The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction to the audience on how the meeting would proceed. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich $1agle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb Kind and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION, LAKE LUCY RIDGE, NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bill & Joanne Lambrecht Gloria & Dale Carlson Scott Reinertson Jim Schluck Dennis Scheppmann Jack & Melanie Gorczyca Tamara Sather Eric Rivkin John & Mariellen Waldron Tedd Mattke Randall Noecker 6990 Utica Lane 6900 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Terrace 6800 Utica Terrace 6740 Lakeway Drive 1850 Lake Lucy Road 7090 Utica Lane 1695' Steller Court 1900 Lake Lucy Road Mattke Surveying and Engineering 8315 Pleasant View Drive, Moundsview Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Rich, any? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: Sharmin if I may. There's more than just the first two I'm going to mention but as I read through this, what came across to me was a number of things that were not in the plan. And understanding that there were then clarification that this could be worked on, it could be da, da, da, da, da. My simple question is, is there a reason that we can't sit with the applicant and get all of these done and presented to the commission as a, either a complete or an almost complete proposal? As one commissioner I just want to say I don't feel comfortable with as many of these numbers of, and I've only mentioned two, or I could talk about two. I know there's 4 or 5 that we could just have that worked on and then present it again. And Kate you're going to address that it looks like. Aanenson: Sure. We've worked with the applicant. Sharmin has extensively over the last several months to make the changes. Eventually get to the point where it needs to come to a different arena to get those changes made. Slagle: Understand. So maybe it's a question to the applicant. Aanenson: Correct. So I guess that's why we're saying, if you feel like those changes are significant enough that you want to see it again, then it may make sense to table it to see what the changes are but at this point the direction needs to come from the Planning Commission because the staff's taken it to the level they can to get the changes made. Slagle: Fair enough. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn? Sidney: Questions for staff. I see that the applicant will need to apply for other permits from regulatory agencies such as Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers. What type of permits would those entail? Can you give us any idea of, will they be a show stopper or are these just routine permits? A1-Jaff: These are permits that are required of every project that goes through the city. The wetland alteration will require DNR approval. Watershed, any subdivision that comes through the city would need to receive a watershed permit. Aanenson: Just to add onto that. The Watershed District generally doesn't give approval until the city's given a preliminary approval so this is the first step. Obviously if the other permits are not granted, then that project stops. Sidney: Okay. Do you see any problem with that or any red flags at this point? Aanenson: It has been sent around for comments as part of the original application it has been sent out and those comments that we've received to date are included in your packet. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. I mostly have comments but I would like to clarify a few points at this point. In the staff report it mentions that some mature trees might be saved. That the applicant' s making an effort to save those trees. Do we know where they are? Which trees it is? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: What you see highlighted in green is area proposed to be saved. This is a bluff right here and there are a few trees surrounding it within the 20 foot no touch zone that's being saved. The majority of this is bluff and again you' ve got the 20 foot impact zone that cannot be graded or touched. And of course this area. There are a few scattered trees here and there that we questioned whether they can be saved. Our experience when you have trees within a front yard, they don't always survive but this is the main area that is proposed to be saved. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking, you mentioned that too in your summary, that revisions that are required based on the conditions may lead to the loss of some lives or a reconfiguration to some extent of the plat. Do we have some sort of an understanding how many lots would be less or what the reconfiguration is? That's totally open at this point? Okay. Then staff report also points out that wetland mitigation is only about half as much as it should be. Do we have any discussion or idea where the other half of the mitigation could be accommodated? A1-Jaff: There are different options. Different alternatives that the applicant could pursue. The first, wetlands are required to be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. The first one of the two has to be a wetland. The second one of the two will have, can be, let me point to that one. And this is based upon the Wetland Conservation Act. For instance, this storm pond, 75% of the storm pond could be calculated as wetland replacement. Another option would be to provide a 16 V2 foot wetland buffer around the replacement section, so again there are different options that the applicant could pursue. Sacchet: But they haven't been clarified at this point? AI-Jaff: No. We haven't, and again. Looking at it we think it's doable but we don't know how it will be done yet. Sacchet: And then with the trees, I was a little confused about the numbers in the staff report. In one place it says the minimum coverage, canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on the next page it says it's 35%. Is there, like if you look on page 11 it. says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on page 12, in the second block of their information it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 35. AI-Jaff: Okay. In our opinion we looked at some aerial photos and we believe that there may be more trees than is shown on the plans. Based upon your existing canopy, that percentage changes. Sacchet: Then that also changes the number of trees to be planted from 117 to 1557 Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So we still have, would have to determine which one is actually accurate then? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So that's an open ended thing too still. And then my final question is actually 2 questions. That area is considered environmentally sensitive, correct? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Reasonably so. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 . A1-Jaff: You've got the wetlands, the natural wetland and bluffs. Sacchet: Is the alignment of the road, does it follow somewhat the natural contours or is just plowed in there? A1-Jaff: If you follow contours, there's potential that you may lose some lots. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Thank you. That's all my questions. Blackowiak: Thanks. Bruce, any questions? Feik: Yeah, I had one. If all the regulations regarding the retaining walls and the walking paths, and then all the necessary setbacks and the buffer zones were imposed, how many tots specifically if you know that, are in jeopardy? If you were to take the map that we just saw and overlay exact, and forced the retaining walls and the walkways to conform to the codes, how many lots would be in jeopardy? A1-Jaff: You can reconfigure things. Feik: I'm just, as configured. Aanenson: I don't think, we've worked this so many different ways and I guess we're uncomfortable saying that. Feik: I guess where I'm leading to is if those were to be enforced, does the plan in it's entirety materially change? In which case we would be looking at a very different project. I don't know. I'm trying to, I look at the one sidewalk which goes along the entire east side and the retaining wall on the second lot coming from the north side, and I'm trying to understand how much of this project. Aanenson: This one? Feik: Yes. How much of this project is in jeopardy if those buffers and codes are enforced? Aanenson: Well if you look at the one I just pointed to, that may be one lot that needs to be combined. Feik: And that's the only one that. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure. We're not sure what the implications of moving the trail out would be and how much things shift so, it could be another 1 or 2 possibly. Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if the plan would materially change. In which case we would want to see it again. The public may want to see it again. Aanenson: The applicant may be able to answer that more specifically too, yeah. Feik: That's my big question for now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions from you? Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Kind: Madam Chair. The Lake Lucy Highlands, the large lot portion of this parcel is currently landlocked, is that correct? A1-Jaff: That's a fair statement. Kind: So the only access to it really is this access point up here, and if that was to be developed in the future you would need to get some sort of cross access agreement or something like that. An easement. Okay. Let me see what else I have. Oh! The grading is quite extensive on here. I was wondering how this compares to other subdivisions that we've approved recently. Does any come to mind that has had this much grading? Aanenson: Yes, this has some other encumbrances with it, wetlands and trees but yes. We've got other projects that do to make it work. Kind: The only one I could think of would be maybe the Pulte project which has extensive grading but the trade off there was that we were preserving a lot of open space and that sort of thing but there' s really no trade off here for this grading. A1-Jaff:: Ashling Meadow to the west of this site had some grading on it as well. The vegetation, many of the trees were moved from one area to the other. That site, the Ashling Meadows site was initially a landscape business. But again a lot of the trees were moved from one area to the other. Kind: What was the net density of Ashling Meadows? Do you remember? Aanenson: I think the average lot size was a little bigger. A1-Jaff: Yeah. The average lot size in that subdivision was around 18. Kind: Well that's what it is here too though. Aldaff: I don't recall, I'm sorry. Kind: Okay. On Lot 1, Block 3, this is the lot right next to the one that's too narrow. That one also appears to me to be too narrow and I'm wondering if the calculations are based on it being on a curve. A1-Jaff: Yes. Kind: And to me that curve seems pretty much of a joke. To be calling that a curve. I mean isn't it reasonable to require the frontage to be 90 feet on something like that? Aanenson: ...by sliding different lot lines. Al-Jaff: Yes. Kind: We already talked about the wetlands. Where would they go? Oh, the retaining wall by the pond, the newly created retention pond, what is the height of that? I tried to, I think my calculations, just based on the topographical map here, plat, shows the trail at 968 and then the wetland is at 960 so am I to assume it's about an 8 foot wall? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 · Saam: Yeah, 8 to 9 feet. Kind: Okay. And that is higher than our 4 foot requirement so that they would need to be engineered. Saam: Exactly. Kind: Yeah. And we've got a condition about that. I was just curious what the height was because the chain link fence that is being proposed to be at the top of it, is that a city requirement or is that? Saam: Yes, I believe where pedestrians could potentially harm themselves so where it's shown along a trail, I believe that is a building department requirement. Kind: So if the trail moves then that chain link fence at the top of that retaining wall would not be necessary. Saam: Exactly, yep. Kind: And do we know what the material for the retaining wall is proposed to be? Saam: No. I'd suggest that you ask the applicant. Kind: I will. The utilities on page 9 of the staff report it talks about, there's no public sanitary sewer available to the site so could a case be made that this development is premature? Saam: It could be. As I stated in the staff report, we have received an application,' or a petition I should say from the applicant to extend sewer to his site as a public improvement project. It has received council approval for the feasibility stage so we've been approved to go out and have a feasibility study done on doing that. One of the conditions of that approval was that this preliminary plat be brought before the Planning Commission. Have a public hearing heard on it so we're still working with the applicant on the sewer issue as I refer to in the staff report. Kind: Thank you. One piece I could not find in my packet was a lighting plan. Is that proposed? A1-Jaff: We've added a condition. Aanenson: Three conditions. A1-Jaff: Three conditions actually. I put them in front of you and I'm sorry I did not mention them earlier. We've added 3 conditions. First one, remove retaining wall from the right-of-way. Kind: On the back of that? Sorry, sorry. Here we go. A1-Jaff: Located north of Lot 8, Block 3. I'll point to it. There's a retaining wall proposed within the right-of-way. Staff is recommending it be removed. There's an existing house on the site as well as accessory structures, they need to be shown on the plan. And then street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac. Kind: Okay. And I'm assuming it shall comply with our rules as far as 90 degree cut off? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: Correct. If I may, an earlier question was the average lot size for Ashling Meadow. I said 18,000. It' s actually 28,000. Kind: And the reason for the bigger lots in Ashling Meadows is to accommodate 3 car garages or? A1-Jaff: Most developments have, what we see is typically a 3 car garage and the type of home that they design requires the additional width, additional depth on the lots. Kind: So is it safe to assume that the developers for this project is envisioning a different type of home than what would be in Ashling Meadows? Aanenson: Well the ordinance requires a 60 x 60 pad. That's what they have to show and if it meets that then it's demonstrated to be a lot. It meets the 15,000. Kind: Gotch ya. The horizontal curves on the south end of Lake, let's see. Of Lucy Ridge Lane, with the sharp curve that would need to be posted at a lower speed. I've never seen that in a staff report before that we allow having a slower speed area. Saam: If you remember Marsh Glen, that development just north of Mission Hills. As you come into it, there's a sharp curve there. I believe we had a sign posted there. That's the only one that comes to mind. We would post it 25 probably. Kind: So we do allow it? Saam: Yes. Kind: Page 11, they're talking about trails. The trail that goes along the wetland. There's really no good way to access that trail on the south side of this development. I'm assuming that there will be in the future if the parcel to the south develops. A1-Jaff: If you look at this area, you truly have some steep slopes. So there isn't a logical place to extend that connection, but as it extends in the future, most probably. Yes there will be. Kind: In the comp plan it shows further south that there would be a future trail. Okay. And then I'm assuming that based on the land cost that none of these lots would meet affordable criteria for owner occupied homes, which our comp plan calls for I believe it' s 30% of owner occupied, yeah. Aanenson: No. Kind: So that would need to be made up in a multi-family development somewhere else. And there's one other quick question. Condition number 20 on page 18 talks about discharge and having a drain tile system behind the curbs. That's the first time I've seen that in a staff report. Saam: That's standard, yep. In all the low points within streets under the curbs we require. Kind: Is it normally on the builder's plans and that's why I've never seen it as a condition before? Saam: Yeah, it may not have been shown on a preliminary plat before but we require it on the final plat. We consider it a minor detail so. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I think it's great, I just never saw it before on any others. And that's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions at this time? Claybaugh: Yes I do. I'd like to come back and revisit the statement that you've been working with the developer for probably a little better than a year. It seems like there' s quite a number of outstanding issues after 12 months of negotiation and dialogue to be coming in front of us right now. That's a substantial concern. Question for engineering. The storm water calc's, any concern that those aren't forth coming yet? Saam: We've received some pond calculations. However they do not meet the NURP criteria which we require in town. That's why I said we'll require additional storm water calc's. I have no reason to believe that we won't obtain those. Claybaugh: It seems like there's a lot of smaller items or things being portrayed as smaller issues that by the sheer quantity of then have the ability to greatly affect the overall layout of the subdivision. You've got substantial calc' s for the NURP pond. I don't know how that affects in terms of the size of the retention pond. Saam: That could potentially be a major issue. Claybaugh: You've got a number of buffer areas that potentially are going to encroach on the lots. The fact that they've been in negotiation for over a year, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly that this has been revised and the number of lots have come down since the original plans have come into the city or is this pretty similar to what came in the door the first go around? A1-Jaff: Initially when we met with the applicant, and I have to go through some paperwork to find when we started this process...not part of this development. And then at a later point the applicant acquired this Outlot A. But it's always been 22. Claybaugh: It has always been 22? I was just wondering from the development cost standpoint divided by the number of lots how they're being affected there. Has the forester been out to take a look at the property? Aanenson: (Yes). Claybaugh: Okay. Most the questions have been asked. I'd just like to reiterate the concern that this amount of time has passed and there's still quite a few issues outstanding yet that should be incorporated at this point in my opinion in the preliminary. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have too many additional questions. Wetland replacement sheets. We don't have sheets yet. I still haven't seen anything tonight, okay. And you said the forester had been out to the site so the numbers that are in here, the staff numbers are her numbers? She's comfortable with them? Aanenson: That's her recommendation. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Her recommendation, okay. And how bout the Water Resources Coordinator? I didn't see any specific I guess conditions from her. That had her name on them I guess. AI-Jaff: They're under the wetland alteration. Blackowiak: Okay. Are those all. A1-Jaff: Page 22 and they came out a, b, c, d through i. Blackowiak: Okay, so those are all from her? From Lori? A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Those are the questions I have at this point. Uli. Sacchet: May I add one more question? Blackowiak: Sure. We've got a couple more here. Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: Real quick. The grading is relatively extensive. Now you pointed out those areas where the trees are supposed to be preserved as part of this color green on the drawing up on the table. There is no grading happening in those areas that are colored green? AI-Jaff: Not according to the grading plan. Sacchet: Okay, because I had a little hard time with the grading plan has so much on it. It was really hard for me to decipher where the grading takes place. So as far as your understanding there's no grading in those areas? A1-Jaff: Not according to the plans that were submitted. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, do you have another question? Slagle: ...question Chairman. Since the applicant made their original intent known to staff, how many plans have you seen? I mean is a lot or are we looking at just a few? AI-Jaff' 4 or 5. I would have to go through the file. Slagle: And the reason I'm asking is, per Craig's question you stated that it stayed at 22 basically from the onset. Number of sites. A1-Jaff: When we first met with the applicant Outlot A was not part of it. Slagle: I understand. I got that part. AI-Jaff: At that point I believe the number of lots were 17. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 Slagle: Okay, so Outlot, that addition of land in addition to Outlot A is that it's added 5? A1-Jaff: Yeah. Slagle: Okay. Since that point, what I'm trying to gauge is what kind of conversations and communications and let's just call it partnering has happened since that point, and I need your viewpoint as well because we're going to ask the applicant that, and I think it's fair to hear both sides. Aanenson: Okay. I think our staff report speaks to what we believe is to make it work. Okay, and we've laid those out in conditions that we say the retaining walls have to come out. We need better storm water calc's. Looking at if those things can be addressed then we believe we have a site plan that meets city ordinance. What the implications of those, we're not all sure yet. I think if we listen to the applicant's presentation they may be able to address those but if we can, if these changes were incorporated into the plan, the subdivision, then we would have a project that meets city ordinance. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. Now would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation7 If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker. Blackowiak: Excuse me, do you want to just grab the microphone and so we can all hear. Thank you. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I am the applicant. I'm going to be highlighting a number of things about the plan and then for more detail I'm going to introduce my engineer, Tedd Mattke...in this process. To begin with let me make a few general comments. One of them being that this is a, has been a very complex site and because of it's nature, basically rising about, I think it's 59 or 60 feet above Lake Lucy Road, it makes it extremely difficult to develop. And we've brought revisions to the staff on numerous occasions, like Sharmin indicates, and I've had several conversations with Teresa and other staff members concerning this site. Some of the main issues that we ran into were road alignment because initially before we even brought a concept plan to the city we had looked at a different road alignment but it just caused such a hug amount of tree loss that we basically stuck with the plan that we've had, and although there is a significant amount of tree loss on this site, we've tried to minimize it as much as possible given the conditions that we've been working with on the huge topography changes. Also we've had one of the things that I approached, I live on a street that has teenagers and I'm the ninth house in on the street and it's nothing for teenagers in my community to be hitting 50 miles an hour before they get to the stop sign. And with a, we basically are maxed out at a 7% grade on this site to make things work and we even then couldn't achieve the desired flatness of the close to stop signs that we would like to have achieved. And so I approached Matt one day and I said hey, would it be possible that we minimize these curves somewhat because it will help slow down traffic. And if you've got a 700 foot run at the top of that hill down to the stop sign, dime to donuts somebody's going to go sliding through that stop sign in the wintertime so that's one of the, I know one of the comments were made about those curves and that was why we had done that. The other thing also is we had looked at, in one of the, in some of the previous plans we had looked at bringing the trail up through the cul-de-sac and trying to minimize the impact on the wetlands. So the trail and the associated home ownership of the people that were living there by having that trail come up through the cul-de-sac. Todd Hoffman indicated that that just was something that they would prefer not to see. They'd like to keep the trail along the wetlands. And in so doing it's, 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 maybe I can summarize this a little bit by saying, if you check my track history you'll find that my developments are a little bit above neighboring developments if you will, and I'm somewhat particular about the land that I purchase and in so doing, try to achieve and create developments that are upscale if you will. And I've already met with several builders for this development. Charles Cudd and just a number of them without naming a whole bunch of names, but they are very interested in acquiring this property, or acquiring the lots in the property and would be building homes probably in the 700 plus range. And there has been discussions about having a model at 1.1 with one of the builders. So it's a very high caliber neighborhood if you will and we're very, we tried to save as many trees as we possibly could. We originally identified that we had about 98 trees to replace and I made a proposal that we put in 114 and then calculations that Sharmin has come up with is different than what we had. One of the, and I'm not saying that it's even my engineer or Sharmin is off but I will say this. One of the problems in looking at aerial topography is that when you do that you pick up shadows of trees instead of the trees themselves and sometimes you calculate different amounts than you would really if you did not look at the shadows of the trees. So this may or may not be a problem at this point, I don't know but whatever the case, we're in agreement to conform to what we need to to achieve this development. I've literally practically got it all sold out before it's even built. There's a high demand for this area. There will be many beautiful lots overlooking the lake and be able to have that many beautiful homes associated therewith. I'm going to let Tedd go into a little bit more detail here on the plan. And feel free if you have any questions now or later if you'd like to ask me and glad to answer. Blackowiak: I think we'll hear the entire presentation and then maybe we'll call you back up if that's alright. Thanks. Randy Noecker: Alright. Tedd Mattke: My name is Tedd Mattke. Mattke Surveying and Engineering. There are I think 3 parts that we probably should talk about. The reason why we don't have the buffer that we're supposed to have along the wetland is that we didn't understand what we were required to do. What we have shown is an 8 foot wide bituminous trail that's right along the side of the property lines of the lots that would be created and then between the bituminous trail and the wetland we're showing something in the ranges between 10 feet and about 50 feet that we thought was considered buffer. We now understand that the' requirement is that there be a 20 foot trail easement that does not count as the buffer and that the trail is supposed to go down the middle of that and apparently the city is going to be mowing it or something like that on both sides and then the buffer is outside of that. So in order to create the trail according to the requirements, we will have to lose a lot, 1 lot from those 6 lots that are facing towards the wetland on the east. We looked at that earlier and that's the number that we come up with in order to have the area that meets the city requirements there. As far as the wetland mitigation, we're showing wetland mitigation in the northwest corner of the site. We can also provide the public value credits with the pond and the buffer area. So as far as how you want to designate that, which part goes to achieve the wetland mitigation public value credits, we're going to have more than what we need with this project as it is right now and with the trail we' 11 have even more beyond what is required. As far as the pond sizing goes, we do meet, in my opinion, meet the NURP size requirements but we don't have the 10 foot bench in there right now and that' s a requirement but that would increase the size of the pond in the, also be using up some of that area of that lot that we're going to lose so we're going to end up with a project here that's 21 lots, not 22 and we can accommodate the requirements for the NURP requirements and also the trail setback requirements for the buffer along side the wetland as we now understand it to be. Discussion about the trees is I guess the other issue. The shading that you see on there that shows trees, a lot of those trees are buckthorn and box elder and small 3 inch, 2 inch diameter trees that provide canopy right now but they're not significant trees and there's a lot of open space on that site too. And a majority 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 of our grading is in that open space and taking out those small trees and then we have to replace them. Randy pointed out that in looking at the aerial photos you may over judge the area that is canopy based on shadows and so forth. We had discussions at the time of what we were supposed to include as canopy and some of the discussion included, well do you want the little brushy trees? The willows that are down next to the wetland and so forth, are they supposed to count? And our understanding was that they weren't supposed to count but if the forester wants to count them, Randy's willing to accept that too. It's not a deal breaker I guess. Nothing in this project is a deal breaker. We'd been working with staff as Sharmin has said, and Randy has noted also and we're willing to continue to do that to meet these latest things that staff has come up with. I point out that this is the first real full scale review we've had because in the past we've been dealing with issues such as will you allow a steeper grade than 7% to save some more trees? And it was decided by staff, no we want to stick to 7%. The question came up about those retaining walls. The retaining walls are far enough away from the pads right now that we can move them so that, and meet the 30 foot setback. We didn't understand that the retaining walls were considered structures when it came to the setback from the wetland buffer. So it's another misunderstanding on our part and we'll just move them. The reason we have a retaining wall shown right now, I believe it' s shown on the edge of the right-of-way rather than in the right-of-way. If it' s shown in the right-of-way, then it has to be moved or eliminated and the reason for that retaining wall is to save a large white pine. As far as grades go, this site is, I don't think it's that difficult a site other than you've got a lot of topography going across it and so you have to make fiat areas for the pads and staff takes a conservative view in calculating what we're losing in terms of trees by saying that anything that's within, I think she said 10 feet Sharmin, of the pad area we considered as a lost tree? A1-Jaff: What we've done in the past is looked at 20 feet. Based upon our experience those are the trees that typically get removed. Tedd Mattke: Okay, so we accept that calculation. It's our intent when we go out on the site and begin grading to try to save more than that. We don't get credit for those that we save but it's our intent to save them and let the homeowners take them out if they have to. After they see how their house sits on a lot, so this is a worst case scenario that you're looking at in terms of the trees that will be lost. One final thing I guess is that the Lake Lucy has riparian rights and the initial intent was to try to get a couple lots that could have lake frontage and docks and so forth and the city wants to have a trail that goes along the wetlands. They didn't want the trail to go up to the cul-de-sac. They wanted the trail down along the lake and so the city acquires those riparian rights which are significantly valuable, let's put it that way. And so the public gets to use that trail and if there's a dock or something put in there, down there on that southeast comer, it's a public dock. It's not a dock that is owned by the person on the last lot down there. I think there's been, and one final thing I guess. In crossing the wetland on the north end where, we're filling above the area of a house, about 4,000 square feet, and it's a requirement that we go out to Lake Lucy Road by the city. We have to go out there and that's the only place we can cross without filling more than 4,000 square feet so we're doing the minimum, or holding it to a minimum that we can and we're trying to do it in a way that the city wants us to do it. And now I guess, unless Randy has something more to add, I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Noecker, do you have anything else you'd like to add right now? Randy Noecker: Not right now unless you have any questions. Blackowiak: No. Well why don't we start with Mr. Mattke then. Any questions, engineering type I'm assuming. If anybody has any. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: Just a couple questions. Randy mentioned that there was an alternative route you looked at. Blackowiak: Say Rick, can we just leave him up there. We'll do, for Mr. Mattke the engineering questions first. Slagle: I think he can answer it but Randy's the one that mentioned it. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: There was an alternative route that you guys discussed that you looked at first. My question is where would that have gone? Tedd Mattke: The city indicated they wanted a road that went around the wetland and Randy indicated that he would like it to come up to the cul-de-sac and follow. Slagle: No, road. Tedd Mattke: The road? Slagle: Yeah. Tedd Mattke: We had, one of our originally...a road coming like straight across. Slagle: On that road that goes into Ashling Meadows? The road. Tedd Mattke: Correct. And staff didn't like that. Staff decided that it would be better to have a T intersection here. Make this one come through with the curves. We also considered having a cul-de-sac here. It was desired that this road continue on through. We didn't want to get into the bluffs so there's been shifting back and forth here in this way to avoid the trees and to hold the houses back away from the significant trees. There's been shifting of the road in through here and curving of the road to avoid the significant trees that are in here and that make the grades work and still avoid the bluff and have buildable lots in there. This road here has had some shifting in through here. In the end it's been pulled back as a result of comments and to avoid the bluff and a number of things. To basically fine tuning this thing as far as we could go so. We've been, there's only one way really to develop this property in the manner that is being proposed and that's like it's shown right here. If you want to achieve the things that the staff wants to achieve and Randy wants to achieve. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Sorry Rich. I just want us to keep one up at a time. Any other questions for him? No? Feik: No engineering. Blackowiak: No engineering. Deb? Kind: Yes Madam Chair. Is Sharmin's recollection that before Outlot A was included that there were about 17 lots and that the addition of Outlot A allowed the addition of 5? 13 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Tedd Mattke: I wasn't involved in it at that time so I couldn't comment on what happened back before Outlot A was added. Kind: I'll ask when Randy's back up there. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Yeah, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, any engineering questions? Claybaugh: Yeah I had one question. The alignment for the proposed road off Lake Lucy, how consistent is that with the existing drive that's there now serving the property? Tedd Mattke: It's pretty much laying right over the top of it. Claybaugh: Okay. So there's no, that's already substantially degraded in that area so, okay. That was my only question. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. And I don't have any questions of you right now, thanks. Your turn. Alright, questions of the applicant. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: Randy you had mentioned that you had developments that you've done before. Just a couple examples of those just for my own frame of mind. Randy Noecker: Eden Prairie, Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Foxbriar Ridge in Maple Grove. Wildwood Village in Blaine. Goodview Ridge in Wyoming, which is a couple miles north of Forest Lake. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: And I've got some preliminary stuff on 80 acres in Shakopee and I have another 20 house, 20 townhome house development unnamed in Blaine that's going on, and another 10 acre parcel in Blaine. Slagle: Okay. That's all for right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yes, one question from the applicant. I'm very perplexed about this, I have to admit. How can you fit a million dollar house on a 15,000 square foot lot please? Randy Noecker: I should probably have Charles Cudd here. From a square footage perspective it's very easy. The ones, some of the requirements inside my development are 3 car garages. I am debating between requiring a 10:12 pitch on all roof lines, but I think I'm going to go back to 8:12. In previous developments I required ramblers to be at 6:12 and 2 stories, especially gables that face the street to be 8:12 or higher. In a development like this you're going to see a lot of 10:12's and 12:12 pitch roofs. Then you'll have, it will almost, I have about 25 residents from Chanhassen that are waiting for this approval because I have one advantage that other developers may or may not have. I can sell a lot to a private party and they can use their own builder and there's a fair number of people that don't want to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 build with the national builders if you will because they force you to build with them on their land so I don't build with sticks. I create developments and put in the infrastructure and sell the lots and it's not a, I have met with almost 2 handfuls of builders and not one of them has talked about putting a model up less than 700. Sacchet: On the 15,000 square feet roughly? Randy Noecker: Yeah. Most of the time, you're basically not going to have any problem when you get to about 16,000 square feet. You may have a little problem depending on the width of the sidewalk and how much blacktop they want to put in, and maybe the size of the patio in the back, but you're, the impervious area does create a factor because you've got that 25% rule here in Chanhassen. Sacchet: Okay. I'll have comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Bruce? Feik: Yes. Have you read the staff report yourself?. Randy Noecker: I've glanced through it. I did not have a chance to read it in detail. Feik: Have you read each and every one of the staff recommendations for approval that would be required for approval? Randy Noecker: No. Feik: I guess I'm wondering from your perspective then, based upon staff' s recommendations, how doable those recommendations are and to what degree it would change the project. But if you haven't reviewed them. Randy Noecker: I kind of handed the football off to Tedd and when I delivered the comments to him and I said go over this and let me know where we are in detail and he's basically indicated to me that we are, because of the increase in the pond and the trail issues that we would likely lose 1 lot. It's based on what the other comments are in the staff report that I saw and that he commented on, it doesn't appear that we're going to lose more than 1 lot. I may be wrong on that but. Aanenson: Can staff comment on that? Feik: Please. Aanenson: Just to make sure something's not being misrepresented, because we've been trying to articulate this over the last couple of months. The trail impact issue. I'm not sure the engineer still has the setback correct. We're not sure that only 1 lot is going to solve that problem. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: And he's still not interpreting it correctly, although we've been trying over several months through written correspondence documented to explain to him what the setback is. That's why we're at this point tonight. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Feik: Thank you. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions? Kind: Yes. The retaining wall near the entrance, what's the proposed material for that and did I calculate the height right at about 8 feet? Randy Noecker: I thought it was about 6 but maybe it is higher than that. And the material would be Keystone more than likely. Kind: And if the trail is moved to be not along that retaining wall, I'm assuming the chainlink fence would go away? That's on top of that retaining wall. Randy Noecker: I don't know about that for certain. I would, depending on the situation. I assume the premise that the city doesn't want kids playing in the wetlands so I kind of assume that nobody should be there but there is a safety issue involved that we'd have to look at you know and if in fact the wall is 8 or 9 feet high, I think just for sheer safety issues I would have some kind of fence up there. Kind: Even if there is no trail? Randy Noecker: Yeah. You'd have to think of public safety. Kind: Okay. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig do you have any questions for the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. You cormnented on some of the previous subdivisions you've done. Do you typically do infill type subdivisions? Is that what you'd considered your nitch or? Randy Noecker: I guess I don't sense it that way. I'm real sensitive about the parcel that I acquire. I look at it in detail. This one here I happened to pick up in 1996 under an option agreement and I currently am the fee owner on Outlot A. Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to try and comment if you can, I understand it may be difficult about some of the miscommunications that seem to have taken place between the correspondence and yourself and your representative over the course of the last year, and if you can, go ahead. Randy Noecker: I don't know if it's, let me say that every community does things a little bit differently. Tedd has been with me for a number of projects and we are used to, and that's our fault. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying but we're used to putting a plan into the city and then in a short time thereafter we get comments and we revise those plans and then it goes onto a first planning commission so we have an opportunity to get, I say clean up the plan, but the city of Chanhassen chooses to do it without that step in it. And so when I sensed that I ended up having 1 or 2 more plans submissions trying to get comments from the staff as much as possible. But seeing that they preferred to do the methodology in this fashion we ended up submitting as best we could based on the conditions that we understand and from there we're basically getting our first full blown report back. We haven't had that opportunity to get that back before. Aanenson: May I comment on that? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: I think we've given them written comments. We've met with them numerous times. Engineering, the forester, the wetland to try to give them direction. It wasn't a complete application. We will not bring a project to you until it's a complete application. And whether it does or doesn't meet all the design things, often the applicant' s looking for a recommendation of approval to go forward so we have to have at least a subdivision that's close to meeting it. Again, even looking at this, with the numerous numbers of modifications that we're recommending, you can see that there's some differences of interpretation of the city ordinances. And how they impact. Although we have tried diligently to explain that. I'm not sure it's been communicated what those standards are. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And again it's complex because of the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. Those are limiting factors that affect the layout and that's what we're trying to work on. What the city ordinances are. Where the Park and Rec wants the trail, which they direct and those sort of things. Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you. Craig, any other questions? Claybaugh: No. Kind: Madam Chair, I forgot to ask my question about the before Outlot A and after Outlot A, how many more lots were you able to work into your plan? Randy Noecker: In my original plan that I, my concept plan that I put together prior to acquiring Outlot A, and I might add without even contacting the city other than the only 2 factors that I knew were that you needed to have a 90 foot frontage and you needed to have 15,000 square feet and I just went off of a blow-up on a half section map and I acquired I think 21 or 22 lots there. Then I acquired the 6 or 7 acre parcel of Outlot A, which only has about an acre, acre and a half buildable, but by acquiring that Outlot A I was then able to basically put in a cul-de-sac, which I really wanted to do from the beginning, and I had negotiated for several years on Outlot A but was unsuccessful until recently. Kind: So in your opinion Outlot A did not allow you to add any more lots? Randy Noecker: No. Aanenson: We would concur with that. I think his objective has always been to try to get 22 lots. But as he stated, when he came in he ignored the topography, the wetland issues and that sort of thing. He just went with the minimum lot requirements. Kind: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Okay, and at this point I don't have any questions of the applicant so what I will do, unless anybody has more questions, I will open the public hearing. This is a time when public can get up and make comments on this project, so step up to the microphone. State your name and address for the record please and like I said, we may ask a question or two so we fully understand your concerns but feel free to come up to the microphone. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane, and I'm representing for the members of Greenwood Shores and I have read this report several times myself since getting it last Friday and I guess a red flag came up to me immediately with the amount of recommendations that are still not met after months and months since this proposal has been made. And I think that we feel the main goal here, if you read my e-mail that I sent out today, is that it appears the objective is to get as many homes in as is possible and the topography of this land, as the applicant stated himself, this land is laid out in such a way that it is difficult to develop and I think that screams in itself to keep it' s integrity as it is. And the amount of trees that are on the lots aren't as numerous. I' walked back there last weekend. It's a beautiful site and I think that the amount of trees that will be lost is significant and will increase light and noise pollution and the amount of lots is just too great. The amount of vegetation loss is too great, so I think we would like the request for large lot residential to low density be denied to preserve the integrity of that land and perhaps limit the amount of lots that we could be developed. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin, can I just ask that a copy of this go to the council in the packet when this does move forward. Okay, thank you. John Waldron: Hi. My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road, just to the west and on the north side of Lake Lucy. When I went through the report from staff I thought it'd be awful hard to...whole lot of public comment because if you make all these changes or recommendations that it calls for in here, I don't think this is all going to look the same way. And so it's kind of hard to say and give a comment on what the end result's going to end up looking like so I would hope that you...table it this evening and have it re-worked and brought back. And the other thing is when I look.at the plat I have a visual of coming down Lake Lucy Road going to the west and right now you see lots of trees and some big white pine and a lot of more wooded areas...coming down Lake Lucy Road and now if you come . around that curve, right where you see this property, you could end up seeing this 8-9 foot retaining wall right in the middle of the wetlands. Then you're going to have a 6 foot chainlink fence right on top of it, and with the amount of grading that you've got from one side of this parcel to the other, I think we' ve got about 66 feet and so it's getting scraped off one side and pushed over on the other side and I think it's in, I guess this is Block 1, Lot 1 over here. If I look right it's about 18 feet. Probably mitigated wetland up to the pad and so that's awful darn steep in my book for having a house sitting right out there. So you're going to have not only this retaining wall and a chainlink fence sitting right there as you drive down Lake Lucy Road. You're going to have a couple of these houses sitting right out there that'.s going to be right on the edge of a steep bluff and the amount of grading that' s going to happen in there, you'll have a hard time seeing how you're going to save a whole lot of trees so. So I would ask that the city end up having the plat, something at least all the different buffers for the slopes and wetlands. And I'm not against somebody developing the site but I think ...development this drastic that having any trees saved is such a hard thing to do. Plus the fact, on small lots like that, homeowners have lots of choices and the house they buy and I heard the number for some of the lots of $300,000 for a lot. Well you can usually figure that the lot's 25% of the price of the house. That's a million 2 house and there's a lot of people, there are a lot of places somebody can go to get a million 2 house rather than on this size lot with possibly only a 2 car garage so my request would be that, you have.., and have it fit into the area it is and save as many trees as you can. And table it for now, bring it back so we can give public comment on what something's really going to look like. The way it's actually going to be built. Thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dale Carlson: Hi. I'm Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane. Certainly there's a lot of things that disturb me about this, having lived on Lake Lucy for 30 years. But I guess a couple of questions I have and I don't know if you can answer them necessarily for me but they're questions. When we moved there, all that 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 property around Lake Lucy was in fact zoned as residential large lot. Why do we bother doing this sometimes if all we're going to do is turn it into residential low density? When we bought out there we thought our lots were going to be good sized and now somebody comes along and says I can't develop this property and make 10 million dollars off of it so you've got to make it low density so I can develop. I don't understand. I'm confused about that. Secondly is that, if I'm understanding this right, there is no sewer going through there so I assume it's septic. Is that true? Blackowiak: No. Well Kate, go ahead. Aanenson: Let me answer both questions. That property is guided for low density residential. The sewer just came through, or will be coming through as Lundgren also which was zoned similarly large lot because there was no sewer in that area. Those in the Steller Addition because they're larger lots will remain septic and well, but this area was guided for low density. It was left rural or large lot because there is no sewer and water. This project anticipates bringing sewer and water to it. Dale Carlson: At what time will that happen? Aanenson: With the subdivision. When it's approved. They have to wait for it to come. It's on the eastern side, adjacent to Galpin as it's coming across with the second phase of the Lundgren subdivision. Dale Carlson: Okay that answers my question because I know that when the sewer went through in '75 on the east side, we had no choice. We had just put in a new septic system 2 years earlier. We had no choice but to hook up to sewer. Why? Lake Lucy so that's going to happen I guess, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin and I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property on the plan, if it's possible to show where my lot is here. This gray shaded area is this outlot and this here is the lot that's up for review tonight. My lot is this one. Right here this 10 acre parcel. So I'm quite affected by the outcome of this. In past life, when I first moved here 13 years ago, when I built my house there, I got together with the lake homeowners and helped form the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. With Dale Carlson being a co-chair person. I can't speak for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association tonight because we didn't have a meeting but I do want to historically say that in all the years we have been having issues come and go, that we've all concur one sure thing and that is we would like to see the outlot there remain a natural amenity for the lake. There was a proposal 9 years ago by the Hennepin County Lakes Board to try and clean up the chain of lakes and this issue came up in public meetings. What to do with this outlot. The city was going to toy around buying it but they didn't have any money at the time the debate was going on whether they should put on a dock. And the trail seemed to be a sure thing and nobody seemed to object to that. I don't object to it personally now. The lot itself, it's my understanding, is this dotted line, where is the edge of the outlot on the western edge? Can you explain that to me on this plan? A1-Jaff: It's right here. Eric Rivkin: So there are some houses. AI-Jaff: There are 2 houses proposed within this area. There is a comer of a house in this area and another comer in that area. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Eric Rivkin: Okay, thank you. As Mr. Waldron has indicated, and I also know from historical history that when we first were buying these lots 14-15 years ago the Lake Lucy Highlands had 19 homeowners there. That we were all sold on the basis that this outlot would remain an outlot. That's, you know it's designated legally as an outlot and here we are looking at a zoning variance and I oppose any change in doing anything to this as an outlot. There are trees that grew up and yes there are 2 inch trees. There was nothing there before but now nature's taken over, as it gloriously does and provided lots of buffer visually and naturally to help build up grasses, savannah and natural woods that allow you know prevention of your erosion and sedimentation and nutrient loading into the lake coming down from, washed out from the slope. There' s already considerable amount of, I did a lot of research with the homeowners association regarding lake water quality and always come to these meetings whenever there's a development going around the lake to try and preserve what I can of the lake water quality. Lake Lucy, as you know, is a headwaters and the water clarity is cleaner than Lake Ann from time to time. Most of the time actually, according to the records. We have a lot of springs that are around the lake that feed into there naturally and this wetland here is fed by at least 2 natural springs year round. And it's clean water coming out of the ground. By adding nutrients from runoff, storms, rooftops, whatever, streets, we're stressing it already. There's already rakish water that is on a sedimentation pond located right here that the city has not cleaned out according to an agreement by the Merle Steller, the land developer when it was developed and that should be taken care of. As a result, the vegetation around here in this area as large just kind of goes down. It's kind of a filter. Kind of like the Everglades. Just kind of filters right through. And we're going to add to that and there's a lot of weed growth right here right now that hasn't come up in past years. It used to be fairly clean here and now it's becoming stressed because of the nutrient loading coming off these developments all the way to Galpin. Galpin Boulevard to the west. So anyway, I think that because the number of houses here really severely stresses the landform and stresses the amount of trees and natural amenities, this kind of thing to me belongs on a fiat lot. It doesn't belong on something that's very hilly, difficult to grade and to try to keep natural amenities. It seems to be very forced. I agree with Mr. Waldron about the million dollar houses on small lots. I don't think it's going to, it just is incongruous there. I think in my opinion that these houses along here should be eliminated. This road should be eliminated and the remaining 17 houses be spread out and relaxed in such a way that fits the land. Fits the natural amenity of the area. There's already high density going on to the west. We've got 2 V2 acre to 10 acre large lot going on over here. I think it would be best to compromise and do something inbetween the density so that things are relaxed here. It's just too tense, so I think that it should be tabled and I think that the plan come back and have less density. I also want to thank the lady here for mustering up a petition. That's the kind of thing I used to do all the time on things like this, Ms. Sather, and Mr. Waldron for coming to speak up. And I concur. I signed Ms. Sather's petition which she circulated this evening. Thank you very much and I concur with everything on it and so I wanted to add some, a little bit of historical perspective as to why in my own personal opinion why it should be tabled. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just bring up a point of clarification on the outlot. Blackowiak: Certainly. Aanenson: The outlot that we're talking about as a part of the Steller Addition, was given outlot status until such time that the infill sites could be determined. I've been with the city 10 years. The first few years I was here we, Mr. Herbst did try to develop this property working out a wetland alteration permit. Whether you choose not to rezone this, we would still make this develop, provide access. There is buildable area on this site. Whether it's a septic, I guess our preference would be that if it can be 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 provided sewer and water, that would be our first choice. Whether it' s one lot, or if it' s included in this, but for this to get access, and that's part of our job is to make sure that instead of having 2 access points on Lake Lucy, the better planning way would be again, regardless if this was included in the plat, that this project provide access, I hate to use the word, possibly a driveway. Private drive to provide access to that lot. So when we added to it, the mix, that's some of the discussion that we had with the applicant. How do we make that work because there is development of an area up there. It was just a matter of getting access and that was part of the issue to come across this. Now we'd have 2 close driveways on Lake Lucy which would not be our preference. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vernon Hall: Hi. My name is Vernon Hall and I would just like to speak from an integrity standpoint. I' m hearing the applicant come in here with a lot of conflict it sounds like with the city and hearing that and also I mean I'm here and I agree with what's being addressed. I'm on the petition here. But from the fact that if I from a business perspective was an issue, he' s coming here and not even knowing clearly what the city has made amendments and those who don't, even aren't on this today that I don't understand how that it could even be any more than tabled and looked at further down the road. How can we progress with any plan in progress when there's not even anything complete or near accurate to look at from my understanding without even looking at the complete report. So that concerns me as being a neighbor, and a neighbor but the builders building there with what I perceive as a lack of strong integrity and especially again in a wetlands area with concerns of the lake and the issues that surround that. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak? Okay seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make comments. Craig, do you want to start? Claybaugh: Why don't you go ahead and start with Rich. Slagle: I can start. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question if I may to staff. The comment was brought up that we had to go through or the recommendation by staff was to go through Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: If I can have a little clarification as to why that is. And let me preface that question by saying this. I live in a development, Forest Meadows that we have to go through Longacres to get to our 18-19- 20 homes. My question is, why wouldn't we have just gone through Ashling Meadows to get to here. Aanenson: It's vice versa. Ashling Meadows does not have the access point. You remember they wanted the one lot that had the wetland in front that we said no. That they wanted that lot adjacent to. This is an access point also for Ashling Meadows to come out this way. Slagle: Okay, but I guess I'm asking why couldn't everything come out Galpin. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: You will have an extremely long cul-de-sac. There are 50 plus home sites on the Ashling Meadows site. Add another potentially 20, 22, whatever that number. That's a large number and a fairly long cul-de-sac. You need a second access. Slagle: I might concur. The intent though when we're stopping the road down at the south end of this property, is your intent to take Lucy Ridge Lane further south and to the land that's going to be at some point developed maybe? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So you're going to have sort of a curvy road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to have that answered since that came up. Here's my thoughts. First of all I think this is premature. I don't think it's complete, and I would just ask as best you can as a staff to try and do everything you can to prevent this, these situations from coming up where there's just numerous questions. I just wouldn't feel, as this gentleman alluded to earlier, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal given what's come before us. And I'll mention a few things. Septic system. My gosh, if we have a situation next to this lake and we are advocating some homes having a septic system, and I understand the logistics behind it, my recommendation would be that this needs to wait for sewer. Next, the assessments have not been paid, at least from what I read. I don't need to get into that, the assessments based upon what's been happening so far and I don't need an answer for that but I just have concerns about that when I first see that assessments have not been paid. Tree preservation plan is sort of, we heard some thoughts but I don't see anything definitive in that. The areas retaining wall, bluff setback, absence of wetland buffer. The question about Outlot A, and there's a lot. I mean this is a mouthful or handful, however you want to describe it, of things that come up in front of this group that I think in some respects I don't think it should come before us to be quite honest. I think it should have been addressed and if the need was to come to us to ask the applicant to modify some of these things, then great. I mean you're hearing us. We hope you build and I hope this is a desirable development but there's just a lot of questions I don't think as a commissioner or a citizen that I could vote on so with that, that's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Thankyou. LuAnn. Saam: Madam Chair, could I add just a point of clarification? Blackowiak: Yeah, on the septic. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Saam: Every lot is intended to be on city sewer and water so there will be no septic out there. The only question is whether it's a city project that brings the sewer to his lot line or whether he waits for Lundgren to extend it through Ashling Meadows. That's the only issue right now. Slagle: But is, if I can ask Matt, is the concept though that there would be homes built with septic until sewer came? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Aanenson: No. Saam: No. AI-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, so there's no septic's planned to be built at all. A1-Jaff: No. Saam: No. Aanenson: Let me, the point of clarification was the one lot that was originally owned by Mr. Dirks, that was the outlot. When they acquired the rights to include that in the plat, Mr. Rivkin brought up the point that those were left to be large lot. Our recommendation is if we would provide, ask that this developer provide access to it, and because he's doing that, we'd also recommend that sewer be extended to that lot rather than, if it being left in it's current large lot and given septic and well, we think it's better environmentally to put it on municipal services. Slagle: Absolutely, so basically you're agreeing with me. Aanenson: Right. Right. I just want to make sure it's clear because there is the one large lot that we had included in the rezoning. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay, I agree it's a complex site. It's environmentally sensitive so it does need special treatment. I do concur with the comments that I heard that we have a large number of conditions assigned to this application and it seems like a very large number for the type and size of development so it does point to the fact that we have a lot of outstanding issues. And I think looking at the number of recommendations we're supposed to make, the preliminary plat stands out as the one which needs the most work obviously and needs to be addressed. And I would hope that if we table this that whoever makes that motion that we really call out all of the conditions which we would like addressed. And I checked off a number of these, you know starting from retaining wall, number one to remove the retaining wall to also have a canopy coverage calculations completed and on and on and on. And I think that needs to be delineated specifically for the applicant to address. And if those things can be shown and put into a form which resembles an application that we could review again, I guess I'd entertain that but I don't feel it should move forward at this point. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. It has no credibility. It's full of holes. It says the applicant makes an effort to preserve mature trees, but then on the other hand we have massive grading going on. We're cutting to 15 feet on the one side. We are in 15 feet on the other. We have retaining walls that are 6, 9 feet tall. We have several retaining walls. We don't have enough buffer. We don't have enough wetland mitigation. And in terms of the credibility Mr. Noecker, I really 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 appreciate your intent to be real sensitive about your parcel, but I don't see any evidence in here of that. I'm sorry. I don't see any credibility for that. I consider this an extremely insensitive, environmentally insensitive proposal. Besides the fact that it's totally incomplete. I agree with Commissioner Slagle that this shouldn't even come in front of us. This is not even nearly cooked and I find it very disturbing hearing from the presentation that you seem not to really pay attention to what staff is asking from you. You say well they're misunderstandings and, given. I mean everybody has misunderstandings and wants to clear those up, but it looks like these misunderstandings have been going on for something in the neighborhood of a year and there's just way too many in there. Staff finding on page 15 to the subdivision, staff finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage. However, staff is recommending some modification to help to minimize impacts. I don't think that mitigation that's proposed comes even close to make this anything near environmentally sensitive as far as I'm concerned. There is way too much damage being done to that environment and the main thing that why I say this is not credible, in all due respect, I cannot envision how you can put a house that's more than a million dollars or even a million dollar or in the neighborhood of a million dollar on a 15,000 square foot lot, or 16,000 for that matter. It doesn't make a difference. I just recently built a house in a neighborhood where the average lot size is around 30-40,000 square feet and the price range around 4 to maybe $600,000 of those houses. It does incredible impact on the nature of place. It's, the forest, nature is extremely reduced. If you want to have houses twice as expensive on lots that are half the size, there' s no space for anything natural. Based on how I see this. You want to do a neighborhood that is above standards of neighboring neighborhoods. Ashling Meadows, with 28,000 square foot average per lot, I cannot believe how you want to be in a higher standard if you make your lots that much smaller and at the same time expect to put an expensive structure on it. The road alignment, I don't, know how sensitive it is to the contour of the environment. I don't think it is. On that basis, I would want to deny this. The land use amendment for the outlot, I think that outlot is a wonderful buffer towards the large lot on the other side. The naturally sensitive area of the wetlands. I do think it makes sense to include it to have sewer but I don't think it makes sense to include it to ram in 22 minimally sized lots to put huge structures on. The land use therefore I would recommend to deny. The rezoning I would deny because of the environmental damage. I think it's way too much and that's a finding that could be positive to move that forward. The preliminary plat I would want to deny because there's just way too many loose ends. There are at least 20 items that are blatantly unresolved. That have not been paid attention to and therefore I don't think it should be even tabled. It should be denied. The wetland alteration permit, I think that needs to be worked out in more detail that it shows the sensitivity and where all these things are. It's wide open loose ends so also there I would want to deny. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty Craig, your turn. Claybaugh: I concur with the other fellow commissioners that it is premature. I don't feel as strongly as Commissioner Sacchet does that it's as environmentally insensitive as he does but I do feel that it's premature at this time and as such would move to table the issue. I think it's imperative that the developer get together with the city staff and really communicate and listen to one another and try and incorporate those things in a timely fashion and bring a completed package in front of the commission so we can take action on it in the future. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree that this should be tabled for many of the outstanding issues. I'd like to see a plan that incorporates all of these conditions because I think they're going to really impact what we're looking at and have another opportunity for the public to comment on what the new plan looks like. And those, my favorites that I would like to see addressed are the bluff setbacks, the wetland 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 setbacks, the retention pond. Where would it be and what size would it be. A lighting plan. Lot widths need to comply. Tree canopy calculations per the city forester's calculations. I think that's what we need to go by. And retaining walls and I would also like to see the existing house and driveway shown on these plans so we can get our bearings a little bit more clearly. And I would like knowing that this technically meets ordinance and all of our rules for square footage and such, I would like the applicant to consider larger lot sizes that are more fitting with neighboring Ashling Meadows and really take into consideration the topography of the land and see if it can be improved and less grading. And my hot button, which I'm sure you could tell is that entry feature. Consider maybe using a natural material, boulders versus a Keystone and see if there' s a way to avoid having a chainlink fence at that entry area. I think we need to table it and I think we need to table all 3. I think we need to keep this bundled together. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I will be brief. I agree with much of what was said tonight. It is a beautiful site, I'll give you that. It will not ever be able to be developed without significant alterations to the site, and I agree. You cannot develop that in any way, shape or form. I've walked it at length without knocking down a significant number of trees and moving a lot of dirt. Be that said though, I am very uncomfortable with approving a plan then having the staff have to work out this many details after the fact. I don't think that's fair to staff or the process and based on that I would also agree that we should table this tonight. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I really have nothing new to add. I agree with my commissioners who were kind of tending towards tabling it. I believe that we've got a lot of direction for you and some of the key issues that we feel the need to be addressed before we see it again. One thing Mr. Noecker you said that you wanted an opportunity to clean up the plan and I think you're going to get it so I hope you've gotten adequate direction. Please take the time to review staff' s report, and I'm assuming Kate you will supply, or Sharmin will supply minutes with specific directions and comments. Aanenson: Just for point of clarification. I think Commissioner Sidney alluded to it. We would like specific direction given to the applicant and I think that' s where she was going and that' s part of why we're here tonight. To make sure that you've all given comments but we want to make sure that that's articulated exactly what your expectations are so we're not back at this same juncture in a future meeting. So if you can summarize that in a motion, that would be helpful for us. Blackowiak: I think we can but also if we can just refer to the minutes and in our comments I think take a look at what everybody has said because I think among us all we have hit most of the issues, and I wrote you know mine were specifically, let me go back. Grading, trail, buffers, fence, retaining walls, wetland issues, canopy coverage, storm water calculations, no wetland replacement documentation. So those, and a couple... Aanenson: ...for the record and make sure it's clear on the record because it's still not being understood. That it was where the location of the trail should be. Can we read that for the record? Just to make sure they understand. The trail location outside the wetland buffer language. Blackowiak: Okay now, is that in a condition? AI-Jaff: It is as a condition. Aanenson: But I'm not sure they understand the implications of that. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: There will be a wetland buffer that is an average of 20 feet so it can be 10 feet, it could be 30 feet. The average is 20 feet. The trail will be outside the buffer. The other thing that I wanted to point out is, and it depends on what method of replacement, wetland replacement they follow. One of the options that are available to them is creating a 16 V2 foot natural buffer and then from that point, so 16 V2 feet and then from that point you'd take the setback. So the setback, the wetland setback will be in addition to the buffer. I just wanted to clarify. Aanenson: We wanted that on the record, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to the applicant. Is there anything that we're saying that needs more specificity? I mean I'm hoping that based upon what we've talked about, the opportunity to work with staff in a real partnership is here. Is that, may I ask that? I mean I just want to make sure, staff is asking that. I just want to make sure I hear it from the applicant. One way or the other. Randy Noecker: One of the things that I'm, I guess I'm not grasping is they're talking about the trail being outside the buffer. We've recognized that and by, keep in mind we just found out about all these issues on Friday. We weren't aware that we had to move the retaining wall out. We weren't aware of any of this stuff until last Friday, okay. Aanenson: You know what, I have to say something on that. Blackowiak: I understand but, okay Kate. Aanenson: It was given to you in writing on a letter dated September l0th and that's why we're at this juncture. Randy Noecker: Okay well, if we had a retaining wall in the right-of-way marked it was unintended, alright. We thought we had on the edge of the right-of-way. Apparently we had it inside according to your calculations. But as it be, if you have a trail between the pond and the wetland, is not the pond defined as wetland? So then does the trail go on the south side of the pond or is it okay to leave the trail there? Slagle: I don't -know the answer to that question. I'll defer to these folks but here's my just question to all of you. Is could we take this plan, along with Matt and the planning group and just provide them where it could go, and then you can sort of say yeah/nay. I mean because if there's still some questions as to where it has to go, I think staff could show you where it could go and hopefully that would be the beginning, if not the end of sort of the placement of that path. Or at least a start. I mean there shouldn't be after the folks, all you meet, there shouldn't be a lot of ambiguities after that meeting, is that safe to say? Randy Noecker: Yeah, if we have caused confusion or in any way caused a problem, we were unaware of it on our side. I mean I had made calls after I submitted this plat to see if there were any changes you'd like to see made but we received no response along those lines so I just thought that was the methodology that Chanhassen chose to work their plan through. Blackowiak: Well I think at this point you've got lots of responses and some direction and. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Randy Noecker: I would like to say, we're going to try to accommodate all of them. Blackowiak: Good, okay. We'd like to see that. So at this point we'd like to have a motion please. And good luck to whoever makes it because we're going to have to muddle through this but I want to try to get all the hot buttons and all the direction for the applicant that we possibly can in this motion. I'm assuming it will be a motion to table and LuAnn, are you? I thought you were volunteering. Sidney: I will. I have a question about whether or not we need 4 motions or not? Blackowiak: Kate what's the? Aanenson: You can make it all in one. Blackowiak: Motion to table. Aanenson: ...all requests. Blackowiak: All requests and then direction to the applicant specifically, you know but not limited to these items. Sidney: Well help me out. I'll take a shot at it here. Okay I'll make the motion that Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning of the 18.57 acres of property as shown in the staff report. Also to table the request for preliminary plat to replat a 7.07 acre outlot, as shown on the staff report. Also to table the wetland alteration permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. And also to table the land use plan amendment from residential large lot to residential low density. In terms of the preliminary plat, I'd like to give direction to the applicant to work on several points and as I said, I think it's important to be very specific about this in terms of the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. I would welcome friendly amendments as we go along here. I'm going to go down the list because this is very important so that we have a clean proposal next time around. Recommendation 1. One of the conditions is to remove the retaining wall. I'd like to see that done. As Deb pointed out, we need to show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. A condition 4. We need the applicant to resubmit canopy coverage calculations. As shown in condition 5, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the city for approval. And I'm going to move to condition 11. We have a recommendation from staff, and I concur I should say, that the proposed outlot structure of the pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and etc as shown in that condition. Also condition 12. We do need some ponding calculations and we need storm sewer design calculations as shown on condition 13. Okay, and condition 18. We'd like to see a preliminary utility plan. And also let's see, condition 25. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. We'll need to have the retaining wall eliminated or moved as indicated in that condition. 28. A big one in my book. We'd like to see revised grading plans as shown. We've got several points here. Show all existing utilities. Show the proposed NWL and HWL of the pond and silt fence. Revise the contours. Add a legend, etc. Also condition 30. We have a wetland buffer issue here that needs to be worked on and that impacts the trail alignment. And I guess the big one that really is going to affect the plat itself is that the retaining walls be located outside the buffer areas. That' s condition 31. And we have storm water calculations that need to be submitted. Condition 34. And also following the park and rec conditions to make sure that the trail alignment meets the requirements suggested in that condition. So I'll leave it at that I guess. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I'll second that motion. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded and do we have any amendments to the motion? Kind: I might have a friendly amendment or two. I'm not sure. Did you touch on the wetland replacement documentation? Was that one of those? Sidney: No, you can add that. Kind: I would add that we'd like that documentation provided. And condition number, where'd it go? Let's see, 44. I'd like that one added to make sure that all of the lots maintain that 90 foot width. I question, especially I would add Lot number 1 on Block 3 to that condition. So it'd be lots 1 and 2 on Block 3. I think just a minor curve in the road does not put a lot on the curve. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Amendment accepted? Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the Land Use Plan Amendment 4/01-4; Rezoning//01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres; Wetland Alteration Permit g01-3; and the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision g01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans received October 24, 2001, with the following direction to the applicant before the item is brought back before the Planning Commission: 1. The retaining wall be removed. 2. Show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. The applicant shall resubmit the tree canopy coverage calculations. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with a 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. The proposed outlet structure of the pond shall be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-circuiting and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall provide additional information and revision for the ponding calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. o . . 4 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The applicant shall submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. Revise the grading plan as follows: a. Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert. b. Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond. c. Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, Block 3. d. Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3:1. e. Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the plan. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1 and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign. All retaining walls shall be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall also be located outside of required buffer areas. All other structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm' water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Park and Recreation conditions: The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptable. a. A 20 foot trail easement must be identified. b. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer. c. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines. d. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 16. The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda, which will be? Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made. Blackowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December. Aanenson: Probably January. Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for coming and I urge you to follow this item. We will be getting another mailing out to you when the next meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received. And also I'd like to recommend that for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that. area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT, STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address J. Polster 681 August Drive, Chaska Joe Smith 3610 County Road 101, Minnetonka Fred Richter 3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a half. One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we want to make that an exclusion? Could we specify that. 30 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Generous: Part of my view that I was thinking along the lines of a Dunwoody where we'd have a non- profit that would come in there. It is conceivable that if they went into an individual building, training type school would be appropriate and maybe that's something that we can look at. I set this up more for discussion to see what the policy of the Planning Commission and Council would like to go with that. The applicant I know has some comments on that also and so. Sacchet: That' s my half question, which is really more a question for the applicant but from your view, do the suggested alterations to the PUD, do they meet the applicant's current need? Generous: Except for, let him bring it up. Sacchet: We'll let him talk about it. Yeah, okay. Generous: His discussions were on well what if a business had a training component to that, would we consider that a vocational school and so that became a classification discussion. Sacchet: But other than that you think it is. Generous: And then the bakery, well the food processing. He said that in other industrial buildings they have, they have bakeries that come into an individual unit and they're as concerned as the city would be for any off-site impacts with that because of the multi-tenant buildings and so that might be an issue he'll bring up. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Feik: A real quick one. Getting back to the vocational portion. If you did put in vocational in there, how would that impact parking? I mean it could impact them on a very, very large... Aanenson: Right, and there's an EAW that was done on this site that's traffic driven too so I think at that point. Generous: Yeah, we'd have to look at it. As an office user, it depends upon. Feik: We' ve got existing drawings, existing parking that's based on industrial use. Generous: Right, with 30% office use and then the rest warehouse... Feik: If I can say, if I can jump to the conclusion if you put in a true vocational type school you would be maxed out on parking. Generous: Depends on the size. There might be a limitation that you put on that, and that's something that he may address. Oh, there is Madam Chair. One addition under the prohibited uses I included public buildings. However the city currently owns Outlot A and B and we should put an exception to that because I believe in the future we may look at providing an interpretative building or something on those outlots and so that was a sheet I gave you. Additionally I pulled out the definitions of public land, public and vocational schools from the ordinance. That's part of the reason why I was directed into recommending a prohibition against vocational school. 31 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. The health club concept, I understand that these are all multi-tenant buildings right now and that it could never be a large scale thing but what if large scale health club was interested, a non-profit for instance, interested in one of those buildings and just taking out all the dividing walls? If we make this land use change to the PUD, they would be allowed to do that. Generous: Potentially yes. Kind: So would it be reasonable to put a limitation that as long as they're part of a multi-use building. Generous: Sure. That's a tool for prescribing that we be the whole building, sure. Kind: What do you think of that? Generous: It's probably work, yeah. Kind: Do you think that's a good idea? Aanenson: Well the reason why the non-profit issue was put in there, that was a large T~ district and that was an issue of discussion of putting that together. The city is desirous of the taxable property so as Bob said, is there a way to prescribe it, could you say a percentage of any one building or something like that, that may be more and you'd give the council some direction. Or some suggestions of how to limit that prescribed use. If you want to give us some direction too. It might be to say a percentage or square footage of any one building or that it maintain at least another use or something like that. Forward that onto the council with some recommendations. Kind: Thank you. Blackowiak: Bob, I just have one question. And health clubs, there's a category called outdoor health and recreation clubs that is listed in the IOP as a conditional use. Said not addressed, not permitted in Arboretum, but I don't see mention of it anywhere. Should that be added onto the prohibited uses then since you added everything else that was classified as not addressed, not permitted? Generous: Well it could but then do we get into the issue of that they have outdoor facilities? Is that, and tie it into our trail system. Would we want to prohibit it? Blackowiak: Well I don't know. I'm just sort of wondering why one is permitted and one is conditional. And why we're addressing one, the indoor health club, but not the outdoor health club. We're just sort of leaving that out totally. Generous: Well the ones I was prohibiting are the ones that really struck me as we didn't want to have in there per se and the other ones we didn't address so they're not permitted. I suppose. Aanenson: For clarity sure, if you want to add it. Blackowiak: Well I was just curious because the others that were categorized as not addressed, not permitted such as food processing, public buildings, you know there was some that specifically said not 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 addressed, not permitted. Off premises parking lots and they were all listed under prohibited uses. Except I don't see, no I don't see parking lots. Hold on. Generous: Yeah, because that's really an ancillary use to that. We permit that, and they can have shared parking opportunities for some of the sites, but not as a primary use. Blackowiak: So do we just want to not address them, is that what you're saying? Not address, not permitted? Leave it at that? Generous: Not address, not permitted. Aanenson: That's the official interpretation of the code. Anybody aggrieved with our interpretation is going to come and ask permission and then they would appeal it to the City Council. Blackowiak: Oh good. Aanenson: The way it's written. Blackowiak: If it's not, if you don't say yes, it's no? Aanenson: Correct. If it's not specifically listed, then it would be no. Blackowiak: Okay, that's simple enough isn't it? Okay. Thanks. At this point, anything else to add? No? Okay. Would the applicant or the designee like to make a presentation? Please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Fred Richter: I'm Fred Richter with Steiner Development. Blackowiak: You know you can swing that mic around. Go right ahead. Fred Richter: Okay, how's that? Blackowiak: Little more. Little more. Kind: It's bugging me. Blackowiak: Thank you. Fred Richter: Now. Kind: Oh it's been bugging me. Fred Richter: Okay. Fred Richter with Steiner Development. And what we have in front of us this evening is dealing with 5 existing buildings. 3 which we own, and the gist of this is brought on by our leasing needs, and with me tonight is Joe Smith in charge of our leasing. And he deals in a world that reacts quite quickly to the market and he' s in charge of leasing almost 2 V2 million square feet throughout the metro area, and what we're trying to accomplish is get our wording such that he can lease a multi- tenant building, a space 6,000, 12,000 square feet and not have to take the 60 day review that we're going through tonight. So our goal is not to deal with undeveloped sites. Our goal is not to deal with actually 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 the physical make-up of the building. The buildings are up. They're done. Parking's in. It's really to provide a viable business park that meets our objectives as the building owners to keep them full. It meets the city's objective to provide, in many cases, incubator space for new businesses. Employment and so on. To that effect staff has agreed, and kind of forwarded this proposal and we think we're very close. But I think that background's very important. We also have one tenant that is driving this, and Chris Polster is here tonight representing that, and Joe is working with him to move into our Arboretum III building. So with that in mind we're in total agreement with the terminology. We would offer, maybe a little more flexibility on the vocational school and the food processing. When I say flexibility, maybe something such as prohibited. Now there's a prohibited use of vocational school. That's fine but maybe precluding educational uses within a multi-tenant building. There are a lot of examples. One thing about our buildings, it's amazing the variety of potential tenants that are out there. Because that's our business is providing space for businesses to start, grow and prosper and there are training companies that are tied in with distribution and that that might fall under some type of educational use within the building. And albeit our parking ratios and all that is kind of precluded by the physical layout. We park ratios of 2 V2 per 1,000 and some buildings have up to 5 per 1,000 so as a building owner we know we have to provide the parking, and Joe negotiates that right with the tenant up front. It's a pretty sophisticated world out there for the marketplace meeting the demands and it all ends up working. The same thing would be with food processing. We have no intention of doing a full food processing building but we do have tenants in our portfolio that are small. There was an ice cream Cone manufacturer in one. Bakery in another. Pizza dough maker. So Joe might have an opportunity, and you'd hate to have to say oh, got to get back to you in 60 days because I've got to go to the Chanhassen City Council through the Planning Commission to answer that question. So that's why we're here tonight to get as much flexibility as we can in our PUD as close to the IO district as possible. So my suggestion there might be the food processing, precluding food processing in a multi tenant building. Something like that. With that in mind, I really have no other comment. Joe, do you? I guess as a point of clarification, the sites that are all built on, we worked out with staff that we would add the All About Lights building and the building that' s under construction now which is a corporate owned Parker-Hannifen. That's kind of just an academic add-on to our 3 multi tenant buildings which are Arboretum I, II and III, which total about 275,000 square feet of multi-tenant space and our tenants range from 6,000 to I think the largest is about 70,000 square feet. _ Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, have any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yes. I've got a question for you here. On these 3 multi-tenant buildings, how many tenants are in each of those buildings approximately? Fred Richter: About 4 or 5 in each of them. Joe Smith: Arboretum I has 4 tenants. Arboretum II has 6. Fred Richter: And Arboretum III, we're trying to get 1 in. There's no tenants in Arboretum HI. Claybaugh: What are you anticipating for that building? I'm assuming you've got 2 end caps and what have you got in the middle? Joe Smith: Oh, we build these buildings for 4 or 5. Claybaugh: 4 or 5, okay. Where I was headed with that is just in terms of assigning some kind of percentage with relation to the buildings so the premise is good but there's some vehicle to contain it on the back end. You said there's 5 buildings. Two that Steiner doesn't own? 34 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Fred Richter: We own, one's All About Lights, which is the one up on 41 which there's a theme to it and has some office/showroom constraints in it's PUD. And the Parker-Hannifen's just a, they're just concerned that they're owned by the corporation and they'll just keep it that use unless they were to sell it. Claybaugh: Again, I didn't have any concerns about the in-house education. That makes perfect sense. However the food processing, I'm struggling with that a little bit on how to strike a reasonable balance. Fred Richter: ...context. Our property managers are, we're motivated to have happy tenants. If we were to bring a food processor in, odors and that we would have a lot of thought given to making sure it doesn't disrupt our own buildings. Also, this business park you know is bordered by the Arboretum on the west, the industrial area of Chaska on the south, the wetlands and park on the east. Highway 5, and soon to be townhouses of Pulte to the north. So there is, you know we're as landlords with our tenants are the ones that will face any negative impacts the most. Claybaugh: At the appropriate time, I don't know if this is, I'd like staffto comment on that. That's all the questions I personally had so. Feik: I' ve got one for the applicant as well. Blackowiak: Bruce. Feik: Going a little bit further on the percentage, from a landlord's perspective and leasing perspective. There's a couple of items in here as it relates to indoor recreation and food processing and a couple others. Would you feel more comfortable with the percentage of a single building or a square foot limitation? How can we put that in here so that quite frankly it' is workable going forward? I don't want to say just a multi-tenant building because you could easily have a 50,000 square foot building with 2,000 square feet of storage out in the backside and technically it's multi-tenant. Fred Richter: We're willing to accept .that. Feik: ...so what would be. Joe Smith: A lot of things, a lot of what drives the type of tenants that we have is the parking requirements. As owners of 30 buildings throughout the Twin Cities, we're not going to get a tenant or we're not going to pursue a tenant that's going to over park our business or our business park to create problems for additional tenants. Our buildings are all multi-tenant with the exception of one. And we're very sensitive to that as far as odors and things like that. Our lease states that the tenant cannot create additional odors and things like that that affect the other tenants. Feik: I understand that. I'm looking for a little direction how we can give you what you want and quantify... Fred Richter: If we took our existing buildings that are built out, in no case, there's another issue that happens in the marketplace. The lease rolls over. Rollovers are always kind of at different times so it's very difficult for someone to take over a total building. I mean it can happen. It'd be almost like a vacant building but most likely a space is built out at 12,000 square feet...on the market and We back fill it with a new use. In our existing buildings. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Joe Smith: One tenant takes 70%...70% of a 100,000 square foot building. Fred Richter: Is there a number you feel comfortable with? I mean where you're coming from, you would like to make sure our buildings remain multi-tenant. Feik: Well I'm trying to give you reasonable parameters that you can work with that are...versus just saying multi-tenant. That's a little... Fred Richter: Well one would be no more than 70%. That'd be the worst case. And the other building. Joe Smith: ...continues to grow and displace smaller tenants. There may be a possibility that... Aanenson: Let me clarify. Joe Smith: Our goal as a landlord is to continue to grow with our tenants. Is to grow with them and displace the other ones in... Aanenson: My understanding of that question is if we had a single user, for example the YMCA that bought a building. So when they come in for a building permit and there's a change of occupancy, then it goes to planning and we would check the parking. Then we ask for the mix. We ask the owner of the building to go back, show us the mix within the building, because we do have that happen very frequently in industrial parks. Where there's a mix that's not working. We have one right now, it's a temporary situation. But if that's the question, then if we just say no single building, entire building, would that solve the problem. Should it be a health club. Not one entire building. Then it couldn't be. Feik: Is there street parking at all out there? Aanenson: Pardon me? Feik: Is there any street parking available? Fred Richter: And we really don't need it. Feik: It's current not allowed is what I guess I'm saying. Fred Richter: Right. And again we would ask for proof of parking, if it was a mix that we saw that may exceed the parking ratios. If they have a user that's using less, that's great. Then they can pick it up on the other side and that's the beauty of the PUD. It allows that flexibility to balance the parking and it happens all the time. You've got a user that' s, has more warehouse and the other user has more employees. Joe Smith: My concern with that is as we continue to grow, and couldn't accommodate them in an existing building and they ask us to build them another building on one of our big lots and they occupy it 100% of that building, then we'd be in violation. Fred Richter: Well, but our point is that we would be going through site plan review. On our undeveloped lots we're willing to come in, because we know we have to go through this process. It's 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 really the existing. And it's more of the quick turnover ones. Even if we ended up with a large tenant, there would probably be enough time to. Aanenson: That's not the issue. The issue is if the intent was that we would not have non-profits only in single buildings. That's the issue. If you built them an entire building and it's Northwest Racquet Club, that' s not a problem. The problem is if it becomes a non-profit. That's how the original PUD was set up and that was the direction from the City Council at that time. Now there might be different feelings but that was the direction at the time. Feik: I didn't understand that. Aanenson: Right, so that's what we're trying to solve. Fred Richter: And we' re not at odds with that. Aanenson: ...is to get that language in place. And I mean if we want to be as specific to say that, I'm not sure how we can put that in the text. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: Quick question. You said this is driven somewhat by a specific applicant, but I missed, did you say what the use actually will be of this applicant? Fred Richter: The specific applicant is a Fungo and they're a start-up company that is going to cater to youth and recreation. Batting cages and sports affiliated with that and. Joe Smith: Chris, would you like to speak to that at all? Chris Polster: Chris Polster. Fred Richter: Just briefly describe your proposed operation to us. Chris Polster: Okay. Essentially what it is, it's a youth recreation center and development. Actually we consider it a development center using sports among other activities. Youth development activities to foster youth development. Included are batting cages and courts that can be used for basketball, volleyball, badminton, whatever the kids want to do so it will have those courts and then it will also have meeting rooms and a training center for the organizations to use. Organizations in our community. Someplace where they can come in and actually call headquarters. Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: If I may ask, is it internal? Nothing outside? No batting cages or anything? Fred Richter: Totally inside. As a matter of fact I don't think, it's almost like we don't, you can't have storage yards. I don't think we could have outside batting cages. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. At this point I will open this item up for a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak to this, please come to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. LuAnn, anything? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Sidney: Don't have a problem with the suggestions that staff made. Blackowiak: So as staff recommended? Sidney: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli. Sacchet: I think it's a pretty straight forward situation. I certainly don't have a problem with the vocational school element. I'm hesitant about the food processing. I had to drive by a chocolate factory in Switzerland on the way to high school once or twice, or 3 or 4 times a day, and the first 2 times I thought urn, this smells wonderful but after having driven past it for a couple of weeks, it was very unpleasant. But what I'm struggling with is to what extent this needs to be regulated. I mean I understand with the PUD we do have some control built in and that's the purpose of the PUD to have an agreement and dialogue between the city and the place. Personally I would expect that a lot of these things would be regulated by the market forces. Even the odor concern. Because you don't want to have something with an odor because you have other tenants. So I don't really have any really strong feelings about that. I could go either way if we put it into the proper framework with that. But generally I agree with what's in front of us. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: I agree with Uli. One thing that stuck with me is the food processing. I guess I would like some verbiage attached to it to, if nothing else, establish some parameters. I know it's market driven. I realize that but also. Blackowiak: So do you agree with the, the recommendation by staff right now bands food processing. Prohibits it. So do you agree with that or disagree with that? Claybaugh: I think I agree with that. Blackowiak: Okay, so no food processing. Claybaugh: I agree with the education but I don't see a function of in-house food processing. It's just an out and out business period. Blackowiak: Okay. So then you would take vocational school off the prohibited list? Because right now it's under prohibited uses. Claybaugh: That's what we talked about in terms of possibly assigning some kind of percentage of space for use or, and perhaps maybe staff can speak to it. Maybe I'm not understanding the situation clearly. Aanenson: Well we would clearly define vocational uses as separate from someone that's doing in-house training. I don't see that as, a vocational use as defined by the standard industrial classification has different implications. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Claybaugh: So for them to do in-house education, there is no need to address the verbiage of vocational training? Aanenson: Right. Claybaugh: That's just a given with the industry that's in there that they're going to have to train the individuals. So by definition you don't. Aanenson: Right...a specific real estate school. If it was a restaurant school. I mean those are specific vocational type schools. If it's someone that's doing in-house training associated with their business sort of thing, I'm not sure that again the...classification would come into play. That's how we would interpret it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree with staff' s recommendation. I think it makes sense to give some flexibility to the applicant. I'd like to see us maintain the integrity of limiting the amount of non-profit health club space. I think that's the reason why it wasn't allowed, if I'm understanding the intent there. And perhaps limit non-profits may occupy up to 30% of multi-tenant buildings only? Give me a number. What do you think guys? Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's a percentage. Again, it's the owner, the owner of the building. If they own the building. I guess we would like to look towards the city attorney to give us some specific language. Kind: Okay. So maybe just leave that in as a concern that needs to be addressed before going to council or something. And then I agree that education and training facility should be allowed in multi-tenant buildings. I agree with leaving the vocational schools on the prohibited list but adding a permitted use of education and training facilities are allowed in multi-tenant buildings... That would be a pretty good use there. Aanenson: Well I can give you the list that the cit code says and you guys have a copy_of that. I mean is it nursing school, real estate? I mean those, that's what it's defined as. Kind: Truck driving. Aanenson: Right. If someone' s doing computer classes, if it' s on a small scale, you know depending on the size. Blackowiak: I'd just like to clarify. I would interject, in-house training is different than a school. Aanenson: A school, I would agree. Blackowiak: In-house is like I'm an employee of this company and I'm going to learn their new computer system. I have no problem with that .... I don't feel we do either. Vocational is I'm paying yon money. Kind: Some of these vocational uses I think are okay though if they're on a small scale. I agree we don't want a large Dunwoody taking over a whole building. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Feik: But then you've got a limited square footage now for sale. You can't say 30% of a 100,000 square foot building is... Claybaugh: It may remain that there are going to be some uses that they're going to have to come back in front of us. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say. Kind: Let's leave that off. Blackowiak: Yeah, no percentages. Okay. Kind: And then Alison, what do you think about the outdoor health facility thing? Blackowiak: I say we leave it off because if it's not addressed, it's not permitted and. Kind: Just leave it. You don't want to add it to the prohibited list? Blackowiak: Nope. Kind: Okay. Feik: My concerns were answered and I'm comfortable with the staff recommendation. Blackowiak: I agree. I fully support the staff recommendation and don't have any changes to suggest to those. Alright with that I'd like a motion. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, PUD #92-6. Development design standards Section b as follows. And then the staff report pages 8 through 9 and then new page number 10, which was provided tonight. And that's my motion. I'll save my comment for after the motion. Blackowiak: Sure, yep. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Feik: I'll second. Blackowiak: Okay moved and seconded. Any amendments for the motion? Kind moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD tO2-6) development design standards, Section b as follows: b. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to light industrial, warehousing, and office as defined below. The use shall be limited to those as defined herein. If there is a question as to whether or not a use meets the definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation. Permitted uses shall be allowed on the different blocks and lots for which they are specified below. The blocks and lots specified below 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 are those designated on the attached PUD plan. The block and lot designations in final plats approved for phases of development may different from those specified below. However, the permitted uses shall continue to be those specified below for the lots identified in the PUD plan. Light Industrial - The manufacturing, compounding, processing, assembling, packaging, printing or testing of goods or equipment or research activities entirely within an enclosed structure, with no outside storage. There shall be negligible impact upon the surrounding environmental by noise, vibration, smoke, dust or pollutants. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5, Block 4, and the Wrase property). Warehousing- Means the commercial storage of merchandise and personal property. (Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 5, Block 4). Office - Professional and business office. (Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 2; Lot 1, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 4; and the Wrase property). Health Services - Establishments primarily engaged in furnishing medical, surgical and other health services to persons. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Conferences/Convention Center - Establishments designed to accommodate people in assembly, providing conference and meeting services to individuals, groups, and organizations. (Lot 5, Block 4). Indoor Recreation/Health Club - Establishments engaged in operating reducing and other health clubs, spas and similar facilities featuring exercise and other physical fitness conditioning. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 4). Hotel/Motel- Establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals to the general public. (Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Utility Services - Water towers and reservoir. (Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, and the Wrase property). Recording Studio - Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1; Lots 2 and 3, Block 4. Commercial uses (permitted on lots specified as commercial in development standards tabulation box). ii 3~ . 4 Restaurant, permitted on Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 4, Block 4. (One stand alone restaurant). Convenience store with or without gas pumps, not to exceed 12,000 square feet on Lot 1 or 2, Block 1 only. (One convenience store). Banks, with or without drive up windows (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Day Care - Establishments providing for the care and supervision of infants and children on a daily basis. (Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lot 1, Block 3; and Lot 4, Block 4). Auto service center, auto body repair is prohibited (Wrase) (amended 8/13/01). Ancillary Uses (in conjunction with and integral to a primary use). 1. Fast Food (no drive-through and only in conjunction with and integral to a convenience store). 41 Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 , o Restaurant (only in conjunction with hotel/motel or convention/conference center). Showroom - Showroom type display area for products stored or manufactured on-site provided that no more than 20 percent of the floor space is used for such display and sales. (for entire development). (Amended 8/25/97). Telecommunication towers and antennas by conditional use permit only. Car wash, in conjunction with convenience store. Day care. Interim Uses (Amended 7/26/99) Church facilities, i.e. assembly or worship halls and associated office, meeting and other required spaces, subject to the following criteria: o The church shall not occupy more than six percent (6%) of the one building on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Arboretum Business Park 2nd Addition. The church congregation may not exceed 200 adult members. Shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the same procedures specified in the city code for conditional use permits. Prohibited Uses. i. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Contractors Yard Lumber Yard Home Improvement/Building Supply Garden Center Auto related including sales and repair, except on the Wrase property (amended 8/13/01). Home furnishings and equipment stores. General Merchandise Store. Vocational School. Public buildings. Screened outdoor storage. Food processing. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-1. Uli, would you like to comment? Sacchet: I would allow the vocational schools. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb, did you have a comment to add? Kind: I would like to direct staff to check with Roger about non-profits in this PUD. Have Roger address that. Blackowiak: Okay. This item goes to City Council on December l0th. PUBLIC HEARING: 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 20-575 AND 20-595 REQUIRING ONE UNIT PER 10 ACRE DENSITY FOR SUBDIVISIONS OUTSIDE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICES AREA (MUSA). Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay, so basically Bob you're just telling me this is a housekeeping amendment. It doesn't change anything? Generous: No. Aanenson: This is how we've been interpreting, just to get clarity. Right now there's a lot of pressure for properties that are close to the urban service area and just to give clarity. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, any questions? Feik: One quick one. Just a point of curiosity. What is the significance of January 15th '87. Just for my own edification. Generous: That was the original agreement under the Met Council. Aanenson: Met Council date. Feik: That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Question. Sacchet: Yeah. It took me a while to understand what this really was. Actually I needed Sharmin to be the translator. I was trying to reach you Bob. Blackowiak: You needed that one sentence version, right? Sacchet: It took me a while but after Sharmin was translating this to me, it actually made sense. I however have one question. In your groan, one sentence with the two, that repeats itself twice, it still refers in both cases to Section 20-906. And 20-906 has these bullets 1 through 7. And it appears that bullet 1, at least the first half of bullet 4 and about the first 2/3 of bullet 5 are repeated in those groan one sentences. Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Are they still there in addition? Generous: Yes. That would be the alternative if someone wanted. Sacchet: They're both there. Generous: Yes, they're both there. Sacchet: Why do we need them both places? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Generous: Well if someone wanted to take a land outside the urban service area. Let's say they had 30 acres, and it's guided for low density residential so in the future we anticipate a more suburban type development, they could get their 3 units out of it, but go down to the 15,000 square foot and not, and sort of ghost plat the rest of it to show how. Sacchet: Right, I understand that part. Generous: So we had to leave that alternative in because people may still want to do that, and we don't want to preclude them from that ability. Sacchet: So there's a good reason to have it 3 places actually. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Well that was my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? No? Okay. This item, is it a public hearing? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Yes it is. This item is open for a public hearing. Anybody would like to speak on this item, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any additional comments to make before we vote? Okay. I need a motion. Sacchet: I would like to make a motion that, where is it? That the Planning Commission, are we recommending approval? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance amendment amending Section 20-575 and 20-595 as specified in the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to approve the attached ordinance amending Sections 20-575 and 20-595. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak: Okay, would somebody please note the minutes. Aanenson: All 81 pages. Blackowiak: All 81 pages. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, I note the minutes with one comment and one question. I have a question about proper form and one about, and then a comment about on page 34. From the bottom, 1, 2, 3, fourth paragraph. I was quoted stating something about, I say something about flag lots. That should have said less lots because flag lots don't come into the picture at all with the Rossavik thing. Now the other thing is indeed a legal question. On page 19, I'm quoted saying why the heck. I just would like to know whether that's stretching the limits of proper form. Am I going to muzzled or what or whether this is acceptable form. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I may. Can we vote on Uli's request? I'm not sure it will go through. Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16, 2001 as amended on page 34. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Just to let you know, we have a meeting in December. There's nothing on the agenda. The only thing would be the subdivision we tabled tonight, but since there wasn't a lot of notes taken, we'll probably have to wait, by the applicant, for the minutes to come back verbatim. And that's going to take over a week so. Blackowiak: Because offices are closed Thursday and Friday, correct? Aanenson: Right. But even yeah. Nann may be working on those days. But we'll have to have verbatim minutes I'm assuming since they weren't taking notes. I don't think we can make that deadline for us to get a staff report and them to make the changes. And the next meeting, I've never scheduled a second one in December because it' s so close to a lot of other activities which would be December 18th. The other important item is, the next meeting in January would be the first, but that is a holiday. So the long and the short of it is, our next meeting is January 15th. We will have some applications. We do not have anything in right now. We're not backing anybody up. The only one would be the tabled, but there are applications that we are working with. Site plans that we anticipate, just so you're aware, it may be a longer meeting. We'll try not to get you to midnight. We will try to stagger those so we're not packing them all on, but you will probably have a pretty good agenda on that 15t~. Blackowiak: Kate, just I guess this is kind of a theoretical question. The last meeting was rather long, and you know 11:30 gets late and it's, I think it's unfair for everybody to be asked to stay that late. Do you think it's better to put the big items on first? Is it easier to table smaller items? Or to reschedule smaller items or what's your feeling on that? I mean I just. Aanenson: I guess what we try to do too, similar to tonight. When we know there's applicants, residents that are there. People have babysitters and the like. We try to give courtesy to the residents here that are going to have a lot of comments so we put that one on first. The other ones we could have gotten in and out but we' re making other people wait so we try to get those out. We try to anticipate, based on the calls that we're getting, which is going to have a lot of people and try to get those people out of the room quickly. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I just thought that the last time when we had the applicant that was, when did they start? After I0:00. Kind: Yeah, Presbyterian Homes. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Blackowiak: Yeah. And there was people there that were interested in hearing that too and I thought that that was just. Aanenson: It was. Blackowiak: I mean I knew it was going to be a late one and I wanted to let them speak. Aanenson: ...and I'm not sure if the Presbyterian Homes, if we had bumped that one up til 10:00 too and I think that's something that we'll be working on in a work session. Efficiency and I appreciate the...in opening the meeting and something I think that we can talk about in our work session. Comments, repeating comments and that...work on that. It's a tough one. Blackowiak: Yeah it is and I don't have the answer so I'm just. Aanenson: There's the 60 day rule. We try to stagger them and sometimes we think something's complete and it's not. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty. Any other ongoing items? Aanenson: That's all I had. Kind: I just wanted to say thank you for the design standards. They look good. And also for the direct dial phone numbers. I'm loving that. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 46