condition requiting the first 15 foot directly adjacent to the county highway to be at a maximum grade of 2 percent, which will not allow a car during the winter to not try to race up that driveway so it doesn't have to stop right at the highway so it doesn't just continue moving rather than not stopping. I'll also be attaching a condition to revise the grading plan right near the house pad because the driveway there, if my calculations are right it shows the driveway kind of askewed there at a cross slope of about 20 percent. That's excessive. And then we're falling about 20 plus feet I think in the little wetland ravine there. I think I'd also like to attach a condition that the applicant provide a suitable source of material and let the City review where the source of material is coming from so no poor.., also be attaching a condition requiring soils testing be submitted to the city insuring that proper densities are obtained and that's probably enough conditions out of me, thanks. Sacchet: It's a good share, yeah. Rich. Slagle: Well I'll just add that I will request, and Mr. Chair I don't know if now is the time to be adding a condition but it will be the safety fence. And I want to commend the applicant for making that gesture that he would be open to that but more importantly I think just the fact that the folks are getting together and talking this coming week is maybe the fruits of our efforts from 2 weeks ago so thanks to all. Sacchet: Kurt any comments? Papke: No comments. Sacchet: Bethany? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: So we have 5 to 2. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Tjomhom: I have two, and I'm agreeing again so if staff could answer a question for me. When I look at the plat I see the property and then I also see 1, 2, 3, 4 other properties on Galpin Lake, is that correct? How do they access it? Do they have driveways? Saam: This property which is directly to the south of the property in question has a driveway onto Galpin. The property to the north of the one we're looking at accesses onto Crestview. This one on the other side I believe has two accesses. This is the one that does have a driveway onto Galpin directly across the street from our's but I believe it also has one onto Crestview Drive. I'm not positive but, and then 6640 which is kitty comer from our site accesses onto Galpin. Tjomhom: So it does have other accesses then from lots? Saam: Yes. Tjomhom: Okay. That's all I was wondering. And I have one more question. Not for staffbut just a comment. About the road and the incline and oncoming cars. Sometimes people use mirrors on the driveway so they can look and see what is coming before they do make a turn, and maybe that' s a useful suggestion also as to solving that problem of traffic and accidents. Saam: That could be a condition. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Brace. Feik: Sure. Getting back to when we saw this a couple weeks ago. I just want to remind the commissioners that we cannot deny them access to their property. We have to give them access so now the question is what is reasonable access and I certainly believe that the retaining walls should probably be engineered. Some guardrails or something for safety perspective but I just want to remain the commissioners that we need to somehow figure out a way to legally get them access. The reason this is in front of us is because of the amount of f'dl more than anything else so I would certainly agree with Steve's comments earlier in particular and approve. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah, I think Steve hit on most of the key points, specifically the 2 percent grade coming out onto Galpin so cars just don't come on down the driveway at an accelerated rate spilling out onto Galpin. The soil testing, it's something I would like to see. I haven't made up my mind whether I would support it being a condition. Certainly submitting the fill material to city staff for approval is a low cost safety measure that can be imposed. The guardrail, certainly a good idea. Don't know what form that would take. In terms of engineering the wall, I think that's a given. And that being said I'd like to have the applicant look at raising the height of that wall, being engineered and try and mitigate the slope of that cross slope coming down off the driveway. And even though staff was uncertain about it, the applicant assured the commission that they would incorporate a turn around so that's a positive aspect. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Personally it's very hard for me to reconcile ever filling in the creek. Environmentally I think that's terrible. Safety wise I have a real issue with this being, these steep slopes as well as the difficult visibility to the south on Galpin, but unfortunately personal opinion is totally irrelevant for us sitting up here. We're not here to share personal opinion. We're here to look at ordinance and code and we cannot prevent this property from being accessed. If there' s 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 no other access than from Galpin we have to allow it so therefore as Bruce pointed out, legally we're obliged to allow that. I think it's appropriate to put conditions on it to mitigate those concerns, at least the safety concerns as much as possible, and I really would want to encourage neighbors to find an equitable solution. I think it's going to be for the benefit of the people that live there. It' s going to be for the benefit of the city. If an alternate solution can be found, either an alternate access from Crestview Circle or whatever you guys can come up with so I definitely want to encourage that. With that I would like to have a motion. Who wants to try? You were the most prolific there. Lillehaug: I've got to find it here. Okay. I make the motion the Planning Commission approves Interim Use Permit. Am I on the right one here? Sacchet: Yeah, I think you're on the right place. Page 10. Lillehaug: Interim Use Permit #03-1 with the following conditions. 1 through 18. And someone tell me if I double up here but I'm going to be adding 19. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to minimize the slope. Previously it was graded at 10 percent. Number 20. The driveway will be revised to have a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacent to Galpin. I must be on number 20. Sacchet: It's 21. Lillehaug: Okay. The retaining walls will be engineered by a design professional. Sacchet: Do you want to add that to condition 177 There's already one that says something about the walls, isn't it? Lillehaug: Okay, add to and revise condition number 17 as such. The next condition. Soils testing will be required and submitted to the city for the fill material. Number 22. Slagle: That's actually 17(b) I think. Sacchet: Okay yeah, let's make that 17(b). Lillehaug: Add it to and revise as such I guess. The next condition. Sacchet: 21. Lillehaug: Submit fill material types and borrow sources to the city for approval. The next condition 22, add a turn around to the driveway. And 23, submit an as-built survey to the city upon completion. That'd be it for me, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. I think we can add one or two more. Anybody want to add? Slagle: A friendly amendment to add a guardrail that would run on the north and south side of. Sacchet: Oh wait a second. We need a second first. Excuse me. Feik: I'll second. Sacchet: Second, okay. Go ahead Rich. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: A guardrail that would run on the north and south side of the driveway and I'll leave it up to staff as to where it would begin and end. Sacchet: That's number 23, the guardrail. Lillehaug: Do we want to specifically say guardrail? Sacchet: Guardrail, is that the right term? Staff?. Aanenson: It could be fencing. Sacchet: Well I think we want more than a fence. Aanenson: Barrier. Papke: I have a question about that. I mean we're not MnDot here. Do we have any codes or specifications for such a guardrail that we could refer to? Saam: Yeah, MnDot does have a detail for the guardrail so if you specify that then we'll make sure something along... Sacchet: How about work with staff. Slagle: How about similar to the 101 trail... And then I've got one last question. I don't know if the guardrail, if it does get approved, if that would make point 18 moot. Condition 18. Sacchet: I still want trees. Slagle: Okay, but I'm just saying that you might not be putting the trees where the guardrail might go. Sacchet: The way they're spaced, correct. Work with staff. Feik: But 18 was from a couple weeks ago. Slagle: I understand. Sacchet: I'd like to add one more. Condition 24 to line up the driveway with the opposite, the one opposite on Galpin. That's a lot of them. Probably enough. Anybody else? Okay, Steve are those acceptable friendly amendments Steve? Lillehaug: I'm just having a tough time with guardrail. Is that extensive? Sacchet: How about do you want to make it work with staff to determine? Lillehaug: I guess I'll accept it at this point. Sacchet: Accept it as is, okay. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. We have some additions. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug moved, $1agle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit//03-1, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee erosion control measures and site restoration and compliance with the Interim Use Permit. 2. Culvert sizing calculations will have to be provided for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. 3. The applicant must provide a proposed haul route for review and approval. , If fill is coming from another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. o All disturbed areas as a result of construction are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. o The applicant shall pay the City an administration fee of $208 prior to the City signing the permit. 7. An erosion control blanket must be installed on the south side of the driveway slope. 8. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey. ° Comply with the Carver County conditions of approval letter dated April 11, 2002 for a driveway access permit to the site. 10. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of the Watershed District. 11. The applicant shall supply the City with a mylar as-built survey prepared by a professional engineer upon completion of excavation to verify the grading plan has been performed in compliance with the proposed plan. 12. A stockpile must be provided for the topsoil which will be re-spread on the site as soon as the excavation is completed. Topsoiling and disc mulch seeding shall be implemented immediately following the completion of excavated areas. 13. Noise levels stemming from the operation are not to exceed MnPCA and EPA regulations. If the city determines that there is a problem warranting such tests shall be paid by the applicant. 14. Hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday and prohibited on national holidays. If the City Engineer determines that traffic conflicts result due to rush hour traffic flows, the hours of operation will be appropriately restricted. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for any and all road damage sustained from the truck hauling and construction activities. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The applicant shall construct and maintain a rock gravel construction access to the site. Access to the site shall be restricted to this access point only. Building Official conditions: a. c. d. The retaining walls must be designed by a professional engineer. Soil and compaction testing is required on the proposed building site if any fill will be placed there, the results must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. If city sewer service is not available to the property, two (2) acceptable on-site sewage treatment sites must be located by a licensed professional and the information must be submitted to the Inspections Division. The sites must be marked and protected to prevent damage from the grading activity. The address for the property shall be 6591 Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall plant a minimum of five trees and shrubs and 20 shrubs on the slopes of the proposed drive to help minimize run-off and improve erosion control. The tree species shall be deciduous and a minimum 1 inch diameter for the trees. Shrubs shall be at least 2 feet high when planted. Proposed planting sites and species selection shall be approved by the city prior to planting. Grading will be revised near the garage and house pad to minimize the slope. The driveway will be revised to have a maximum 2 percent for the first 15 feet directly adjacent to Galpin. Submit f'dl material types and borrow sources to the city for approval. Add a turn around to the driveway. Submit an as-built survey to the city upon completion. The applicant will work with staff on the installation of a barrier along the north and south side of the driveway. The driveway shah line up with the driveway on the opposite side of Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: With that I see that we still have our youngest person here so we'll jump to item number 5 on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A REAR YARD FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT 500 AND 516 BIG WOODS BOULEVARD, (LIFT STATION #10 SITE), CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Matt. Questions from staff. Rich. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: I just have a couple Matt. And I apologize for not having a chance to get out to this proposal but where are the homes in relationship to this? I mean how close are we talking sight lines? Saam: The sight lines, let me get my scale. Maybe the homeowners can speak more to that, but I can scale some distances off of there for you if you want. The houses are proposed, there's one going to be going in here. Sacchet: They're not there yet? Saam: It may be being built right now but it's not completed. Nobody's living there yet. I know this one is under construction, two lots down. And then this one to the north I don't believe is under construction yet. But again maybe the neighbors can speak to that. Slagle: Okay. And then final question. Is there any concern on your part that we would by approving this, let's say we do, that we're going to have others who live next to lift stations coming and saying I want a fence around my lift station? Saam: Yeah, I hope we're not opening a can of worms. I mean this one was different. We did a feasibility study, not just to look at screening for some new lake lots. We did it because the wet wells weren't sized big enough. Pumping issues. That sort of real engineering type issues that could flood basements and cause a lot of damage. So I don't foresee people with lift stations in their back yards coming in and requesting that. If they do I think we'd probably tell them they're out of luck. Sacchet: Any more questions? Bruce. Feik: I have one. Assuming you go with the neighbors proposal, does that give you adequate room to do maintenance on the generator in particular? Is it too closes? Saam: That's a good question. Two things I want to point out. In talking with maintenance staff, their concern is the wet well is in this area. They're going to want to back their big vactor truck up here to pump out the wet well so if this wall was buik like that, it would have to be hinged or easily removable. And the same in this area to get to the generator, that sort of thing. The one thing I haven't checked on is the transformer. It's owned by Xcel Energy. They may require a 5 foot clear zone around that. 4 foot. So this may have to be moved back a bit, but that's the general layout of how it's going to be. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Have any other questions from staff? Claybaugh: Yeah, specifically. City staff had commented on what they needed for space to maintain. Saam: Yes. Yeah, I checked with our Utility Superintendent and it was in this area and then out in front of the generator. They're going to need easy access. Whether those sides be hinged or easily removable. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Claybaugh: Right. Just in looking at the two proposals there's a lot of room left inbetween the two of them to expand on the neighbor's proposal and minimize the city's proposal and still not put yourself in a shoe box. So where, that would be my recommend. I don't know why we'd... Sacchet: Well let's wait with comments Craig. We're not quite there yet. We're asking questions. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Any more questions? Yes. Papke: How tall is the lift station? How much of it is going to appear above this 6 foot fence? Saam: I believe the generator is the tallest piece of equipment out there, and maybe David can speak to that. I know he was out there just today but the generator is on a concrete pad right here and that generator's probably 5 feet high. So that could possibly be above the fence line, but there are trees out them in the summer with foliage. I don't think it will be easy to see those. Tjomhorn: I have, is there an existing fence anywhere around a lift station now just to protect people from getting into it? Saam: No. We don't typically put fences around them so no, there isn't. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: I have a few questions since you're talking trees, are we actually cutting trees there to make that fence? Saam: We're hoping we won't have to cut any trees. Sacchet: So you're not quite sure, okay. Saam: Yeah we're not. If we do have to take any out, we'll replace them at a 1 to 1 ratio. Sacchet: Yeah, that's part of my question too. Is it normally when somebody else comes in that is not ourselves we ask for a 1 to 2? Or 2 to 1, whichever way you look at it. Saam: Yes it is. The City Forester's recommendation is 1 to 1 so. Sacchet: Okay. Well I would disagree with that but we're not at comments. You're also talking about additional trees and landscape vegetation will be planted. Do we have a plan for that? Saam: Well that's going back to our proposal when it was. Sacchet: Yeah, but I don't see any plantings on there though. Saam: No, we kind of, I kind of left it ambiguous to leave it up to yourselves. If you wanted to attach some additional trees if you saw. Sacchet: To be determined. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Saam: Yes. Sacchet: And then to follow-up on Craig's comment about that there is fair amount of space between the original proposal and the neighbor's proposal. One thing that also irks me is why this many angles? Why can't we make it a rectangle of sorts? Saam: On the neighbor's proposal? Sacchet: Yeah. What's the advantage of having... Saam: Maybe you can ask it to them. I'm sure it's to minimize the size of the area, the fence. Sacchet: We'll ask the applicant. That's all the questions then. Thank you very much Matt. Now this was staff, as well as applicant in one hit. We're being very efficient here. This is a public hearing so I open the public hearing if anybody from the public wants to come up to address this item, please come forward at this time. State your name and address and we'll listen to you. David Igel: Good evening, my name is David Igel. My address is 6550 York Avenue South in Minneapolis but I am building the home at 501 Big Woods Boulevard which is to the south of this property. It's not touching it but I suppose adjacent to the affected properties. Lillehaug: Could you point to that on the map? I want to understand if it was the one directly next to the driveway or the one that's already under construction. David Igel: We are, well maybe I can help clear that up a little bit. This is my, where I am, where we are building our house. It's in construction. This is the house that Matt mentioned might be under construction. It is not but that is where the house will be constructed. The house on 516 will lightly be constructed in this area right in here, just to give you a feel. The lift station is right here. Does that clarify it? Lillehaug: Thanks. David Igel: Again I am, we're not applying for the variance. What has been discussed for the last year or so, or longer is that the city would provide screening because there were some changes going on with the lift station and such so I'm not, certainly not opposed to the variance. I was not necessarily in agreement with the large box and privacy fence that was brought out. I don't want to speak for anyone else but one of the neighbors, Greg Lindsley who's going to be most impacted by this who couldn't make it tonight, would rather have nothing than that. So if it was to be between this large box, I think you'd have a lot of neighborhood opposition but again I can't speak for anyone else other than Mr. Lindsley and myself. What we've proposed was something of a lower impact and all we're trying to do is get it to blend in. We're trying to draw as little attention. I think it worked out to the advantage of everyone that this, that what we're asking for, what we would recommend is that it's less expensive. It's less intrusive. The question was asked on why there's a couple of little in's and out's on that and that's primarily to save trees. The entire tree survey isn't represented on this plan. If you go out there you can identify that this makes a little more sense, as opposed to building a fence around trees we thought we'd try to get it in and sneak it in between the items and keep the trees on the outside to increase the screening of those existing trees and not take any down. Depending on where it goes, I don't know if anymore trees need to be taken down but there have been a fair amount of trees taken down and I assume the city has an inventory of it. I know that as you say they require 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 inventories of trees from private individuals going in. There were a number of trees taken down behind this so, and that would be part of my request of the council as a condition of additional trees and vegetation be as a condition if this variance is approved. We would go the next step and offer the assistance to the city I guess as far as installing them ourselves. We've got some of the equipment down there because we're building homes and things like that. What I would hate to do is get into a situation where the city would recommend, or an outside contractor would just go and plop them in where they thought best where we are spending tons of money and tons of our own time and at the very least we' ve like to work very directly with whoever decides where those trees go. But like I said, if it' s of any value to the city we can, you know if you bring a bunch of rocks and trees down there and say, here. Set it up so it's screened, that would really probably be our preference on it. The other thing is, this is a bright orange generator that's in with a bunch of green trees and brown dirt and green vegetation. There's no question that this needs to be painted green. That was part of the original discussion so I would also request that that be a condition of the variance if it's approved. And then like I said, the reduced size fence I think takes it from what becomes something that's a gigantic box and people's eyes are drawn to, to something that blends in much more which is why we thought we could go with the lattice work which vines eventually grow and kind of blends in more so. So I appreciate the staff working with us to this point on it. I think that they've been out there. We've been out there and they've tried to take our suggestions as much as possible. Those are the few things that I mentioned though that we would really like to see as conditions of it and if you have any questions of me, I'm fairly familiar with the area. I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise. Sacchet: Go Rich. Slagle: From your observations, your opinion, would the neighborhood recommendation hide if you will the generator adequately? David Igel: Well just in kind of brief comments. I don't know that, part of the problem is that a 6 foot fence, I don't know if it's even going to cover it but if you can see some of the grade lines here, everything else is up on a hill. That's why I think the additional trees are going to be required. It's going to block it from the lake, which is important. It's going to block it when you're standing right next to it, but without any kind of trees, the houses are going to be looking right at it and that's why I was hoping if we could get more trees in there I think that's really going to be the better plan. And that's, part of the reason I think you know we're going from 200 linear feet of 6 foot expensive cedar down to probably 90 feet of linear lattice so there's a great expense there and what we were hoping to, and that I suppose is up to the city and yourselves. Perhaps we could take advantage of some of that cost savings and some additional trees which I think is better for the whole community and the neighborhood. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Yes Kurt. Papke: Question for staff. Speaking of painting, is there an intent to paint or stain the fence? And if so, does the landscaping plan have to take into account space around it to get in there with a sprayer or something like that? Saam: Yes, we had plans to stain the fence upon installation. And then yes, we'll take into account, if we need another foot here or there to get in there. Papke: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 David Igel: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward at this time. State your name and address for the record please. Andrea Eidsness: Hi. I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live on 630 Carver Beach Road. I am directly to the north of the property that, thank you. And we're one of the homes that are existing there and we're up on the hill. I have two primary concerns with regard to this request. One of them being the noise level. I know that the council underwent the feasibility study a while back.' I am not, I' ve not been made aware, I don't have a copy of that feasibility study and whether or not all of the items that were recommended by the people that undertook that study were in fact implemented or if this is just one of the conditions that has been chosen to be implemented. I would like the council to review that and make sure that the condition of the current lift station is sufficient to handle the additional development that is going in. There's 9 new homes that are going in there and I would hate to have you go through the trouble of installing the fence only to tear it down a year later because the lift station needs to be improved upon. I would rather have it not go in and wait for that improvement to be made and that lift station. My concern is with regard to the noise, which is sort of connected to my concern about whether or not the lift station is adequately functioning. Again over the weekend there was a large truck or generator of some sort that was brought in on wheels. Backed down in there and it was so noisy we had to close up our entire home and couldn't listen to the television from across the living room. The noise was so incredibly loud from that facility that was brought in. It made it unbearable. We're two lots away. So whether or not this privacy fence really does anything from really helping to cut down the noise, again I would recommend that the city consider putting in large trees. Pine trees or something of that sort that would help to drown out the noise, in addition to providing some additional screening for that particular lift station. Sacchet: Thank you. Could we just address maybe these concerns. They're both of some interest here. Saam: Sure. The first one was the feasibility study. I believe she wants to make sure all the conditions of that were. Sacchet: Right, and I remember at one point that lift station was considered not quite up to the development. I thought it was improved since, is that correct? Saam: Yes. However not all of the recommendations of the feasibility study, the fence being one, have been implemented to this point. We're going to do it in a phased approach because of budgetary reasons. And then the other issue that she brought up in regards to the improvements are, we'd have to rip down the fence if we have to go in there in a year to do more improvements. We did look at that. The improvements will be to the front area where the hinged doors would be, so we foresee just swinging the doors open to get in there with a backhoe or whatever we'd need to do to dig in front of the fence and lift station area. The noise issue, I believe they started the generator up today and what I heard from the maintenance workers was that this new generator, which is out there, a permanent one, is much...truck may be backing up and the emergency noises on the truck or the diesel engine running, but I know they didn't start that generator up until today. At least it wasn't scheduled to be started until today so it couldn't have been running this weekend. Andrea Eidsness: Well whatever went in over the weekend, they brought it in at about 4:00 p.m. on Saturday afternoon and we put up with it but we finally called the sheriff at 10:30 at night 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 because it was still running and so loud that we couldn't even sleep. So I don't know what that was but. Saam: Okay. Yeah, I'm not aware of what was going on. I can sure check into that. Sacchet: Is it still on? Andrea Eidsness: No. Somebody came and took it away Saturday night at about midnight so I don't know what happened... Saam: See we used to have a portable generator out at the site. A big yellow one. It was on a trailer. We took that out to do another well. We got this permanent generator out there now. That's the one they kicked off starting today. Sacchet: So today was alright? Andrea Eidsness: Today it was, well I drove by there on my way home from work prior to coming to this meeting so. Sacchet: I would hope that the new generator is not going to create that problem basically. Andrea Eidsness: So there wouldn't be a need to bring in the remote facilities at all in the future...generator is sufficient to handle. Saam: Exactly. That was one of the improvements recommended in the feasibility study was to install a permanent generator on the site. Slagle: Well just as a point of clarification. Maybe Matt what she might be referring to is the truck that vacuumed the...whatever. Saam: That could be too. Those could come back in the future, yeah. If there is an emergency at the lift station. Sacchet: That wouldn't be during the night, Saturday to Sunday though. Saam: Whenever that lift station goes down. Sacchet: Oh, when it goes down it has to be attended to, alright. Saam: But that's only a temporary thing too in emergency situations. Andrea Eidsness: But in that case, if that is something that would happen on more of a routine basis, I assume that if you got more water that's going through the lift station, the frequency with which that would need to be pumped out is probably going to increase versus decrease when more homes are going in. To that point, if we are going to have remote equipment that goes in there to do that, causing that large of a noise constraint, I would prefer again to see large pine trees planted in there that would help absorb some of that sound versus a privacy fence, as I think that the trees will help in the condition that we're dealing with on a infrequent basis rather than the constant. Saam: Staff is not opposed to additional trees. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Matt could you comment on the actual generator. Is that just for a, is that a back-up generator or is that a generator that. Saam: Well, whether it's a back-up or a regular, it's a generator for when the electricity goes out at that lift station. Lillehaug: So it's not running, that's what I'm getting at. Saam: No, no. It only runs if the electricity goes out or if there' s some other reason. Lillehaug: So normal case. Saam: No, it's just the lift station... Lillehaug: ...it will be pretty quiet. Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: So this is an abnormal case I would think. Saam: Yeah, if the generator' s running there' s an unusual circumstance going on. Slagle: And we have no issues, if I can ask, to paint it? Saam: I guess yes we do. That's something we disagree with. The neighbors spoke on, David. We're not, we weren't aware of any requirement that they wanted it painted. It came as standard Caterpillar yellow. That's what comes out. If we would have known beforehand we sure would have ordered it in green, so I guess there's some disagreement there. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? Andrea Eidsness: No. You can look at the yellow from the lake, just for your information and understanding, and I appreciate you hearing my first...thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? Go ahead please. Mark Johnson: Thank you. My name is Mark Johnson, 16425 Mayfield Drive, Eden Prairie. I am the owner of the lot located at 516 Big Woods Boulevard, which is directly to the north of the site and I would just like to encourage the council to not only support the variance for the fence but also to work with us on painting this thing because it really does stand out like a sore thumb and it does, it's pretty ugly. I know it's a necessity but painting it is a very simple solution I think. And also, I'd also encourage the council and staff to work with the neighbors that are affected by this to add additional foliage and trees so that it's not visible, not only from the lake but also from the neighbors since our houses will be located further up the slope on each one of those properties. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this. This is your time. Seeing nobody, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to discussion and comments from commissioners. Want to start? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Sure. I think this is not setting precedence to put a fence around this lift station. There's a lake directly adjacent there. The generator is a huge generator. Typical lift stations don't have them that large of a generator next to it I think. You can correct me on that. I think for the most part it' s a very large, very large intrusion on that area and a fence is justified. I think this, either way we do this fence here I think the fence would need to fully encompass the lift station and the generator. Specifically looking at that lot, directly adjacent to the driveway, if the fence doesn't encompass that generator and the lift station in front of there, they'll have direct sight line with the generator so I think whatever we do with the fence there it needs to fully encompass it and provide adequate maintenance room around both the generator and the lift station as well as the transformer. I support the variance. Sacchet: Thank you. Slagle: No comments. Papke: I think the proposal to put additional foliage is certainly a good one from a noise perspective but I think it will be a while before that obviously has much of an impact unless there's pretty substantial trees in there so I, you know I don't know how effective that will be in the short term, but I think it's a good project. Sacchet: Bethany? Tjomhorn: No comments. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Yes. Matt, one of the residents mentioned some trees that were taken down to the east of the lift station. Was that done by us or was that done by the builder and was that included in the builder's tree inventory? Saam: I'm unaware of who took them down or when it happened. I can investigate that. Feik: If it' s something from the builder, then it' s a different sort of issue. Saam: Yeah, if we took them down we'll sure replace them like I said at 1 to 1. And that's something I'll check with... Feik: Trend's going against you Matt. Couple things I guess. I would certainly like to see the trees replaced on a 2 to 1. Painting of the generator, I'd like to caution us regarding painting the generator. Once you paint the factory paint it's going to be a giant maintenance issue. Long term you're going to be painting it very often. And Steve, I respectfully disagree on your fully encompassing the station. I think you're going to have balls and things going in there and kids trying to climb over to retrieve their balls and Frisbee's so I could see fully encompassing with an offset opening, like a tennis court, but so that you have access so you're not asking little kids to crawl up over a 6 foot fence. That's it. Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce. Claybaugh: Yeah, I think the City's fence outline was a little too broad. I think that the neighbors may be a little too restrictive with respect to maintaining the lift station. Certainly not in favor of fencing in trees and saving them for the lift station. I understand that to go with a 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 foliage buffer would be more of a long term commitment but with houses just going in now, I think within 3 to 5 years that they could start seeing some real benefit and certainly in 8 to 10 years I think the benefit would outweigh that of a cedar lattice fence or otherwise significantly so it's not one of the proposals but I would be in favor of expanding the foliage. Slagle: Mr. Chair, I just have a thought, if I may. Sacchet: Sure. Slagle: It might be worth suggesting at least as a compromise with some of the owners of the land there, that maybe we can work with the city and there could be a shared cost perhaps as maybe that it's labor or equipment or size of trees. I mean maybe we're talking to get 6 to 8 foot evergreens. They're pricier than what we normally would do but maybe there's some compromise that staff can work with the owners on that and you accelerate that growth. Sacchet: Good thought. I don't have too many new thoughts on this context. I was a little struggling why do we even have a fence if we don't have fence in other places but it certainly makes sense that we shield it since it's at the lake. I would be concerned about having to repaint the generator because of the maintenance aspect. But certainly in favor to shield it with landscaping and with the fence. I would want to hold us however to the same standard that we hold everybody else to and do it 2 to 1, if we have to cut trees. And I would, if there would be an applicant I would say work with staff, but on this case I have to say staff work on determining what adequate space is around the equipment. It seems to me like that the original proposal definitely is more generous in terms of what we need to encase in a fence and I would say the one of the neighbors is too skimpy. I appreciate your point that you were trying to navigate around the trees, and I would be in full favor of that but I would like staff to work on that and see what's the balance in terms of having adequate access to the equipment and taking into consideration the trees and everything around it. So with that, does anybody venture a motion please. Who's going to be daring? Bruce, go ahead. Feik: Recommend the Planning Commission approves variance 2003-8 to allow the installation of a 6 foot high fence at Lift Station 4/10 located at 500 and 516 Big Woods Boulevard based on the findings of fact in the staff report, With the changes that the trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio. That the location of the fence be such to adequately allow work to be performed around the equipment. And that it be fully screened 360 degrees with access, open access to it. I think you know where I'm going on that. So that if Frisbee's and footballs and things go in there, the kids can get them out. Sacchet: Frisbee retrieval access, I think we got it. We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Are you talking lattice? Feik: I'm comfortable with what the city staff and the neighbors can work out. If it's amenable to the neighbors, and it's less expensive, that's fine with me. Sacchet: One friendly addition. How about we say the mitigation of trees would have to be pine trees. Evergreens. Evergreens, just to make the shielding year round. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: The only question I would have Mr. Chair is if, and again not that they're, if the foliage is so dense. Sacchet: Whether it would prosper, yeah. Feik: Or if it's too low that we're not going to get. Sacchet: Yeah, there's a significant amount of canopy the way I remember it. So yes, it may not work so. Saam: If I could just interject something we could do. If you wanted to do evergreens, a combination of some landscape, maybe berming where you put them on there to help screen. Get them up higher to shield from those homes. I mean we can work with the neighbors on that. Sacchet: So basically staff work on that. Feik: And then another one, staff work with the neighbors as it relates to location of the trees. So if you want to strategically locate them for their deck or something. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission approves variance 2003-8 to allow the installation of a 6 foot high fence at Lift Station #10 located at 500 and 516 Big Woods Boulevard based on the findings of fact in the staff report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The trees shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio. , The location of the fence be such to adequately allow work to be performed around the equipment, that it be fully screened 360 degrees with open access to it. 3. City staff shall work with the neighbors in the placement of trees. All voted in favor, except Claybaugh who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: Do you want to comment about this? Claybaugh: I'd rather see the city and the neighbors get together, and to dove tail what Rich said, have the neighbors take some little ownership of it and possibly upgrade to more substantial vegetation. Incorporate that with some berming and make a long term investment because I think that for years down the line you'll be back here with the color of the generator and the maintenance on the fence and other issues. I think it would be a good time to make a long term investment. Take the money that would go into the fence and start down that path. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you Craig. With that I propose we take a 5 minute recess. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could just make one announcement. Any person aggrieved of a variance can appeal that decision. This was 6 to 1. The other, we told the applicant, the other did not pass. It did not have 75 percent because it was 6 to 2. We did inform the applicant of that. That one does have to be appealed. But I just wanted to make sure that anybody that's here that 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 is not happy with the decision, because right now the decision stands unless it's appealed. Then it would go to the City Council. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Did you all get that? You can appeal. In a nutshell. Alright, we'll take a 5 minute recess and then we continue. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR REPLAT OF TWO LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 1.35 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND 6430 PLEASANT VIEW LAND~ SCHROEDER ADDITION~ LARRY SCHROEDER~ DOUG SCHROEDER AND LINDA PETERSON. Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Feik: I have one. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: When this was before us a few months ago, I remember discussions regarding how low this parcel is. Do you have any concerns regarding drainage? Sweidan: What the drainage may be for the proposed lot is going to be concem from the roof of the new house towards the west and towards the south. There's an existing hindrance. It looks like it's a storm sewer...the length and within the eastern portion of the lot. So but the new proposal is for, is to accumulate with the mainly with the service drainage in four directions and this storm sewer's connecting to our existing storm sewer too. Feik: So you're comfortable? Sweidan: Yes. Feik: Thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? I definitely share the same concern because I remember when this was last time in front of us there was definitely concern that it was rather wet, which probably would be about the garage area of the new house pad the way it's drawn in that area. So that there would be some build-up for the pad, is that the idea? Sweidan: Yes, it's approximately about addition about 2 feet build-up for the house pad and that' s...the drainage. Sacchet: That should solve the drainage aspect. And then the aspect of the access from Pleasant View to have a driveway off of Pleasant View Road. That there' s no concern about that? Sweidan: Because the sight distance is safe and there's... Sacchet: Okay. And all the variances are pre-existing, okay. That's the comments I have. Steve, do you have a question? 33 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Since we're talking about the drainage. If you look on the preliminary plat here, on the very east side, in the southwest comer of the house, are those arrows there that are split in the different directions, does that mean part of the water's going to the northwest and then part is going to the southeast? Is that kind of the divide? Are you kind of following me where we're at? So there's water going up north and then to the east onto the adjacent property which currently, it really wasn't directed that way. Sweidan: Seeing it go to the north? Sacchet: Steve are you, the arrows on the southwest comer? Lillehaug: Right in here, yeah. Can I point to them on the map? Right here. Does this water go this way? Sweidan: Yes. This is the point where there's an existing. Sacchet: Yeah, let's look at that because we're all definitely concerned about it. Lillehaug: And then just comment on the concerns. I know previously the adjacent landowner had concerns with water going onto his property and it appears that instead of all the water being directed more towards the south, it looks like the divide is going to make it go directly on his property rather than to the south. Sacchet: Can you point out where, what we're talking about Mak please. Sweidan: Okay. You talk about this area here? Lillehaug: Yep. Sweidan: Okay, now it's shooting or splitting actually at this point here towards the west mainly. Now maybe you can't see this line here. Here is the existing storm sewer and he is going to eliminate about 15 feet so he can make the opening here. There's another opening also south of it where it's going to take or service the southern drainage with that existing here. And then for storm sewer and is connecting the existing catch basin in the cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you very much Mak. Okay, this is a public hearing. If anybody want to come forward. Address this item. Please do so now. Or the applicant, excuse me. Thanks. The applicant please come forward and make a presentation. State your name and address for the record. Doug Schroeder: Hi, I'm Doug Schroeder. Address is 2181 Majestic Way, which is in no relationship close to this but my parents live at 6430 Pleasant View Lane. And Sharmeen covered everything I think just excellent. We're not going to do anything with it. My mom and dad were just concerned that they didn't want a house built in the back yard while they owned the property and we thought this was a good solution for both Curly and my parents so I guess that's where we're at. Any questions? Sacchet: Any questions of the applicant? Doug Schroeder: Okay, thank you. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, try again. This is a public heating so if anybody wants to address this item, please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. This is your turn to address this. Seeing nobody. Yep, there's somebody. Please come forward. Brian Grundhofer: My name is Brian Grundhofer and I reside at 195 Pleasant View Road, which happens to be right on the west side of that property. And I mean I know they're probably not going to do anything with this so that's not an issue right now but sometime there will be and my garage is, as you can see, is clearly about a foot from the property line right there. And right now my foundation on there is pretty much gone due to water damager and I'm still very concerned. I have a low spot in my driveway as well and I'm just very concerned about them bringing more water onto my property. That would be my only real concern because now you're taking away, you know if you're putting in a hardscape in an area that's already very wet and that would be my only real concern. Just for future. Sacchet: And it was a concern that was raised last time that it came in front of us and engineering assures us that this is mitigated reasonably, correct? Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. Anybody else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Comments. Discussion on this. We already have discussion over there. Claybaugh: We were hoping you wouldn't notice. Feik: No sign of disrespect. Claybaugh: I would like to, Mak to re-address what the neighbor just stated here. Is that catch basis, is the sizing of that catch basin sufficient? Sweidan: The existing is not a catch basin. Yeah, it's a storm... Could be from a plastic... Claybaugh: Is it 6 inch? 8 inch? What is it's capacity? Sweidan: I think it's about 8 inch. Audience: 12 inch. Claybaugh: 127 Well my concern was, just to dove tail the gentleman's comments is that it's in place right now, correct? And there's still standing water. He still has damage to his foundation. Sweidan: And it will help. Overall the...his garage is maybe very flat area and that's why maybe his like concern about the water being around there. It's a very flat area. Claybaugh: Yeah, my concern is that what this sizing of whether it's an inlet or a catch basin or whatever term you want to use, is not going to be changed. Sweidan: Oh no. Claybaugh: Okay. And currently there's cause for concern. The introduction of a new residence there and the hard surface coverage is going to intensify that, okay. So it would seem natural to me that that would be a primary concern to address that and certainly improve it because it's 35 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 going to be under a greater burden once a new residence is placed there. So is there, in your mind a way to address that? Sweidan: There's no improvement to the storm sewer. It's going to stay as it is. Claybaugh: I know there's nothing proposed on here but just from what you know about the situation, what would be a reasonable remedy or is there a way to upgrade what's there? Or is that a substantial endeavor. Sweidan: There could be a...in front of the garage on the property line. Somehow to raise the elevation to avoid the water going to his garage. To keep it maintained within the property line. The proposed property line. Slagle: So is it going to pond then? Sweidan: As a gathering point but as like a ponding. Claybaugh: So we haven't looked at what the capacity is for that inlet and what the burden is on it. Okay. Do you feel that we should be looking at that? Sweidan: We could look at it. Claybaugh: I would very much like you to take a look at that. Sweidan: Yeah, we could look for the calculations to see that... Claybaugh: That's all my comments. Sacchet: Thanks. Feik: Let me follow up on that. We are looking at a proposed replat. Preliminary plat. We're not looking at a house plan. We're not looking at any improvements. To my knowledge at this point, right? Aanenson: Correct. The nexus here would be is there adequacy of these systems correct. Feik: I understand that. So the grading change that we're looking at this plan isn't going to happen unless, until they build a house. Aanenson: Correct. But when they come in for a building permit you can attach conditions. If you want to attach them, as Craig was indicating, if you want the staff to review to make sure there's adequate drainage or somebody to make sure that there's no ponding. Feik: I understand that so I guess what I'm just clarifying is, nothing is in front of us now is going to change the existing conditions. Aanenson: That's correct. Feik: Thank you. Aanenson: But could they build a house tomorrow and change their mind? Yes. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: Yes, understand that. Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Bethany? Tjomhom: Nothing. Sacchet: Kurt? Rich? Steve? Lillehaug: Real quick. Congratulations Curly... Maybe a possible solution that we could add here is, it appears the low...maybe we could grade a swale back to that point and alleviate that problem on the west side. Other than that I fully support it, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I don't have much to add. I mean I'm glad to see you found a solution. I remember when you were here Mr. Curly. Mr. McNutt. Get it straight eventually. Yeah I remember when you were here last time and we had to turn you down and you found a solution that I believe works and that's good. I do have a concern about this drainage. I would say something like applicant work with staff to mitigate and improve the drainage issues to the west and have it be at that. With that I would like to have a motion please. Feik: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for the subdivision g~)3-6 for the Schroeder Addition for 3 lots with variances as shown on the plans received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And an addition number 14. The applicant shall work with engineering to ensure adequate drainage from the parcel. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g03-6 for Schroeder Addition for 3 lots with variances as shown on the plans received April 18, 2003, subject to the following conditions: o Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall protect trees on proposed lots as well as trees in neighboring properties located next to the grading limits. . Any trees lost due to construction that are not shown as such on plans shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. o Extend silt fence along the east side of Lot 3 toward the north and remove all silt fence when development is completed. 4. Show City Detail Plate Nos. 5300 and 5301. 5. Add a 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance. . All disturbed areas shall be resodded or reseeded within two weeks of grading completion. 7. The proposed driveway must be installed with a paved surface. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 8. If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route plan for approval. 9. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to building permit issuance and are based on the number of SAC units for the new building addition. 10. Show the existing 2 foot contours. 11. Dedicate typical drainage and utility easements. 12. The total SWMP fees of $4,451 are due and payable to the City at time of final plat recording. 13. Building Official conditions: a. Soil reports must be submitted to the inspections Division before building permits will be issued for any building pad corrections, or if poor soils are encountered at excavation. b. The new lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 14. The applicant shall work with engineering to ensure adequate drainage from the parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAl. MEDIUM DENSITY AND CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A 427 UNIT TOWNHOME PROPJECT ON 94.8 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF THE TWIN CITIES AND WESTERN RAILROAD EAST OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT~ A2~ TOLLEFSON DEVELOPMENT~ INC. AND CHARLES MATTSON. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Yes I had one. If you could turn to page, let's go to page 3 first. Your table at the bottom there. I don't have a previous table in front of me and it was for the Town and Country Bernardi property but does this, it seemed to me that the table that was prepared for that property was kind of flip flopped and is that an accurate statement? And if it is accurate, would that be due to the fact that these are based, that this PUD represents basically all residential townhouses rather than more of a mix? Aanenson: Well I think it's pretty consistent. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: Oh it is consistent? Aanenson: Yeah. The townhouses pay more but then what's not being showed is the service cost and that was the same question that was raised on the other. I think it's consistent. Lillehaug: Okay. Then my next question would be on page 4. The second paragraph down it says in doing so we need to assure the land is provided for various land uses rather than responding to current market, whatever it's supposed to be there. Current market trends. Darling, whatever is there. But could you elaborate on that statement. What says we need to do this and why? I think that's important. Generous: Well the developer would probably be better at that but the townhouse development is a hot market right now. Land is expensive. There's not a lot of it available for residential development and so they can bring forward the townhouse project and the absorption rate would probably be fairly high. We concur with their analysis as far as that is. However our concern is we're giving up land to do that. Land that could be developed otherwise and maintaining a long term balance in our community. So we get contacts almost daily about converting industrial land to residential. Lillehaug: And that's what I'm getting at is why, why is this so important to keep it industrial? I mean I think I know why. The tax base. Generous: Well yeah, to keep that balance long term. Generally residential doesn't pay it's own way. After you hit a certain price point it does. Office industrial pays in excess of it' s tax rate so especially on the school side. There was a study done in the early 90's that showed residential cost $1.04 for every dollar of revenue you received. Office industrial and commercial cost 40 cents for every dollar in revenue, so it helps to balance out and keep your tax base reliable. Also you don't want to put everything in the same mix as far as maintaining a healthy community. Just like we don't want to have all estate homes because there's not a long term market for that. You want to have a life cycle type housing. Lillehaug: So what you're saying is this acreage is significant in the overall Chanhassen goal. Generous: Right. It represents approximately 16 percent of our future industrial development. Lillehaug: So it is significant? Generous: Yes. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Slagle: A couple questions. Bob, you-mentioned on page 2, after the figures. You noted 183 acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. Can I assume that that has all been developed into industrial? Generous: Yes, office warehouse, showroom space. Slagle: So we didn't divert any of it to medium density or so forth? Generous: No. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Slagle: Okay. Next question. I'm not a traffic person but I guess I just want to know these figures that you're showing for round trip for 188 a.m. peak and 231 for medium density residential. Where do you get those? Generous: Well it's one of the attachments to the report. I use the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Sixth Edition Manual and it's based on either the housing type of in this instance the square footage of the industrial development. Slagle: Okay, so it's using square footage as sort of the baseline. Generous: Right. Slagle: So really if you had a different type of industrial office, say less labor intensive, you might have fewer trips. Generous: ...it may be less. Slagle: Okay. I'm still not sure I understand the tax capacity taxes and city share. Completely, but maybe someone will ask that. If you have a chance to describe that a little later, that would be great. And I think the last thing I want to get at is, from staff s perspective we have this many units being proposed if we were to do a land use change. What do we have for Town and Country? Ballpark units. Aanenson: 370. Something like that. Slagle: Okay. So potentially you could have within a mile, using Audubon as your point to point, 800 or so units that could be developed if we went ahead with this. It'd be interesting to think what would happen if this was first and I mean fellow commissioners, it'd be interesting to see how the dialogue would have been over the last 6 months. That's it. Sacchet: Kurt, any questions? Papke: Yeah. One of the issues is going to be the transition into Chaska here. What's across the street from the development in essence? Right now it's Crosby Office Park directly across the street but the last time I drove by there I thought I saw a for sale sign on the property just across from the sub-station in Chaska. What is that zoned for? Generous: That's office industrial. Papke: Office industrial, so essentially the whole border along Chaska is all going to be office industrial eventually? Generous: Correct. Papke: Okay. So we do have that issue. One of the things that the letter from the City of Chaska I just saw for the first time just before the meeting does bring up the issue of when. And I'd just like to point out, I worked in that Crosby Office Park for 6 years and there used to be an animal feed manufacturing facility in there that emitted some very interesting odors, okay. And this development will be down wind of that facility. I don't know if that still is in production but that might be worth checking into. It could be a consideration at some point. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjomhom: I have a question regarding housing. Is Chanhassen, is there a need for more housing or is there a need for more industrial parks? Generous: There's a need for both. However, based on our comp plan we believe we can accommodate the housing on land that's guided for residential. But we need to also offset that with industrial where there's not a lot of land guided for it and the more you give up, it's very difficult to replace. Tjomhorn: So then would there be another spot this could, this development could go into? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. Papke: Just a question of clarification. When we say need, who is having that need you're referring to? Are you talking about a demand for housing versus the demand for industrial? I think the developer's perspective is that there's demand, more demand for multi-unit housing right now as opposed to industrial office park, which tends to have a high vacancy rate. Now from the city's perspective, what's our need for tax base that you know, maybe it's worth just clarifying that one. Who's perspective are we stating need? Aanenson: Sure. Are you asking that as a question? Sacchet: We are in questions right now. Papke: Yes. Aanenson: Well if you go back to page 3 where the city just completed the Key Financial Strategies, looking at tax base. Diversification. Trying to maintain that one-fourth/one-third so part of the complexity is if you take this out, where do you replace it? And so okay well, we talked about that in the Town and Country one and it kind of goes back to Rich's question. The absorption and having that much at one intersection. In good faith they waited, waking to, so if this went in, would that absorb some of the need for the other piece? I'm assuming that's what your dynamics and I guess that's the assumption that we made that this would stay industrial and based on that, moving the other piece, advancing that, allowing that one to go forward as the residential, based on this pace. It adds that complexity because where would you replace this, if we wanted to maintain that one-fourth to one-third, or 25 to 30 percent. Now we're going to go over here and say well, you're going to change from residential to industrial next to you, it just adds, it's hard to replace that. That much when we're already trying to replace some of that with Town and Country. So does that answer your question? Papke: Yeah. I was more looking for clarification about Bethany's point than really asking an additional question. Aanenson: Well I think Bob tried to answer that. It's the immediate market demand and long term making solid decision, financial long term that's why I guess I couched it back in the Key Financial Strategies to go back and say, that would be the more. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Papke: On that topic just want to, you made a broad statement before that residential tends to require a $1.04 for every. Generous: Well that was based on the study, I believe it was Lakeville did in the early 90's. Papke: Do we know where the average price of this development fits in that spectrum? Obviously you said there's a break over point where we begin to break even. Generous: It used to be $300,000. I'm not sure now. We use $240,000 as a part of our analysis. Sacchet: Thank you. That's all your questions? Tjomhom: Yes it is. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Yes. In here you said it's going to require mass grading for any development on this site. Being respective of the bluff area. Along with the mass grading we've got a total site here of 94 acres, if I'm not mistaken, correct? Generous: That's correct. Feik: Of the 94 acres, how much of it is developed into townhomes? As planned. Generous: 53-54. Feik: 53-54 acres. And those are, the 53 or 54 acres are consistent with the revenue dollars you show on the bottom of page 3 for city share. Generous: I just used the ordinance. Feik: Okay. If this were to go commercial, and I spoke with you today on this earlier. If this were to go to commercial, is it fair to say that you could even achieve this kind of density with commercial given the hills, the bluffs, the large pads you're going to need for 30,00040,000 square foot footprints, truck turn around's, everything else. What I'm getting at is, do you really think it's reasonable, the dollars that you show here for the office warehouse revenue dollars, are attainable given the slopes and the condition of the site? Can you get at that density to get those kinds of dollars? Generous: It's possible to do it and they've shown a plan for development of this site. Feik: But to do that you're going to, you mentioned you'd have to have probably some office. Pure office. Some higher. Generous: Well yeah, higher valued. Feik: Higher valued properties, so where I'm getting at is, the office warehouse city share or revenue dollars here are, is fairly speculative. Generous: Right. It's based on the assumptions. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Feik: And there's only about $55,000 a year difference between townhomes and the industrial. Generous: Yes. Feik: Okay. So it' s not much. Let' s see here. I think the rest of my questions or comments I can wait for later. Thank you. Sacchet: Craig. Thanks Bruce. Claybaugh: Most the questions have been asked but Kate I wanted to direct you to page 2. The second paragraph up from the bottom where you went through the sentence, since 1988 the year of the latest comprehensive plan was adapted, or adopted. Pardon me. 183 acres of the vacant 758 acres of industrial land use area has been developed. That represents 25 percent since 1998. Is that pretty much on pace with what you saw the office industrial being developed or is that behind the pace? I'm just trying to get a sense of. Aanenson: Maybe a little lower, yeah. Claybaugh: Maybe a little lower. Aanenson: We had in the late 90' s, we took down a lot of office industrial. That was actually out pacing residential. Slagle: Say that again, you took down? Aanenson: Yeah, there was a lot of development that was occurring in the industrial parks that were moving pretty quickly. Mark Undestad's project for example. Generous: CSM on the east. Slagle: So we built up? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Yes, right. They were actually more valuation historically different than what we've experienced in the past generally residential permits have been higher value. Actually there was a number of years where we were actually more commercial industrial value. Claybaugh: I'm assuming by recommending denial of this that you assign a lot of weight to maintaining that diversity. My concern is that we see applicants wanting to rezone office industrial residential but we're not going to see anything going back the other way. And it sounds like city staff is very committed to that diverse mix. Is that accurate? Aanenson: Yes. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: A couple more questions. First of all, the role of the Planning Commission is not to deal with tax issues, is that correct? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Aanenson: Well it's couched in. We gave you the policies of the city and certainly it's a factor in looking at the stability and economic viability in our comprehensive plan is an element so. Sacchet: Okay. In the staff report it refers compliance, or as it is non-compliance with performance standards. Could we just clarify what kind of performance standards you're referring to? Generous: It's based on the concept plan that they submitted that we're providing sensitive development in the Bluff Creek corridor. Reducing impervious surface. Taking account of the topography. That's why some of our, should you approve it we had some recommendation that they look at different housing types and different configurations of the property to make it work better. Sacchet: That answers it. And then one more quick question on top of page 7. There is a summary of what it, benefits of a PUD and it states that in return for a PUD for the flexibility, the city is receiving developing that is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Now in this particular case it is not consistent, correct? Generous: Correct. This is what we would expect. Sacchet: Alright. That's all my questions. Any more questions? Slagle: One question. I'm sorry I didn't ask. The Williams Pipeline easement. The applicant puts in one of their documents that that is a reason to be open for a land use change. Any thoughts on that? Aanenson: That's their argument. I don't think it's an argument for residential. Slagle: Okay, so it wouldn't in your opinion it wouldn't matter if it's office industrial or medium? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. Yep, one more Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah I just wanted to check. When the church went in, is it Woodside? Feik: Westwood. Claybaugh: When that went in we had I believe it was Hoffman Development come in afterwards for a round table session concerned about tapping into the infrastructure that they expected to when we went through that rezoning. To me that was something that I found out after the fact that was unexpected. That they were counting on the infrastructure to be expanded through that property to the back side to feed future development. With that church going in, that no longer appears to be the case. Is there anything with respect to infrastructure that's been geared towards the zoning that's there that could cause any future hiccups with the surrounding development? You understand my question? You come in with your capital improvements you' ve geared those towards office industrial, I'm assuming. Generous: Right. Sizing. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Claybaugh: Right. With making a change in rezoning it, is there anything on the peripheral properties that may be affected, similar to what happened, yeah. Aanenson: Well that was one of the things under the EA that if you did choose to go forward, there isn't enough information on the concept at that level. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Actually that triggers another question on my part. There isn't really much surrounding development expected because it's either across the street or across the wetland, but there is that power station. In the letter from the City of Chaska pointed out that they have an easement of access across. Do we know where that easement is? Could you point that out Bob or Kate? Generous: It's also included in the attachment they have a description. The stuff I handed out tonight .... about in this area. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, thank you. Only if there are more questions, I'm very interested to hear the presentation of the applicant. If you want to come forward and present your story. State your name and address for the record please. Jason Osberg: Good evening. My name is Jason Osberg. I'm with Tollefson Development. Our address is 17271 Kenyon Avenue, Lakeville, Minnesota, 55044. I'm here tonight as a means of presentation for our proposed townhome development, land use amendment on the Mattson property here in Chanhassen. I feel that we have a lot of information I'd like to share with you tonight that might help look at this in a more positive manner, and maybe take a look at it from our perspective. I know Bob has done a good job with the staff memo. Communicated with him on a regular basis for the last few weeks and while the information in there may be opinionated, we respectfully disagree with a lot of his statements that have been made and that's what I want to share with you this evening. But maybe right away on some of the comments that I heard from the commission, it's important to keep in mind that 16 percent number of your inventory for commercial industrial, that only half of this site is usable because of steep slopes or... open space as part of that Bluff Creek corridor, which we certainly intend to provide as part of our development here on the concept plan. The concept plan itself is a means or a tool that is workable. We submitted this as a method to get the dialogue going, as we heard that term earlier, dialogue. We want to get the discussion going with the city. We're open to exploring just about any opportunity on this site that's residential in nature. Now we have presented townhomes, 427 units which approximately is 8 units an acres on the net density, but if there are other things on the site, smaller lots, single family, detached villas, that type of thing, we are also amenable to looking at that if the city's open to this land use amendment. Some of the advantages I guess that we will see, I don't know how well that's going to show up. Thank you. You talked a little bit about tax base revenue. I mean I know this works both ways because we're going to be creating a residential development which is going to increase services, but it's also important to know that you're going to have a near term or immediate absorption rate and you're going to have tax revenue coming into the city and that's going to help balance what taxes could be generated in the future for the commercial industrial. Park decision is a huge issue in many communities that we work in and we feel that this is a good opportunity to get the developer and the city working together on something that we can create, take the private land that's presently owned by Mr. Mattson and used for agricultural purposes, and convert some of that into public open space for the good of the community and the benefit of not only the residents of our proposed development, but surrounding areas here in the hinterland. We talk about land end cash. We talk about a new concept that we see popping up in alternative to pools which is a spray park. I'll go into a little 45 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 more detail. I've got some pictures and some ideas to share with you of that in the future, but we'll also have interpretative areas because this is a nature corridor. We'd like to do some signage. We'd like to bring out the natural amenities of the site. We can create overlook areas on some of the bluff areas that capture the view sheds of the immediate area. Bob mentioned a $240,000 price range or a price point, and that's kind of an average of what the builders are telling us that they'd like to be at, at this density. What we want to really bring out is that we can create affordability on this site and we can also have upscale housing as well. There's many areas on the site that lend itself better to back to back units and there's sites that, locations on the site that lend itself to twin homes or single family homes with view sheds. So it's a wide range of affordability levels or income levels can be achieved. We talk a little bit about the grading. That was a concern that we heard earlier. Residential development, keep in mind, can be if it's done correctly, you can create a development that enhances and utilizes the topography of the property whereas most commercial industrial sites and one of the commissions mentioned, is going to take a ton of grading, and the flat surfaces and the large impervious areas, you're going to get that with residential but at least with, or you're going to get that with industrial but at least with residential you have some flexibility in working with the land and the contours. The pipeline easement was brought up as an argument. Well we feel as, if you're going to do commercial industrial development, you're going to need large parking lots. You're going to have larger buildings that are continuous and how do you build over that without creating problems or moving that easement. Residential can provide that flexibility. Reduction of the non-residential traffic through neighborhoods. In the staff report, the staff indicated that our proposed development would have a smaller impact on traffic trips in the neighborhood. Well if you look at those numbers based on what Bob put together, that's about half. We would reduce track traffic through the neighborhoods. You've got really nice neighborhoods to the north and to the east. The ongoing maintenance of these buildings would be done by an association. Therefore the quality and the overall look and curb appeal would be kept to a higher standard whereas a commercial industrial development, I know the City of Chanhassen has high building standards, but who's to say that those can't be blighted buildings in the future as well so that's positive. Additional housing opportunities. Commissioner asked do you need this housing in Chanhassen today? Yes, you need housing. Yes, you need commercial industrial as well, but we're here to try to provide that opportunity for housing because that's our nitch. And then lastly the advantage would be a development related fees paid to the city now, and that's a big thing in communities that we work in because with the budget cuts at the State, you're losing LGA. You've got a reduced city budget. Development fees can help subsidize those losses. One of the things that we saw in the e-mails was they didn't like, the neighbors didn't like townhomes being here and they bought into it being commercial industrial site. Well we respect that and we would be willing to or open to having a neighborhood meeting if the city would be in agreeance with us to pass this land use amendment. We'd be glad to work with the neighbors on site characteristics, site planning. Again the concept is something that can be tweaked. It's nothing that's in stone. So that's one other thing. On your adverse affects that the staff memo talked about, one of the big things is that this is inconsistent with your comprehensive plan. Well we understand that. That's why we're here tonight. We're asking to change that so that our proposed application is consistent with your official document. You talk about incompatibility in the staff memo with adjacent land uses. Well if you look at the land use that's out there today, agriculture is inconsistent with single family residential and is inconsistent with industrial across the street in Chaska, so no matter what you guide it, commercial industrial, residential, you're still going to have those inconsistencies and non-compatible land uses side by side. One of the commissioners talked about performance standards. Yes, I mean we understand that, in Bob's staff report he's referencing commercial industrial standards. However, if this is allowed to be residential, we would be open to meeting whatever performance standards your residential code would call for. I touched on some of the other issues already earlier here but we have a financial analysis that was 46 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 prepared by professionals on tax impact. Now, if the Planning Commission would like I've got the full financial analysis. I know that's, you're here more for ordinance and comprehensive plan but that information's available not only to you but City Council and if there's members of the general public that would like to see that, I do have additional copies here but it's the big word to note is that we are showing in this financial analysis the difference of close to 11 million dollars in the year 2021 from the difference of residential, our proposed residential development versus commercial industrial office site utilizing the Mattson property. Now as Bob mentioned, he thought the appreciation values were high. I can't speak for or against that. That's not my line of work, but we can certainly take another look at that if the Planning Commission's more interested. But we are, like I said, we're open to different housing types. I've got conceptual pictures of different units that may be appropriate on the site, if the City re-guides it to residential uses here, if anybody's interested in looking at those. And then I also want to just take the last minute of my presentation and show some of this sprinkler concept. This is again a concept that is kind of taking the place of public pools in neighborhoods and they're a little less safety hazard. They' re zero depth. They' re quite fun from what the people who produce these told me. This is a manufacturer out of Canada and these are some pictures that they sent me but this is just kind of a general gist of if we were to do a residential development, we'd like to offer something unique and different to the City of Chanhassen. Something that you presently do not already have. So with that, I've got a million other things but I know we're short on time so I'd love to take any questions. I know there are members of the public who are also here to talk about this. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Questions from the applicant. No questions from the applicant? Lillehaug: I do have a question. I mean we're also here to look at the approval of a concept PUD, correct? So looking at the plan here, just a couple details on it that I'd like you to address. It appears that on the north we have a railroad tracks. On the west we have a county road. On the east we have a wetland with a power line running down the edge of the property that we're talking about here. On the south you have a substation. In your mind as a residential neighborhood, kind of locked in by these parameters, does it really Fit in there? Maybe in the inner it does but in your opinion does the very outskirts of this property, is it good for residential neighborhood to be in here? Jason Osberg: You know the marketplace is telling us that it is because there's that type of demand. If you look at the concept plan, we do show a trail system. We show some spraying. We would provide adequate buffering along County Road 18. We'd provide buffering around the substation. It's no different, I mean there's I believe Pulte has a project here in Chanhassen that is on the comer of 5 and 41, if I'm not mistaken. I mean I think it would kind of be in that same framework. It's just going to take, you know you're going to orientate your houses a little different, away from those high traffic areas, but it's def'mitely workable. And I do have our engineer from Sathre-Berquist here tonight if there are any technical questions about the plan, I'm sure Bob would be happy to answer those. Sacchet: Kate. Aanenson: Can I ask a question? I did receive a lot of phone calls from developers so it was my understanding that you would sell this and you are the developer, is that correct? Jason Osberg: We are the developer. Aanenson: Okay. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Jason Osberg: We do not build homes. We're simply a land developer. Aanenson: So someone else would come in and do the project. Jason Osberg: Yeah. No, what I mean is, we would be the lead applicant. Now if it was Home Builder A, B, C, they would come in along with us and then they would submit their product type and then it would have to get all the. Aanenson: I believe it went out for notice because I did receive phone calls. I was just trying to understand the relationship of who's going to be, if this were to go forward the, showing the product? Jason Osberg: Okay. We have. Aanenson: Does Tollefson Development have a product or do you work with somebody else to present the product? Jason Osberg: We work with several home builders, both national and local. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that's important. Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Two questions. I will come back and ask for some examples of who those folks are. But what I'd like to ask you is one, would you be open, and I refer to an article that just was in the paper the last few weeks of how, if you will, America now lives in homes and drives to the store, to whatever. No one walks. My question is, is would you be open to some commercial, call it support? James Osberg: Like a maybe a new urbanism that's kind of a mixed use? Maybe lower level retail, above level living or separate units entirely? At this point we're open to anything that works in the marketplace. We're open to anything that the City of Chanhassen would allow residential. We just need to apply for the land use amendment and able to get to that next step. Slagle: I understand. Couple more questions. One is, I'm more looking for a feel on this versus a raw number. But what do you think of the number of units that you're asking for? I mean are you amenable if you will to lower number of units? James Osberg: Again, we're open to anything at this point. We understand that to make this land use amendment there's going to have to be give and take. We represent a typical 8 unit per acre townhome development that some of the builders have told us that they'd like to build their product type, that's what we show here. We don't show Builder A, B, C's exact profile here but we show something very, very similar. No, we are open to working one way or another. I've got examples of 40 foot wide detached lots that some builders have indicated interest in that look fairly nice, and may kind of lean towards that new urbanism maybe you were referring to in your previous question. Slagle: Last question then would be some of the examples of the builders that you currently work with. James Osberg: We deal with the national builders are, and I'm not going to say any specific to this development because, we deal with Pulte Homes. We deal with Orrin Thompson, US Homes, Lenar. We deal with, had contact with Town and Country Homes, and I know that was a 48 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 development that was brought up near here. Ryland, Rottlund, David Bernard Homes. We have relationships with the National Home Builders, but we also have local home builders and some of the larger ones like M.W. Johnson, Nettegard Construction, Donnay Homes, Avalon. Slagle: Let me ask you more specifically. Can you give me some examples of some developments that you've actually been the lead on that I could see? James Osberg: For a strict townhome development, there's one in Cottage Grove called Shots at Elmar Village. That incorporates a neighborhood retail center along with it. That builder's M.W. Johnson. We are in fact tonight going in front of the City of Shakopee with Pulte on another deal where we would do the exact same thing here where we're the lead developer, and that one actually has about 1,300 units on 160 acres. So that I can give you conceptual plans for that. Slagle: Okay. That would be enough for me to see. Okay. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Does your model and analysis take into account as far as the drive for all these units, does it take into account the possible concept PUD that was proposed south of here? Does it take into account the 300 or whatever homes that are. James Osberg: From Town and Country's development? No. What our's does is specifically addresses the Mattson property. We haven't, we didn't look beyond our development for trips, if that's what you're referring to. Lillehaug: Not really trips. More the market drive. Absorption. James Osberg: Absorption. Lillehaug: Right. James Osberg: Yeah, we're looking at a 4 year absorption rate is what the f'mancial analysis uses, if I recall correctly. And that's at 110 roughly, or 107, 106 units. Lillehaug: So you're saying it doesn't take into account, I don't know which one may or may not be here first but if it doesn't take into account another equal size development next to it? James Osberg: No, because I can tell you this from the marketplace, that builder aside, they're doing their thing. There's plenty of other builders who have stepped up to the plate and said, if this goes forward we'd like to build in there. We honestly probably have requests for about 1,000 units in Chanhassen. Our site doesn't even accommodate that, if that were to be approved. So the market is definitely there by other builders. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Okay, how about which direction, the other side of the room. Kurt first. Papke: Yeah, I couldn't find it when I read through it again just recently but I believe you made a comment somewhere that the site is amenable to a walkable situation, that there are things within walking distance. Just curious as to what you think is within walking distance of this development? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 James Osberg: I guess the easy answer to that is you've got walking trails here in your parks and open space just to the east of the property. From a non-vehicular standpoint, utilizing these trail connections to where they lead in Chanhassen, I believe they go up to County Road 5, is that correct? Generous: Yeah. James Osberg: Leading to County Road 5 and the area that we're in right now, you've got some retail. You've got some food. You've got some beverage. You've got that type of non-vehicular option if you were to connect with this trail development. Papke: So you're referring primarily to the trail then? James Osberg: Correct. But again, like commissioner said earlier, we can look at doing a mixed use development right here on the site. One of the reasons why we didn't do that however is the D.R. Horton application that was turned in in '96-97, they had a mixed use and that was denied. We thought we'd go with something different. Sacchet: Bethany? Tjomhorn: Nothing. Sacchet: Bruce? Feik: Just one, and it's kind of a joint question. You had said a portion of this was guided for park and rec. How many acres was that? James Osberg: From what I' ve seen. Feik: Or Kate, if you want to answer jointly. Aanenson: There is nothing guided parks and rec. That would be a taking. There would be some extraction. There is the Bluff Creek overlay zone that they have to accommodate but there is no per se park dedication. There is wetlands. There is the overlay district which they have to dedicate. It's shown on the map, the green, the Bluff Creek overlay. But it would be an extraction. Where there's commercial industrial we would take the extraction in the trails. For the park fees, excuse me. I'm using jargon. We would take park and trail dedication fees. We would also put trails in place whether it be residential or industrial. Feik: Okay, so there's not a significant amount of acreage that's called guided if you will, to inappropriately use that word. Aanenson: No, there is shown on the comp plan but that' s, this goes back to the original comp plan where we're trying to preserve. It's really encumbered within the overlay district, the primary overlay district. That's the no touch zone so no matter what the land use is, that overlay district still remains in place so that's a no touch zone. Feik: Okay, so out of the 94 acres how much of that is, falls in that portion? Aanenson: Well there's 53 developable acres so that. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: 40 percent. Aanenson: 40 percent. Some of that's wetland. Some of that's the slope. Slagle: But you could under a PUD request. Aanenson: A density transfer? Slagle: Or request land to be set aside for a neighborhood park or whatever. Feik: You're saying there's 30-35 acres or something like that? Aanenson: Correct. Feik: So therefore in this table then, instead of this being 94 acres, it should be 34 acres less because no matter what you do with it, it's not going to be office industrial. Aanenson: Yeah, but you know what, you'd have to take that same philosophy and apply it to every project. We took every project on the gross acreage. Feik: Oh you did? Aanenson: Yes. All whole. Feik: That's the question. Aanenson: So we'd have to try to extrapolate each one and it's too complex so. Feik: That's the question, thanks. Sacchet: Craig? Claybaugh: Nothing new to add. Sacchet: Really quick, because I want to get to the residents. I want to address this. There's two things kind of peaked special interest in your presentation. One is more a question for staff. Like you pointed out that the 16 percent of the city's office industrial space are correlated with really only a little more than half of this property being developable. So I'd like to clarify with staff, what are the 16 percent? Is it the developable part or how does this correlate? Generous: It was based on our assumption of the developable, the square footage that could be developed on the site. Sacchet: So the 16 percent is the developable part? Generous: Right, if we take out 15 percent for right-of-way, and 30 percent for open space. Sacchet: Okay, so that is factored in. And the other thing, that's not really a question but I am puzzled how you reason that demand makes it suitable for residential, but that's more something that's going to come into comments I would think. Did you want to add anything else? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 James Osberg: If I could Mr. Chairman. Getting back to the parks and open space and trails. We show on the concept plan, sorry. We show this southeast comer as 12 ½ acres as open space for the park system. We also would be showing internal trail system. We also show this neighborhood park near the bluff area that was identified in the staff memo as a potential neighborhood park as a location potential for that spray park. Now this Bob is about 4 acres? The neighborhood, roughly 3 ½-4 acres. Some of this 12 ½ acres is not usable, from what I. Aanenson: It's all in the primary zone and the bluff is the no touch zone so they're crediting themselves for giving that as park space and that's I guess what we were trying to clarify. Sacchet: That them wouldn't be any possibility to do much in there, okay. James Osberg: And we have this additional remnant piece here that because it is a PUD we understand that we have to be flexible in terms of what we provide. This is an area the City would like parkland here. Or if there's other areas within the concept plan, we're open to working with that. Sacchet: Well I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your presentation. With that I'd like to invite the public. This is a public heating. If you want to come forward. Address this item. This is your time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record, and curious to see what you have to say. A1 Gomez: A1 Gomez. I live actually across the way from the water preserve. I've got to tell you I'm a little disappointed. I assume you're all taxpaying members of the community. You guys obviously have some very comprehensive plans in front of you. We're here with a letter that basically states nothing more than there's a planned development, so as you are all asking questions and referencing numbers, and maybe we don't need that much detail, but I sure would like more than this letter that states what is going on. The big proposition that we talk about is changing the zoning disturbs me a lot as a taxpayer because when I bought the property, I called the city and asked what that zoning was and made a business decision to buy the property based on what was there. And if we can change that at the time, because I know you asked why is that important, that we change it or not change it, it is exactly that. We made those decisions. The builder's obviously here for a main reason. They're here to make a profit. We talk a lot about the taxing and taxation that would generate revenue. I didn't hear anything about the expenses that come with 427 units being put into Chanhassen. I personally can't afford another referendum for more schools. Will Tollefson or any other developer pay for those additional schools and/or classrooms that are going to be required. Infrastructure. We talk about that corridor and the commercial properties that are there. The railroad, I think it's perfect for that continued development. I don't see how putting in commercial property's going to generate that much more traffic than when we put 420 units and the families that could potentially come and to from there. You also refer to another development that for again for all of us that are just here on behalf of this one, have no idea about so that's all new to us on another 300 and some units. Rich, I think you referred to what' s within the one mile of that property. I think if you take Galpin onto 5, it's amazing how many of these townhomes we've developed in this area and the influx of traffic, of people. Yes, tax revenue but also the expenses that come with it. Again a lot of things that I saw that personally I would prefer to get a lot more information for a better sunnnm-y than a one page saying here's the proposition. What are the impacts? Sacchet: It's my understanding that the staff reports are available to the public. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Aanenson: Yes, we did speak to several neighbors and staff reports were handed out. Anybody that calls us, we always offer them to come get a copy or send them an e-mail them a copy. A1 Gomez: Could you add that to your letters in the future saying. Aanenson: This is how big this staff report is. Sacchet: But it should be noted. A1 Gomez: But what I'm saying is that is available upon request. Aanenson: It is on there. A1 Gomez: Is it on here? Then my problem. Generous: We will have our e-mail addresses in the future. A1 Gomez: The e-mail, you and I talked about that and again if you have e-mail addresses, it's a quicker means of communication. Aanenson: We always encourage people to get the staff report. Sacchet: Also you have to be aware that these staff reports are available like middle to later part of the previous week so they're not available really a long time before but they are available. A1 Gomez: And I don't know that I need the details that you get but something a little more than this one page...otherwise a lot of it is philosophical as to why we're here. And you've got a lot more detail to base your decisions and your questions that we don't see. Sacchet: Appreciate your comments very much. Lillehaug: To make a comment on one of your questions. The staff report does address the impact on the schools, etc, so that is in here and it' s not left unturned. So we are aware of all that. A1 Gomez: Bob, could I get a copy? Aanenson: sure. Sacchet: Thank you very much. I'm sure there are other people that want to address this item. Next please. Please state your name and address. Andy Kayati: My name is Andy Kayati. I'm at 8715 Valley View Place. I'm in the Bluff Creek Estates community right there, and on the east side of the proposed development. When I moved here 9 years ago I looked at this beautiful area and I said you know, this is wonderful. I really like what it looks like. I said I can envision that at some point in time there's going to be something there. I could envision, you know knowing that it was light industrial, that I could live with light industrial there. I have light industrial just to the north of me on the other side of the adjacent parcels, just to the other side of our residential location there. I said if there's anything that I don't want there, it's what I call high density housing, and I don't care how you term this, this is high density housing. The number of vehicles on the roads there, I don't see that they could sustain them for years to come because I don't see any rapid changes coming to the 53 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 infrastructure of that area any time soon. Looking out my back kitchen window I can observe the traffic light that was just put in a couple years ago at the corner of Audubon and Lyman. The traffic essentially backs up there at 5:00 in the afternoon, probably 20 or 30 cars deep. Try to make that turn when you're going to Chaska High to pick up your kid, which I do. The watershed area that they alluded to, and if you don't mind I'd like to bring this up. This area here, probably you've got, you've got maybe an inch. It's not usable.., so to consider that park use, it's ridiculous. I'm also very, very concerned I think with looking at the amount of the percentage of utilization that you're taking out of office and light industrial. 16 percent. That's a considerable amount to be taken out of that usage. And you're taking that out of, I know we're not supposed to bring up taxes here but the infrastructure base and the tax base and transferring it over to the residential. What kind of impact is it going to have on police services? I know schools are taken into consideration, but there's a school right up the street, Bluff Creek, that you can't even get into now. All of those things with 437 new units coming in, and by the you know, by the slightest estimates if there's 1 ½ cars per unit you're talking about 600 vehicles a day. So I guess I take issue with the reduced trips for this type of residential versus industrial use there. In addition to that, any type of smaller lot usage for single family houses I would oppose that in addition to this. If they're reasonable sized lots, which we have there, which I consider to be reasonable sized lots which are approximately a third of an acre. We're just a little under that. Something like that may be reasonable but anything as far as a smaller use lot I would never agree to. You know as I said, the impact on the area and for that reason I do oppose this wholeheartedly. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address the commission? Please do so at this time. I also want to remind you, it doesn't necessarily add more weight if you repeat points that have already been made. Marsha Strand: Good evening. My name is Marsha Strand and I live in Bluff Creek Estates as well at 8631 Valley View Court. My biggest concerns have been pretty much presented but I want to add the component of noise. The topography of that area has a valley in there and right now the kids love to go down and play in that swampland and you hear every word bouncing around our cul-de-sac that they're saying down there, and I think that their water park or whatever they call it, spray park, sounds like a great amount of fun to a lot of small screaming children. And I live you know among a lot of children and I know that when they have fun they scream and holler and mn around, and I would not expect that that would be any different in that kind of park. And so that adds another compounding factor that again we didn't anticipate residential when we bought our property there and hope that unless there's a much more compelling reason to change the planned development, than we've heard tonight, that you choose not to do that. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Who else wants to address this item? This is your moment to do so. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record please. Mike Solheim: Hi there, I'm Mike Solheim. My address is 1780 Mound, Minnesota. I'm not actually from Chanhassen but I just want to stand up and give you a little bit of background or what I think of Tollefson Development. I've worked with them and I know the family. It's like Jason says, they're very amenable to any kind of proposal that the Council and the community and the members that live out them who it's going to affect, for this project to work. So I'm just asking that everybody think that this is just a footprint of what's going to happen, but it's very much amenable to what the City of Chanhassen and it's members want. So I just wanted to get up and say that. Appreciate your time. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Slagle: I have a question for you though. Just so I understand the relationship, when you say work with them. Mike Solheim: I work with them. Aff'diated with them to a point. I am a mortgage broker so I do loans, so I work with builders and developers to try to get them to secure the end loans. Slagle: Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I don't live in that area but I am concerned about the development of that area. Our comp plan is 5 years old, to 1998. That's 5 years ago. I think dedicating that land for industrial use was in the best interest of the city and I think it is now. I don't think things have changed that much. I also have a point to make about Town and Country. I kind of get the feeling that Town and Country is a done deal. Okay, it's a concept plan period. Sacchet: It's not a done deal. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. And the other thing is, the City Council agreed to spend about what, $110,000 or more on a study that did not include this area I believe, correct? But it's the land adjacent to this area, and I wonder why this parcel, which is also zoned industrial was excluded from that development study. Sacchet: Can you address that please? Aanenson: That's a very good question and that would be one of our concerns is the timing on this whole thing is, the implication is that we're doing a large environmental assessment to the south area. The 600 acres in the 2005 MUSA. Looking at the right land uses, trip generation, all that and to change this now at this time seems a little premature which is I would concur with that. Debbie Lloyd: Yeah I'd like to see what the outcome of that study is. Aanenson: Well this does require an EA also. If this was to go forward based on the number of units, it would require an EA but you're right, the two need to be working together. Sacchet: EA meaning Environmental Assessment. Aanenson: I'm sorry, yeah to look at the traffic. All those sort of things. Wetlands. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. Carrie Krych: I'm Carrie Krych and I am at 2127 Boulder, other side. Slagle: Stone Creek? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Carrie Krych: Stone Creek, yep. And we're just, some of us on Boulder have a little bit different viewpoint than what's been said today. None of us, that we've spoken to of my neighbors on Boulder want to see 427 townhomes. Absolutely none of us would ever think that was a good idea. However, light industrial or whatever is a little fearful as well. It's right in my back yard, as I'm sure it's in some of your's but I'm fearful of what else could be put there that would be great for me to look at every day. Every day for 6 months of the year I've got woods. I can't see anything. Build whatever you want. It's real quiet...but and it's my 3 kids that scream, but 6 months I see everything. Everything because there are no trees. There's no leaves and so I see everything so if it were you know, you know nice residential, that would be a better solution for me than industrial. I don't really want trucks hauling in and out in my back yard either so. So I think we, my neighbors as we talked and as I came today, we didn't, we were that boy, we want to be, it's going to be residential. We'd choose residential and be screened as best we can from some light industrial because we don't want the trucks. We don't want that pattern and then you know the fear, I don't even know. I want to ask, where is this Town and Country? No one else, maybe you all know. I don't know where it is. Where's it supposed to be going? I want to know because that frightens me to death. I mean all of a sudden you're bringing up 800 potential or 500 potential units on top of each other, that's crazy. Slagle: Go south on Audubon up the hill, and. Sacchet: On the east. Slagle: Now on the east side. Saam: This is the proposed development. Aanenson: But I think what they need to recognize is that... Sacchet: Past the metal dinosaur. Aanenson: 600 acres that are going to be coming into development. Not just all residential but there's 600 acres that in the year 2005 they're starting to implement. Some of it's industrial and some of it's going to be residential. Carrie Krych: I am concerned, I mean Chanhassen is an expensive city for a homeowner to live in and we live in nice priced homes and I want to live in neighborhoods where it's thoughtful planning where we have, to plot industrial into certain areas, sometimes I'm concerned that Chanhassen is a little, not as thought out as some of our other communities and so I get concerned about that and concerned about the light industrial. Sacchet: I don't know whether it's any consolation to you but we do have a very well worked out comprehensive plan and the matter in front of us tonight is an applicant requesting a change to that. I would also want to point out, and I don't want to belabor this but it's likely that you could have buffering, berming with industrial as with residential. Aanenson: Can I just clarify too the ordinance does require from residential to industrial 100 foot landscaping berm. Buffer. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that. Carrie Krych: That is helpful. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much for speaking up. Please go ahead. Mary Frey: Just one thing that, Mary Frey, 1822 Valley Ridge Trail North. I'm opposed for everything what they've said too and I guess if it were, yeah obviously single family residential would be preferential over light industrial but if you were trying to win us over you probably shouldn't have done a, I mean as I calculated it out, that'd be 427 units on 53 developable acres which puts it about 8 units on an acre. In addition to that a water park plus parking and driveway. That's incredible. I mean you know, why not start out that way and then if you want to talk with the neighbors, we would have listened probably if it would have been residential single family. Sacchet: If I could ask you to address the commission though. That's really the purpose of this. Mary Frey: That's all I wanted to ask. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright, who hasn't spoken yet? Who wants to speak? Please, it's your turn. Greg Scallon: My name is Greg Scallon. I live at 1814 Valley Ridge Trail, and I guess you know, I' ve heard what all the neighbors say and I kind of agree. I just look at, you know I see the City of Chanhassen Land Use Plan and then there's a lot of time and money that has gone into this plan over the course of the years and this is the vision that we have and I guess I just have a question as far as the, you've got the current market is hot for residential but this is looking at a long term plan. I guess I don't know what, how compelling of a reason that you would need to change, make a significant change in this plan. And I guess that's just my only question. Sacchet: Thank you. That's definitely the question in front of us tonight. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. Slagle: Any farmers? Sacchet: Doesn't look like it. Any non-farmers? Alright, if nobody else wants to address this item I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion and comments. You is inclined to start addressing this item? Any, do you want to jump in? Go ahead. Feik: Sure, at the risk of alienating all of my neighbors by the way, which is all of that crowd. I think we need to keep some things into perspective. This land will be developed. It's going to happen. There's some issues regarding when, or noise and odors that, current issues I should say, coming in from the commercial stuff to the west. If this goes industrial, just let me warn you those odors could get that much closer. They could be right across the pond. Just something to be aware of. Schools, it's been mentioned we've got a very large AUAR going on down the street. 600 acres. It's guided 50/50 commercial/residential. At 300 acres at anywhere near reasonable density, less than this but more than single family, we're looking at 1,000 units that are going in in the next 10 years, who knows what. So the school issue is really an issue. It's going to happen. We're going to be having all of the referendums and everything else so I guess in part of it I want my neighbors and everybody to think about is sometimes it's better, the devil you know and the devil you don't. I'm wondering if we would be having the same concerns up here if the density was proposed something significantly less. I'm not sure we would. So I guess I can be persuaded to approve this, much to the chagrin of my neighbors but again, but I'm not sure that this is necessarily as bad as everybody says. I think, like I say, it's going to be developed and sometimes it's better to have the devil you know than the you devil you don't. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Sacchet: Thanks. Craig, do you want to jump in next? Claybaugh: I can't argue with logic like that but I guess the one point I'd like to make is that if the commission as a body was of a mind to entertain this, entertain approving this, I would prefer to table it and have staff come back and prepare the documentation geared more towards an approval so we' re looking at it from that perspective and all the things that go to that. From an approval standpoint I'm not getting from the package what I do when it's prepared in that fashion. This is prepared for denial and I know that you've touched on some things should we consider approval but I just, it seems like a lot of information and not enough time and not enough material to really break it down. So that would be my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Bethany, do you want to make your comment or? Tjomhom: I think I'd just second what he just said. I think it's a thick packet. It's a lot to think about. It's a lot to understand but I do think that this was geared for industrial property and people have purchased homes. They have businesses in the industrial park area because of this. They've been promised something that it was for commercial and I don't know if it's right to all of a sudden change our mind. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. Kurt, do you want to address it? Papke: Yeah. One of the issues that was brought up tonight was the, there seems to be a fair amount of surprise in the neighbors about the pace of development. That the Town and Country development seems to have been news to a number of people, and I think that's a relevant issue. I think one of the other residents mentioned they don't see the compelling reason to change from the comprehensive plan at this point. I think if you put those two things together, from my perspective anyway, it seems like we have an opportunity to change our plans and do so at a time when there's already another development that's being considered and the timing just seems poor to move forward. Why would we want to change a plan that's been around for 5 years that a lot of thought went into, just because we have an opportunity to change it? At a time when there's another development going on. So not that plans are meant to be cast in concrete and live for 20 years, but on the other hand you don't just change them because you have an opportunity to change them so that's my perspective. Sacchet: Good point, thanks Kurt. Rich. Slagle: The only thing I'll add is, I go back to my gut reaction when I first saw this property and I wondered how in the world we would build office, factories, plants on that property. I mean there's going to be a ton of grading to be done if it stays within the current land use that it's proposed. On the other hand, as commissioners have stated, this might be a premature concept to change it at this point. I would definitely be in favor of tabling this to get additional information and a perspective sort of both favoring and opposing. I will say this to my fellow commissioners, if we were to approve a land use change and followed it up with a PUD, I would be highly interested in some really creative, and I'll look at the applicant as I say this, creative approaches to planning for this parcel. A little different than what I accepted on prior nights here so basically what I'm saying is, I think I'm okay keeping it the way it is, but if the majority at this point feel like we can explore it some more, I'm willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Steve. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug: This is my first choice for where we want to put the school. I wish the school would go there. Could staff explain to me what precedence the applicant needs to set maybe for us even to consider changing the land use. Is there findings? Aanenson: We have findings to recommend that you not change it, correct. Lillehaug: Okay. So when I read through your findings, I agree with most of them. So in that regard I don't see any extenuating circumstances. Why we would want to change the land use guidance here in this case. So I would support denying the applicants in this case to change the land use. And then I also want to discuss the idea of tabling this. I'm not sure if we can get enough clear guidance to the applicant or staff on what we expect out of this to even change our, or to come back to this tabling and make a better decision here. I think what's been proposed is enough for us to consider the request at this point and I really would encourage the rest of the commissioners to make a decision here tonight. The key is the land use change. Either you're comfortable with changing it or you're not. At this point I'm not comfortable changing it. I think it's been guided correctly in this case based on the adjacent land use in Chaska, and just the general surroundings in that area. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. I'm pretty clear about this. I do want to commend the applicant for bringing forward a very well thought through and proposal argued very well the benefits of it. However, I think I would be misleading you by supporting even tabling this because I cannot support the proposed change of the land use. With the railroad on one side, the road that's going to become a four lane road on two others, across of which is going to be industrial, with a power station that's going to have to be expanded on the south comer, it does not sound suitable to me personally for residential use. There are some advantages, and given that according to our studies the industrial use is going to have a higher traffic load. As a matter of fact did he say about twice the traffic load, that is something to consider and I don't think some of the residents were quite clear about that. However, the design of Lyman Boulevard is, the concept for it is such to actually be able to carry that sort of traffic with 212 freeway coming in, that's going to be, that's all in the plan that it can carry that traffic load from an engineering viewpoint. That's been all considered. In terms of the tax base, that's really more a City Council issue than one for us. However, looking at the financial aspect, even though that is not really in our scope that much in terms of consideration, I understand the predicament of the current owner wanting to move this property. I understand the interest of the developer wanting to make it residential because that's the hot item in the market right now. He can move it. However from a viewpoint of the city, I would be tempted to consider that short sighted, as a reason to make it residential. I mean because there is demand right now for this particular product does not make it suitable for residential. And I also want to point out for the benefit of the commissioners here that with an issue dealing with the comprehensive plan, the city has tremendous leeway. I mean that's actually the area where we as commissioners have the most flexibility. I mean this is not a situation where we map it to a particular ordinance or a piece of code and we have to determine does it fit or not. This is really a point of decision where each of us has to make a decision whether this is suitable, is in the interest of the city overall. That's our responsibility with this recommendation, and ultimately a decision of the City Council. So basically in view of demand for housing for this particular product of housing does not make this site suitable, and I think this site is better suited for office/industrial. It has good access to roads. It's next to industrial. It has access to rail. It can be buffered from the neighboring residential use by berming, by landscaping, what have you. As a matter of fact as our Director of Planning pointed out, that's a requirement for residential to go in there. The topography, it's not ideal for industrial residential. There is no ideal situation here but I clearly think that the reasons to change this land use 59 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 amendment are clearly tilting me to be opposed, clearly opposed to this change. So that's my comment. Are them any other comments or more discussion from, yes Rich. Slagle: I just have one real quick one Mr. Chair, and very well spoken if I may add. I want to share with mostly the neighbors. I want to say this before the vote. I would encourage all of you to, if you will, recruit additional members of your neighborhoods, whether you support it or are against it, for the upcoming meeting if it carries on to City Council, which I think it will. Because I have to be honest, Stone Creek, there might be one or two people here. I mean there's a lot of homes just across the railroad and I'm surprised that we don't see more. So please, get the neighbors involved. I know the City Council would appreciate hearing from more folks. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Any other comments? More discussion? In the absence of that I would like to. Claybaugh: The interest that I had or in throwing out tabling was if people were of a mind to the thing that I didn't add to it is, I am not inclined to vote for this but if others are, like Rich said. If you're interested in exploring it, also I'm willing to go down that path. Sacchet: Thanks for clarifying that. I think we're ready to try a motion. This will be interesting. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential-Medium Density based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and nonconformance with the performance standard. Sacchet: I'll second that. Liilehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map amendment from Office/Industrial to Residential-Medium Density based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, incompatibility with surrounding uses and nonconformance with the performance standard. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: This item goes to City Council on June 6th, is that correct? June 9th. Do we want to summarize? Lillehaug: Do we have to vote on the second one? Sacchet: We have B. We're not done yet. There's a second motion. Lillehaug: The Planning Commission recommends denial of concept PUD for a townhouse development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. Sacchet: With condition as attached. I second that. Lillehaug: Is there any conditions? Generous: Not for denial. Sacchet: Okay, the denial is none. Okay. Second. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 2003 Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the concept Planned Unit Development for a townhouse development based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. All voted in favor, except Slagle who abstained, and the motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. Sacchet: Do you want to say why you're abstaining Rich? Slagle: No. Sacchet: Do we need to summarize for council any of the highlights of our discussion? Do we want to summarize some of the points? Basically we agree with staff report. That's the basis for our denial, correct? Okay, we leave it at that. Thank you very much. Appreciate your proposal. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6, 2003 as amended by Chairman Sacchet to change the vote on page 2 to include one abstention. So the vote should be recorded as 3-0-1. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 61