Loading...
1n. Minutesi CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 23, 1994 ' Mayor Chmiel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilman Wing, Councilwoman Dockendorf, Councilman Mason and Councilman Senn STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Todd Gerhardt, Charles Folch, Scott Harr, Todd Hoffman, ' Kate Aanenson, and Bob Generous APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the agenda ' with the following additions under Council Presentations: Councilman Senn wanted to discuss Community Center Reciprocal Agreement and Councilwoman Dockendorf wanted to discuss soil corrections on the south frontage road by the new elementary school site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Wing moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Resolution #94 -53: Approve Plans and Specifications for Well No. 7; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project No. 94 -3. d. Approve Summary Ordinance for Publication Purposes, Discharges into the Sanitary Sewer System Ordinance. e. Approval of Accounts. f. City Council Minutes dated May 9, 1994 Board of Review Minutes dated May 9, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes dated May 4, 1994 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 26, 1994 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. B. OAK PONDS 2ND ADDITION, DEAN JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION. Mayor Chmiel: Oak Ponds 2nd Addition. I've had some discussion with Kate and I would, for those who may have been here to, who were some of the objectors as to some of the things that were happening, I guess I wanted some clarification from her in regards to this so Kate, would you do that. Kate Aanenson: Yes, thank you. We did receive a letter. It was given to the staff but it was written to the Mayor from two of the residents that have kind of been involved in this process... Anderson and Dave Callister and they ... as far as issues that they felt needed to be ... and I've spoken to the developer and we feel like all the conditions are in the contract. We are making sure that they are being followed and ... they want to make sure that we're tracking these and we have been doing that. I think the conditions are in place... Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. With that I would move item 1(b). Is there a second? Councilman Mason: Second. J f 1 Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I wanted to pull it also to be on record as such. The only comment before we pass this. I'd like to just back up to a philosophical issue for staff. That with our new ordinance now on renderings, computer imaging, elevations, I have to ask Mark what that is because I still don't understand but it sounds like a great idea. I think this one it probably would have resolved the problem. But when we did the Highway 5 corridor tours, one of the primary focal points of the city was that hill and those trees and what happened out there, to me makes Rapid Oil look really tame. And so much for landform and so much for windows and suddenly I pull in and I see the total destruction of that hill and the placement of the buildings that are pretty symmetrical and some of the names that we used for them haven't been real, they haven't been complimentary and I haven't gone that far. But I think this is a real indication that if the Council, and it's pretty much starting at staff but then up to the Council level we have to see what's going on with a lot more information and a lot more pictorials if you will and we've got to start using our ordinance because sitting on the Council, had I known we were going to totally see the obliteration of that hill and the placement of square buildings in rows, symmetric rows like that, I think I would have reacted and asked for a little better development. I'm not real happy with what's occurred and I guess it's a learning process and I take accountability for that. I did not, I was naive enough to think that this was okay and this isn't what I voted for. I mean I did vote for it but I didn't vote for it. I'm going to stop right there before I stub my toe anymore. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just to add onto that. I too wanted to pull this item and I guess I can't say it any more eloquently than Richard besides stubbing my toe and saying, that they look like barracks. I'm very disappointed and I think the ordinance will help with future developments. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications for Oak Ponds 2nd Addition, Project No. 94 -11, Dean Johnson Construction. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: ANN OSBORN, CHANHASSEN REPRESENTATIVE FOR MINNETONKA COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND SERVICES BOARD. Ann Osborn: Hi, I'm delighted to be here to represent Minnetonka Community Education and Services Advisory Council and especially... representing you on our Board. I want to give you a little bit of information about the Advisory Council. Some of you know pretty well and some of you don't know too much about it. Minnetonka Community Education and Services, it's ... to provide assistance, education, recreational activities and enrichment for all members of our community. There are 10 communities involved, of which Chanhassen is one. On our Board each community has a representative and there are 5 representatives from the School District and 5 at large, up to 5 at large members, of which one of your Council members, an at large member Mark Senn is on our Board. We are very lucky today. This Thursday is our annual meeting and so the annual report, which was available for Thursday is now available to you today. So you actually got it before our Board did. And it will show you something about our program. One of the interesting terminology that has developed in community education is the term E12+ which means that we're providing education to the community throughout their lifetimes basically. And I kind of like that term. The purpose of it is, of the Advisory Council, which I represent, is to establish personnel policies, direct the community education programs and ... as far as the fiscal operation of it and establish the budget for MCES. We meet the second Thursday of every month at 7:30 at the Minnetonka School Administration Building. Because Chanhassen is kind of interesting in that about half of our community belongs to the Minnetonka school system and about half belong to Chaska, it makes you folks have kind of an interesting time in looking at what our programs are. Among some of the objectives of what we do is 2 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 f Councilman Senn: That's on the agenda. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's on the agenda but it's. to make greater use and sharing... talents and resources. Greater use of educational and community facilities, improve community and school relationships and increase... coordination and cooperation. And one of the prime interests is increased citizen involvement. If you would like to kind of quickly leaf through the annual report, which you all have in front of you. I thought I'd just highlight a couple of programs that we have, which is kind of a special. One of the programs that has gotten a lot of notice is our senior to senior skills bank which is available in our adult education program. It's opportunities for people of all ages to assist older adults in their home, and has been a very popular project. I'm sure you've all seen in the newspaper our Rake- a -Thon which ' has this year, we had 800 workers who raked 59 homes. We also provide... programs which enable parents to get more involved with their children in school and so forth. In addition to that, the Early Childhood Family Education program involves the parents and the children in the education process together. Our Explorers Club, ' which is run through our youth program, has an aspect of it which I think is delightful. It's called the Whatchyamacallits program. And the whatchyamacallits is for those kids who really don't want to be considered kids anymore. They want to be, they're 5th and 6th graders, older children, who their parents would like to have care and yet it actually gives them an opportunity to do some of the planning themselves. And this year the ' Governor's Award for Youth Service was awarded to the Whatchyamacallits program on April 19th for their work with the Sojourn Adult Senior Daycare program. Among those things that are provided for the youth in our community, besides the basic thing which is basketball and various athletic programs, we have a youth , service program. A youth program intern. The Minnetonka High School Leadership Challenge which helps develop leaders in our community. We are also working in a high density neighborhood project in collaboration with the Ridgedale YMCA to do some enrichment programming for the... One aspect of our programs that you probably are most interested in is our aquatics program and that's why I brought along our program catalog. The two places with the flags in there are of interest to you folks I believe. The first one is on page 50, and it's a lifeguard training camp and it provides a complete package to have lifeguard training, CPR training, all the things that they need to be good lifeguards. Along with that on page 52, you can see the... program of lessons that are available. On the right on page 53 you'll see that the Lake Ann Beach is available with lifeguards from 10:30 in the morning until 8:00 p.m. at night. I hope this gives you kind of an overview. If you have any questions, I'm here to help you with it. I am a resident of the district, of the city and also I work in the city so ' I'm ... I would also like to introduce Betty Jenkins. She's one of the staff and she provides the leadership for all of our youth programs, including the lifeguard which we hope are serving your community well. We think so. Do you have any questions you'd like to ask of us? Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions of the Council? I think it's a, it's always good to see the kinds of programs that are available, kids from the young to the old and that's really what's really neat, because those are basic ... and thank you for coming in this evening to inform us as to how you've been going and what you've ' been doing and how things are progressing with the program and we thank you very much. And thanks for being our representative. Ann Osborn: You're welcome. t Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other visitor presentations? If not, we'll move on. Yes. I'm sorry, go ahead. Audience: Are you going to discuss the tax increment financing? Councilman Senn: That's on the agenda. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. That's on the agenda but it's. i I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 I Roger Knutson: It's item 3. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's what we're going to go on right now. PUBLIC HEARING: PREPARATION OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #3 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ' DISTRICT #3 -1. Public Present: Name Address Jim Paulette DataSery Incorporated Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor, Honorable Council. What I'd like to do is give a short order overview of the creation of the new Development District #3 and Tax Increment District #3- l ... show the district boundaries. You'll notice that most of the district is located on the Banta Corporation property and the DataSery property. And then the remaining district falls north along State Highway 101. Included in the plan, City Council must ' find the creation of this district provides employment opportunities with the city, improves the city's overall tax base, both from the city and state level. It also gives you opportunities to implement relative portions of the Highway 5 corridor plan. Completion. The City's completion of Dell Road south of Highway 5 consistent with the planning and reconstruction of State Highway 101. Both the trail system and reconstruction of the road. That concludes my portion... Mayor Chmiel: As I mentioned previously, this is a public hearing and those wishing to address the issue this evening, please come up and state your name and your address and concerns that you may have or questions that you have that you'd like some answers to. So with that the public hearing is open. Please come forward. Jim Paulette: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jim Paulette. I'm ... manager representing DataSery Incorporated. We're included. We own 60 acres of property which is included in the proposed district. You may recall seeing us last Wednesday here at your informal meeting and we're also interested in a land use study which involves our property also. I just wanted to come here tonight to indicate that Todd Gerhardt did call me on April 4th to inform me that the City was interested in establishing the tax increment financing district which included our property. On April 11th we sent a letter to Todd indicating that we had some reservations about the project and that upon completion of a land use study that we are involved in now, ' that we would be interested in holding further discussions with the city about the establishment of the district. On April 19th Todd called again and we talked some more about the concept. And however we did not receive a copy of the proposal or the document until today. So we haven't had a chance to review the document yet. And we would like to request that the Council table this proposal until DataSery has had the opportunity to ' review the document and ideally until we've had a chance to respond formally to the Highway 5 corridor study. If you have any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Councilman Mason: Not at this time. 0 r City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Jim Paulette: Yes we have. We've just presented a proposal that was put together by Ryan Construction and RLK Associates to our Executive Staff. And we are in the process of putting together a formal response to the city, which I suspect we'll have completed by the time you vote on the corridor study itself. Councilwoman Dockendorf: In terms of an expansion, is that what you're looking at? Jim Paulette: What we're looking at, as far as the study is concerned. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As far as what you want to do with your property. Jim Paulette: That's what we're in the process of doing now, correct. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Alright, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other questions? Councilman Senn: You said something about you wanted to tie this to the Highway 5 corridor study. Jim Paulette: Right. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that, as I indicated before, we're coming very close to putting together a formal response to the Highway 5 corridor development study. I think there is some connection between the tax increment financing plan and also the study that we're completing. We would feel better if we had an opportunity to tie them together and make a decision after we've had a chance to review the document and prepare a formal response for the land use, or for the Highway 5 corridor study. Which I believe we're very close. I'm not saying it's October or anything. We're talking within a couple of weeks. Councilman Senn: Well I'm having trouble following it because it seems to me if you're trying to relate to the Highway 5 plan, I mean what that is is that gets to your land use issues. Jim Paulette: Right. , Councilman Senn: Now I'm taking a big leap and going from land use issues to tax increment issues. Jim Paulette: It's a matter of being able to discuss the two simultaneously and make a decision based on our discussions about both issues. Councilman Senn: I'm not sure how one affects the other but that's where I'm going with it. Jim Paulette: I'm not either and basically what I'm saying, I'm not either but we haven't had a chance to review I Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I have one Mr. Paulette. Last time seeing you was several months ago, I think. Jim Paulette: Yes. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And you were concerned about things moving too quickly and DataSery didn't have any plans yet. Have you come any further in your decision making about what exactly you want to do , with that land? Jim Paulette: Yes we have. We've just presented a proposal that was put together by Ryan Construction and RLK Associates to our Executive Staff. And we are in the process of putting together a formal response to the city, which I suspect we'll have completed by the time you vote on the corridor study itself. Councilwoman Dockendorf: In terms of an expansion, is that what you're looking at? Jim Paulette: What we're looking at, as far as the study is concerned. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As far as what you want to do with your property. Jim Paulette: That's what we're in the process of doing now, correct. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf. Alright, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any other questions? Councilman Senn: You said something about you wanted to tie this to the Highway 5 corridor study. Jim Paulette: Right. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that, as I indicated before, we're coming very close to putting together a formal response to the Highway 5 corridor development study. I think there is some connection between the tax increment financing plan and also the study that we're completing. We would feel better if we had an opportunity to tie them together and make a decision after we've had a chance to review the document and prepare a formal response for the land use, or for the Highway 5 corridor study. Which I believe we're very close. I'm not saying it's October or anything. We're talking within a couple of weeks. Councilman Senn: Well I'm having trouble following it because it seems to me if you're trying to relate to the Highway 5 plan, I mean what that is is that gets to your land use issues. Jim Paulette: Right. , Councilman Senn: Now I'm taking a big leap and going from land use issues to tax increment issues. Jim Paulette: It's a matter of being able to discuss the two simultaneously and make a decision based on our discussions about both issues. Councilman Senn: I'm not sure how one affects the other but that's where I'm going with it. Jim Paulette: I'm not either and basically what I'm saying, I'm not either but we haven't had a chance to review I 1 I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 this document and we don't know if there is an actual connection between the two but we'd like to have the opportunity to take a look. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I don't see either the tie in between the Highway 5 corridor study and the tax increment district. I think if you're saying that you and your company has not yet had an opportunity to review that, basically it would probably be to the benefit of your company by adopting that tae increment district for the ' particular area. Todd, would you like to? Todd Gerhardt: There's no question adopting this plan tonight will benefit the DataSery property. It has all the ' benefits to his property. Not approving it or delaying it, that's up to the Council. It has nothing to do with the Highway 5 corridor plan. Only if there's certain public improvements that you want to see accomplished in that area, you may use the increment that's available to the Council to fund certain public improvements. Dell Road, as I stated earlier, is one of those public improvements that you would look at upgrading and then TH 101. But other than that it has no ties into the Highway 5 corridor plan and is a benefit back to the property ... land write downs, public improvements ... That's all this plan calls for and that's all you can use those dollars for. Councilman Senn: And the Dell Road upgrade and the TH 101 upgrade are going to occur regardless of any land use decisions on that property, correct? Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Those are safety issues. Mayor Chmiel: Now in relationship back to just to Dell Road for the south side of that. That road, if I'm not mistaken, is that not owned by, half by Eden Prairie and half by the City of Chanhassen? ' Todd Gerhardt: That is correct. Mayor Chmiel: And how do we tie that in with Eden Prairie? Todd Gerhardt: Well Eden Prairie has finished their half of the construction of that road and we have not completed our half ... serve Chanhassen residents but we do have a lot of ability in maintaining our roadways. Right now it makes a very wicked jog to the left, if you're out there, and you cannot publically...assess those costs back to the DazaSery people because there's no real benefit to that property for that. So the only mechanism we have is with the general fund dollars or to use tax increment... use tax increment. 1 Jim Paulette: If I could just step back for a minute and maybe explain what I was getting at before. I guess our question is, upon completing our land use study we may decide that we do not want to develop that land for several years and if we do decide that, then it may not be in our best interest to establish this district now. And it may not make a difference but until our legal people have had a chance to review the document and understand it completely, we don't feel like we're ready to put our stamp of approval on it. Todd Gerhardt: It's an 11 year district, 9 years of which we can capture increment. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Is there an urgency to it Todd? Todd Gerhardt: No. The only thing, if you do decide to table it tonight, that you table it with a date to extend the date of the public hearing. So you have a date to extend that public hearing to. And that's the only thing that I would ask. If you do not extend it with a date, then we have to re- advertise. City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Councilman Senn: Putting the district in place, and the eventual delay of development has no effect one way or the other on each other though, correct? Mayor Chmiel: Shouldn't. Councilman Senn: No. I mean not even feasibly, or potentially. Councilman Wing: And if it's our desire to have this increment district, we might as well do it tonight and then that may affect their decisions to do what they're going to do accordingly. Or it might help them make decisions. But I think the recommendation is to go ahead with this. There's no relationship to any land use and , I'm real comfortable with that. This is simply a collection district that we're going to create. Jim Paulette: There is a connection in that if you decided to approve it now, there is a possibility that the land use study may make the marketability of our land a somewhat distant opportunity for us. It's possible that we may not be able to develop the land in the manner in which it's laid out in the study in a year or two or three years. Councilman Wing: But TIF can only enhance that. Jim Paulette: It will help, correct. It will help. I Councilman Wing: And if it was a total disaster, you may not get the financing. Or the assistance. I mean I can't see anything but positive here. ' Councilman Senn: And if you delay forever, the TIF's going to be gone anyway. Because that's got a sunset date on it then right? Mayor Chmiel: That's part of the given problem with it. Me, all I see is strictly positives for your company. Whether you're choosing to expand or not expand. And if you do expand, there are some TIF dollars that could be assisted to your company by creating some additional jobs within the community. So I just don't see any real pros and cons that, or anything that would really offset it that would be a disadvantage for your company. Jim Paulette: I think maybe then, looking at it from your perspective then, maybe the only thing that stands in the way, I think really that maybe as a courtesy to DataServ, is just giving us the opportunity to review the document prior to the City Council voting on it. If that was a matter of a couple of weeks, that would still give us a chance to look at it. Mayor Chmiel: Well, I guess I wouldn't be objecting to that myself. But I would like to then put this back on Council agenda for June 13th and carry over the public hearing until that date. And then conclude with the review from your company. ' Councilman Senn: The only question I guess I'd like to ask is from staffs standpoint. Is there potentially any projects that could start in the interim in this area that would affect our ability to capture the increment? Todd Gerhardt: The only possibility would be the proposed daycare and expansion to the Press. Councilman Senn: But that's not 2 weeks. I'm just saying, is there something we don't, I mean not everything I u r L City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 has to come before us I guess is what I'm saying. Is anyone planning an expansion or doing anything that would be potential increment? Todd Gerhardt: Not that I'm aware of. Councilman Senn: Okay. Mayor Chmiel: So with what I proposed, I would then make that a motion. Councilman Wing: Second that. Mayor Chmiel: There's a second. Any other discussion? Councilman Mason: A quick comment. I believe that I will be out of town on the 13th of June. I would like to go on record as saying that I would, if I were here, I would be voting for the TIF district. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Do we need a 4/5? Councilman Mason: No. Just so my voice is heard. Thank you. Jim Paulette: Thank you very much. Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the public hearing on the approval of Development District No. 3 and Tax Increment Financing District No. 3 -1 until June 13, 1994 City Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AWARD OF BIDS: CHANHASSEN ESTATES 1ST AND 3RD ADDITION STREET RECONSTRUCTION, PROJECT NO. 93 -10. Charles Folch: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. This past May 17th, bids were received and opened for the Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd street, drainage and reconstruction improvement project No. 93- 10. A total of 4 bids were received with the low bid being received by Brown & Cris at a total amount of $698,980.50, which is approximately 5% below the engineer's estimate. Brown & Cris has performed other projects within the city in the past and has a track record with the city. Therefore the city would recommend that the City Council award the contract for Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Additions to Brown & Cris in the amount of $698,980.50. Mayor Chmiel: Any questions? Councilman Wing: How are the lines of communication with this neighborhood? Is there any, when the assessment hearings come up, is it going to be a done deal on this or are they going to say where'd this come from and how did—and we didn't know it was going this far. Are they being, are there city information letters going out letting them know that this is ongoing. It is on the move and here's the cost. Charles Folch: Absolutely. Since the public hearing was held, I think 2 letters were sent, maybe 3 letters were City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 sent out during the planning and design process. And there were meetings following that. And then following ' the last of final approval meeting, another letter went out explaining that part of the project is approved... Councilman Wing: So they know we're coming, there's no question? , Charles Folch: Absolutely. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and it's still within the total estimate you had come up with and it's lower than what the estimate is so the assessments shouldn't change, hopefully. Councilwoman Dockendorf. It shouldn't be a surprise. Councilman Mason: I'll move approval of award of bids for Chan Estates lst and 3rd Additions, Project No. 93 -10. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? Councilman Senn: Second. Resolution #94 -54: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Senn seconded to award the contract for the Chanhassen Estates 1st and 3rd Addition Street, Utility and Drainage Reconstruction Project No. 93 -10 to , Brown & Cris in the amount of $698,98050. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL /COMMUNITY CENTER. Don Ashworth: Under the agreement that we entered into between School District #112 and the city, the city is required to simultaneously award the bids for the joint project with the School District. I shouldn't say simultaneous but at approximately the same time. Bids were received approximately a week ago and the School Board met I believe last Tuesday or Wednesday and did act to approve the low bid of Bor -Son in the amount of $8,350,000.00. And this is a joint use facility. With the city's portion being approximately $2.2 million, not including costs of grading. In breaking out the bid, the $8,350,000.00, in comparison to just our budget, ' provides a shortfall of approximately $39,000.00. However, this does not take into account that a reserve has been set up of approximately $375,000.00 or approximately $90,000.00 for the city. That would mean if, to balance the budget we took a portion of our reserve to cover the $40,000.00 deficit, we would still be in a positive position of about $50,000.00. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the low bid of Bor- Son in the amount of $8,350,000.00, including adding alternate #4 (flooring) for $80,000.00, deleting Alternative #7, which was the emergency power, minus $19,000.00 and adding Alternative #10, which is the park shelter building, in the amount of $251,000.00. If the Council wishes to add to that approval, something to the effect that the award is being made on the basis that the City's portion of the overall construction cost shall not exceed $2,360,000.00, that would be fine with staff. I stand ready to answer any questions Council may have. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Don, what does the, what are we approving tonight in terms of facilities? I know it ' does not include the grading costs. Is this everything? Is this the hockey rink? Are these the tennis courts? Is this everything that we need to furnish that park? 9 � 1 I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 ' Don Ashworth: Well, alternative number, yes. Well the answer is yes. I should throw in the caveat that nowhere in our discussion have we talked furnishings for that facility and so things such as tables, chairs, and a couch or anything else that you would put in there that typically you would call furnishings, we have not allocated. But otherwise it includes everything that you saw on the previous maps. It includes the lighting. All the hard surface areas. The park shelter building, which would include the picnicking area. The warming house. The concession area. The rest rooms. They include all of the community rooms. Gymnasium that you had ' previous seen. One of the add alternates was a slab of concrete underneath the hockey area, which would have allowed us to use that as a skating facility in the summer months. That bid came in on that for approximately $100,000.00. Todd Hoffman: $77. 1� Don Ashworth: And we felt that that was one item, in light of the overall budget, that we could or should delete. On the other side of the coin, there was nearly $100,000.00 on the table in regards to the park shelter development. We really tried to do everything we could to make sure that that park shelter building got back in there because I really believe that if you rebid it, at a very minimum it would be $50,000.00 more than it is this evening and logically up to $100,000.00. So I really think it's in the city's best interest to try to find a way to make that happen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I ask a question of Todd? $77,000.00 for a slab of concrete? What's unique about that? I mean how many yards of concrete are we talking? But it'd be a neat thing to have. Todd Hoffman: Yeah. The estimate we had on it was about $80,000.00 and it's a more elaborate slab than a regular garage floor due to the fact that you're going to flood it in the wintertime and thus you've got some issues with water melting and frost heave and those types of things and you want to skate on it in the summer so it had expansion joints and they were doweled with metal dowels and that type of thing. So the engineering that went into it. Now many communities are either turning tennis courts into in -line skating areas or turning... Councilman Senn: You're kidding. Councilman Mason: That's hard to believe isn't it? Councilman Senn: That's also an easy way to kill a tennis court. Todd Hoffman: ...due to large groups of teenagers using the courts up here at the elementary for in -line skating and so they said, well what can you do for us? They actually came in and talked to the Park and Recreation Commission that evening as a visitor presentation and lots, many communities are putting asphalt down right inside their hockey rinks but asphalt isn't the best choice to surface it because it doesn't have the longevity and it's black which isn't conducive in the wintertime... It's an up and coming issue of in -line skating ... look for alternatives. Councilwoman Dockendorf. That's too bad. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Councilman Senn: Don from a, okay so what we're approving tonight is what? $2.2 million for the building? 10 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Mayor Chmiel: $2.360. , Councilman Mason: Not to exceed. ' Mayor Chmiel: Not to exceed. Councilman Senn: Well yeah, and I'm just trying to come up to that number. I mean you're saying $2.2 million in building improvements and then the add on's to that? Or what? Don Ashworth: Well the original budget was $2.2 million for the building and $350,000.00 on the grading for a total of $2,550,000.00. The grading actually came in less but I still compare it to our overall budget and coming back down to this overage of $39,000.00. but the i Councilman Senn: Okay, we aren't approving grading? Don Ashworth: The grading was approved by the City Council approximately 2 months ago. Councilman Senn: Okay. So we're back to $2.2 million number then? Exclusive of the grading. Don Ashworth: Yeah, except I should note that I'm using the total budget of the $2,550,000.00 which therefore, , since we save approximately $90,000.00 on the grading, gives me $2,360,000.00 for the school. I'm taking the total budget of $2,550,000.00. Subtracting out what our commitment is on the grading and coming back to a budget for the school of $2,360,000.00, which is what this will be done. Councilman Senn: Okay. So our grading contract is $100, what's that $190,000.00 or whatever? Don Ashworth: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. Of the $2,360,000.00 then, what about the adds and deletions down below? r Don Ashworth: Those have been factored in. Part of the ad's, most of the ad's are on the 74% school, 26% city so of the facility we have 26 %. So costs such as the flooring for $90,000.00, is a 26174% item. The dropping of the emergency generator was also a benefit to both sides. The only one that was an add, that went exclusive going into our column was the park shelter building, because that sits exclusively on our property and it's exclusively our's. Councilman Senn: So that's 100% then. Okay, and all of those are included in the $2,360,000.00? Don Ashworth: Correct. Senn: Okay. As is 4% and the reserve fund. , Councilman the contingency Don Ashworth: The reserve fund and 4% are one and the same in they are included in the, so in other words. Of the $2,360,000.00, $90,000.00 of that is actually reserves. Actually the payment's being made to the school ' district as it stands right now, $2,270,000.00. Well actually we're $40,000.00 out of balance. Add 40 to that. $2,310,000.00. 11 1 1 L City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussions? Hearing none, can I have a motion? Councilman Mason: Add alternate #3, flooring - $80,000.00. That's. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Isn't that a subtract? Don Ashworth: No, that's an add. Councilman Mason: This is a different floor? Don Ashworth: This moves it up from a typical elementary school. Councilman Mason: Oh this is, okay. Mayor Chmiel: The flooring that we discussed. Councilman Mason: Right, right. Councilman Senn: We have the savings in the grading but how does that, how is that impacted down by the need to add for, on the service road or on the soil corrections? Don Ashworth: We'll find out, you may accelerated the question now but my reading of the memorandum from the engineer was that because of the modification there actually may be a savings. We didn't want to cut back into the treed area but by doing that we're probably eliminating the wall and the overall cost associated with the elimination of the wall should approximately be the same as the cost for the soil corrections. That's how I read it. Is that correct or not? Charles Folch: Actually there might even be some surplus as an additional... for additional landscaping and such. Don Ashworth: So it could be a positive. It probably will not be a negative. Councilman Senn: Are we relatively certain on that, because I mean what he said in here wasn't that definitive. Charles Folch: Based on my ... the extent of the soil correction with the poor soils they found out there from the actual digging that had taken place last week, they pretty well defined the depth and length and dimensions and such of the area that needs to come out. Councilwoman Dockendorf: As long as we've started this discussion I had put under Council Presentations. Charles, could you explain to me if you've got poor soils, why you need to, I mean are they actually moving the road? Charles Folch: Actually the road is remaining as it was proposed and approved. What basically happens is when you dig down 17 feet, the with of the roadway, we actually have to expand your side slopes out, especially with poor soils because they'll slump. There's no way you can, basically you have to have safe slope so that you don't have any cave in to the excavation. Councilwoman Dockendorf. And then they're putting engineered fill in it or? 12 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Charles Folch: That's correct. That will be designed for the road embankment. I Councilwoman Dockendorf. Well I'd like the Council to entertain that, I mean it will be necessary to remove substantial trees. When you talk about 5 trees, you're talking 5 trees that you know, I can't even put my arms the width of so I would propose that we would see the landscaping plan and that those dollars not be used as a surplus to be used somewhere else but go directly back into landscaping that southern portion. So I'd really like , to see that come before Council. Councilman Senn: That's kind of why I was asking if there was a surplus. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Because they're taking out substantial coverage. They really are and if it's necessarily, I'd like to see the landscaping plan come before Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there a motion? With that included. Would you like to make that? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would move that we would award the bid to Bor -Son, adding that the city's portion of the overall construction cost shall not exceed $2,360,000.00 and that the Chanhassen City Council see the revised landscaping plans for the southern part of the frontage road where additional excavation is taking place. Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? I Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. I don't know who could answer it. When will they start actual construction of the buildings? Is it just grading this summer or? Todd Hoffman: The time line calls, they'll be doing footings and ... late this fall is what I recall... , Don Ashworth: I believe so. You also have the fact in there that there are bad soils under various portions of the building and the parking lot. All of those need to be excavated and sand brought in before they can start with footings so. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Just curious. Don Ashworth: It will be this fall. Councilwoman Dockendorf moved, Councilman Mason seconded to award the bid from Bor -Son Construction in the amount of $8,350,000.00 including add alternate #4 (flooring) $80,000.00; deleting alternate #7 (emergency power) - $19,300.00 and add alternate $10 (park shelter building) $251,000.00. ' The city's portion of the overall construction cost shall not exceed $2,360,000.00 and the City Council will see the revised landscaping plans for the southern part of the frontage road where additional excavation is taking place. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. i 13 1 1 I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 39 ACRES FROM A2. AGRICULTURAL ' ESTATES TO PUD FOR 56 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, EAST OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES, HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT, RLK ASSOCIATES. Bob Generous: The applicant was last before the City Council on April l lth of this year. At that time they were requesting the conceptual approval for a PUD for a planned unit development for a 56 lot subdivision. This is the basic plan that they have. Staff had concerns about this plan, and so did City Council. Specifically how they were going to treat the wetlands in the Bluff Creek corridor. The use of cul -de -sacs rather than private driveways and the small lots that abutted Timberwood. At that meeting Council tabled the concept plan for further work by the applicant and they came in with these revisions. The old...show their treatment of the wetland areas. The installation, the purple area represents some ponding areas that they provided on the site to help with storm water runoff. The little red dashed line that I put on the overhead shows the realignment of the road to provide some curvalinear atmosphere to the subdivision and to put in that last cul -de -sac. The solid red lines are the use of private drives. We believe that they're moving in the right direction with these revisions. However staff took this concept a little bit farther and looked at having the applicant possibly revise this plan to ' include additional... into the development. To permit the siting of some larger lots around the western boundary of the site. If they're going to group any smaller lots, to have them be on the inside curve of the development and along that eastern part of the project. Proposing an open space that provides connection down to the trail system and as an overlook for the wetland area or the wetland complex that will be in the middle of the project. The applicant also showed a little park setting at the convergence of the east and west banks of the Bluff Creek. Staff still believes that the planned unit development is the most appropriate way for the city to handle this development and conceptually we agree that a single family subdivision is appropriate land use for this site. We believe also that the conditions that we outlined in the staff report and that we included in this memo will provide the applicant with sufficient direction to the city to the next level of review and we're requesting that the City Council give conceptual approval to them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks Bob. Is there anyone from RLK Associates that would like to say something at this time? Are you basically in agreement with what staff has pulled together? John Dobbs: Good evening. My name is John Dobbs. I represent Heritage Development. John Dietrich from RLK is ... The second one is that after meeting with the staff and talking about a number of issues off the presentation that we came to before, we as a group, RLK and myself Three planners from RLK and I went out and took the old plans and walked the site. Actually spent most of a morning out there looking at it and it was interesting to look at the staff's sketched concept plan and to think about new ways to approach this site. The topography and natural resources on this particular piece are rather difficult to work with. And I guess going through the staff recommendations, there's a number of issues that I'll let Mr. Dietrich speak to specifically, but I guess in general I'd like to say that although this is perhaps one particular way to align the road in staffs concept sketch, the one we put up was basically based on two things. One of them is trying to salvage as many trees as we possibly could and meet the existing connection of Stone Creek. And the second one was, we actually tried to not push the topography around on the hills ... part of the plat the best that we could. Staffs concept sketch does begin to push out what is a somewhat steep slope and then push everything then further towards the creek and to Bluff Creek corridor to try and establish. The other solution then was also to push the road to the westerly side upon that very steep hill which then presented a very large problems for the sewer main ... So in general I guess what I'd like Mr. Dietrich to just kind of go through and again address the issues in general, I think that we spent a number of hours talking about and sketching in my office and in RLK's... We've lost a number of lots to try to get it down to the point where...And I'll be here to answer any questions. 14 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 except for one at this time and we would gladly work with that. Number 33, we will try to keep the ponds I 15 1 Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. John Dietrich: Good evening. John Dietrich, RLK Associates. I would just like to go through the recommendation that staff has ... and the overall concept, I would say we are in agreement with them. However , there are just a few issues that we would like to raise in terms of some of the staff recommendations that are in the report beginning on page 5. The first one was the design charette that will be coming up. We have again requested that the developer, Heritage Development be involved in the design charette so that... combination of public and private input into that process. Secondly, the item number 4 with regards to the pre- treatment of the storm water pond that we will be taking and treating all storm water ponds and we will keep all ponding to a minimum. It is in our best interest to have the minimum number of ponds and we will submit all storm water calculations through the engineer for their review. Secondly, the ability to take stone water from the north side of the site and also from the Chanhassen Corporate Center site, across the creek bed would result in storm sewer pipes anywhere from 35 to 40 feet deep ... ponding area. I think the storm water ponding on the Chanhassen Corporate Center site should remain on the site and not cut across the creek. Item number 7, we have no problems with. Item number 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized that it be a lateral stubbed towards the Timberwood Estates. We feel that Lots 3 and 4 would not be the proper location to stub that. That is right in the low lying area of the creek and within the area of ... tree masses and feel that would be contrary to the concept , of trying to preserve that natural wooded land to the south of the property. The north, item number 9 would be no problem. Item number 10. A curvalinear street that's shown on the concept plan by Mr. Generous did not look closely at the grades that are on the site. And in walking the site, if you look at grades, the oaks that are to the center of the site, we feel we have tried to provide at keeping that—as possible based on that concept grading plan. And still provide public access to the park. Access to the park where it was suggested in the staff concept plan would require an extensive grade to climb up and feel it would be very difficult to make a trail of ADA compatibility in that area. We will comply with number 12, number 13, number 14, number 15. Item number 16, we have utilized a private drive in order to try to maximize the site and retain the natural features and the woods and wetlands. We feel the use of the private drives on the west side of the roadway do not allow the site to be kept in it's most natural setting and we have tried to minimize the amount of roadway structures, roadway grading that we go through to get to the areas to the south. Number 17, trail or sidewalk on the west side of the roadway. Number 18, we will do a tree survey. Number 19, we would like to investigate the setbacks in order to have a little variance to the setbacks and to ... 20, 21, 22, 23, will be no problem. 24, 25, 26. 26, the southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. Again, after walking the site and going along the southern wetland that has been identified, that is by far one of the most pristine and natural areas of that entire site. We would highly recommend that the trail stay along the railroad tracks and on the southerly side of that wetland without trying to cross and come back up ... next to the public roadway system... Number 27, a 50 foot wide trail strip be preserved along the western boundary between Stone Creek Drive and the railroad tracks. Our concern is that the 50 foot area will be exclusively on Heritage development and not... Hans Hagen side. We'd like to just be treated fairly between the two developers instead of having all of the access on one side of the property line. There are NSP lines in that area so that area would be..Number 28 I spoke to about ADA codes on the trail. And 29, the trail crossing the creek in it's entirety, saying on the west side of the creek in it's entirety... branches. Again, after walking the site, the trail would not be graded and made to ADA standards along that northwest, northeast corner of the site. Based on site review, we would highly recommend that the trail cross the creek on some much flatter land and preserve that slope that the DNR has said should be protected. 30 will be fine. 31. There are a number of spaces and quality environments along this trail corridor between the open creek, parkland, picnic areas and utilization of buffer areas along ponding areas for that trail corridor. That we have—very strong trail plan that offers a variety of environments and we'd be happy to point those out in a little bit more detail. Number 32, 100 foot building setback. That's been maintained on all lots except for one at this time and we would gladly work with that. Number 33, we will try to keep the ponds I 15 1 I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 down to a minimum and ... Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Bob referenced some of the questions in regards to each of those specific items that have been mentioned. Regarding low lying areas. Some of the grades on 8 and 10. Some of the others. I don't know if you were taking notes at the time. But I can understand some of your questions. Can you address some of those? And the reasoning for it. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say a lot of these, some of the later ones are conditions of the Park and Rec Commission or the Director would like to look at. Again, this is part of the concept. These are things that we see that need to be articulated as the next phase develops. We're saying ... need to be resolved. Some of these are kind of unresolved issues as far as the staff level. That as part of the charette process we're trying to decide what would be appropriate. I think some of his points may be legitimate. As this evolves and we get further ' details on the grading and... Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm hopeful we're going to address a lot of those questions and indicate our concerns as to why we even came up with those. One of the others is to share between properties, as he mentioned something between Hans Hagen and their properties. The only question I have with Hans Hagen, I'm sure they have provided different things within their proposal. ' Kate Aanenson: I think Todd maybe better, could answer those... Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. I did take notes throughout John's presentation. The issues which they presented are not difficult for staff to resolve through this. Issues such as the ADA accessibility and those type of things. We may not be able to meet them in their entirety. It's our intention to do that where we can. But there are other issues as well. Every time you cross the creek, it's a $15,000.00 or $20,000.00 project to make the creek crossovers as well so we weigh those alternatives. As far as the 50 foot buffer zone for the trail crossing underneath the viaduct which is underneath the railroad tracks, that's an important link for the entire north/south Bluff Creek trail segment and the suggestion that... easement for the power lines and investigate that is a good one as well. So not only I'll take a look at the Hans Hagen plat but that has been approved. From this point we...It's also in an area down there where ... that pond, we're not affecting... so those issues are all fairly insignificant. We can work with the applicant. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Council have any questions? Richard. Councilman Wing: Well I would certainly like to use this as an opportunity to once again address density. A question I would have. At the conceptual level is how many cars is this going to bring in and do we have the roads and the infrastructure to handle them. Right now we can't get cars onto Highway 5 onto Galpin Road. And now we're, density. We never want to talk about density so I go back to my request that we look at going to 22,000 square foot lots with PUD's down to no lower limit with an average of 18. Mainly out of density. I'm looking at this conceptually now. And we've tried to kind of protect Timberwood. Not that they necessarily deserve protecting nor am I their buddy. I mean they're there and they're their little island and I ' think their development. But they have low density so I happen to like them because they're low density. I can't afford to live there but they offer me low density so they're not impacting my lifestyle as much. But now we've got these 13,000, 13,000, 16, 26, 17. We've got these small lots bordering these large lot homes. That doesn't, that to me conceptually is not acceptable. So the first comment I will make is to abut and put this type 16 r City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 of density on the lot lines of the existing Timberwood is not an appropriate development. I think it ought to be buffered and if we're going to have small lots, they ought to be on the east and we ought to have the larger lots abutting Timberwood. Or frankly I'd rather see this go to industrial with a quality type industrial building ' coming in. Rather than this high density housing. We've talked about that in the past. Who would be better off or better served. The other thing is that as you get going conceptually, I would like to have a layman's description of the grading. On Oak Ponds you could have just told me they're going to destroy the hill. Flatten ' it out and I could have bought that. Here I'd like to know what they're going to do to our landforms, and layman terms would be, they're going to cut the blazes out of it or they're going to trim a little off the top and move a little to the bottom. I mean I just, I'd like to know what's going to happen. Or if they're going to flatten it, I want to know that. Those are layman terms that I can work with. So the density bothers me. The ' density with the infrastructure bothers me. The amount of cars and traffic troubles me greatly. I don't like it. This is really impacting this area in a very negative way and it's not even, I mean it's agricultural zoning right now so I think we want to look at that. See the grading. The abutting to the existing, the buffering. This type of density as it buffers Timberwood. If I lived there, I would be here tonight. I guess that's all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Dick stole my thunder once again. ' Councilman Wing: Oh, go rust. You should go first. Excuse me. I Councilwoman Dockendorf: That's alright. No, no. As always you articulate better than me anyway. I too have concerns about the density. Obviously on the Timberwood side but even more so on the Bluff Creek side. This is a really neat tract of land and I'm very disappointed when I look at their roads that RLK has put in. We're practically obliterating the largest stand of trees and it will be cornfield so staff's recommendation to push that further to the east makes sense. This does need a lot of work. I am prepared to give it conceptual approval with the caveat that we need larger lots abutting Timberwood Estates. Particularly I'm looking at up towards the north where you've got 1, 2, 3, 4 and then around that cul-de -sac you've got a density of homes right next to basically two homes on the Timberwood side. You know you've got like 15. It needs a lot of work. I would agree with the applicant that the trails near the railroad tracks should be as it is. That's pretty steep grades there and we don't want to impact that any more than we have to. The sewer stub between Lots 3 and 4 does not make sense. That's where a creek is. I guess those are my biggest issues. Basically the density. I like the lot sizes towards the southern side of proposal but that's where you're getting to Stone Creek which equals pretty much those densities. Where you've got your higher densities of 11,000, it's up towards your large lots near Timberwood. That just doesn't make sense to me. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: Well, it sounds to me like the charette may take care of a lot of the issues. I'm hearing that both sides, if you will, are talking and things are getting to roll. I'm a little concerned when I hear low , density versus high density. We're talking about affordable housing and we're also talking about urban sprawl. If we knock out x number of lots, what does that do to jack up the prices for people that want to live in Chanhassen? I understand Council's concern about high density. The other side of that point is, for every lot we take out here, a lot's going to go somewhere else and how about Morrish and urban sprawl and those kinds , of issues. I think we, it's real easy to talk this stuff but I think there's some other issues we also need to discuss. And I'm not saying some lots can't be changed around and I'm not completely disagreeing with what's being said but not only do we have to look at high and low density but we do also have to look at things like I 17 ' i� I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 affordable housing and urban sprawl. And every time you make the lot size bigger, you're jacking up the price and it's making it that much harder for people to live in Chanhassen. And I think those are some issues that we also have to take into account too. I'll admit to a little concern about the 15,000 square foot lots abutting Timberwood. However, there are a number. I mean I think of Carver Beach where I live. I have a much larger lot as do the neighbors on my street but right over in Triple Crown, they're much smaller lots and we've got trees and there's all kinds of stuff between the two. So, you know so be it. Sorry about that. I do think we need to look at the other side of low density and high density and putting in affordable housing and urban sprawl. I've seen plans that are a lot higher density than this for the same amount so I think we need a little bit more of a balance there with that. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mark. Councilman Senn: It sounds like it's going the right way as far as between applicant and staff. Getting some of ' the questions worked out. Going out and looking at the site, I think there are some valid points that the applicant has over the topography but again, I'm not sure what all the issues are both ways on that, one way or the other. I think it'd be nice to really see that kind of analysis in front of us so we know what we're giving up ' or getting one way or the other. Given which way you go on that decision. Conceptually I don't see a problem with the direction it's headed. I think there's some good points both sides. I too get a little concerned when I hear the term high density because I mean this is a half acre lot average basically which to me seems fairly low density in relationship to a lot of things we've done. You're kind of, it seems to me we're kind of catching the applicant here between the rock and the hard place. A neighborhood on one side and Bluff Creek on the other side and I'm not sure both sides are going to end up being happy or dealt with in a manner that I think we'd like to see the creek dealt with or the way that the neighborhood would like to see dealt with on the other side but at ' the same time I get a little fearful that depending on how far you push this, you get down to density numbers on single family that are, that's going to do exactly what I would like not to see happen there and that is force them to take a different direction other than single family there and look at something else and I just, I can't agree with the potential or possibility of sticking industrial or whatever in that particular site. I think it is single family. For one single family and that's what ought to be pursued there. Mayor Chmiel: Good. Okay, with that I guess everybody's really expressed some of the concerns that I have. On either issue or each one of these and there's no sense in continuing on with the discussion from my standpoint. I would then bring this back to Council. See if there is a motion for the revised plans for the conceptual plans at this time. Councilman Senn: Kate, what are you looking for? ' Kate Aanenson: Concept approval at this time. Councilman Senn: With the caveat that you're going to continue to work. Kate Aanenson: Right. Now this has no, as far as legal standing. These are the marching orders. This is what they need to come back with preliminary so the preliminary will go back to the Planning Commission and... site elevations. You get—grading and the tree survey. All that stuff will come back in the next round and be very detailed. For right now we just want to know whether or not they need to go forward ...and do that detail. Councilman Senn: Okay. Well I'd move conceptual approval based on staff and the applicant going ahead and working those things out. But also when it comes back next round, I'd really like to see that analysis because I 18 t City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 think there's some very definitive issues here that if we isolate and look at individually, it's going to get very complicated. I think we need to look at them side by side and know what the trade -offs are on one versus the other. More or less how's this decision going to affect the creek? How's it going to affect the neighborhood or how is it going to affect the cluster of trees? I mean I hate to say it but in this tight of area where you are, there's going to be a lot of affects that way and I would just like, I mean we're going to have to sort those out and I think it'd be a little easier for us to do that. Kate Aanenson: That's why the staff supports the PUD ... that in a cornfield we go with 11,000 square foot lots. , Up in the trees we do ... 3 /4 or I acre lots. So unfortunately there was a concern about not averaging out the lots in a traditional subdivision. And this is an answer again is a balancing act ...you've got Timberwood and you've got the creek and somewhere there's an appropriate mix and where's the balancing here. But there is a place to have some of the small lots and places where ... and I think those are only accomplished with a PUD. Doing a straight subdivision I don't think does the best job on the site ... it's a balancing act and that's why I think the charette we'll find out... Mayor Chmiel: I think you can do that direction as you've done before with your Q and A's in relationship to each of those concerns and addressing those concerns so we at least know where it's coming from. ' Councilman Senn: I'd just like to see the Q and A's organized a little differently on this one in the sense that, if you make them separately it's going to be real hard to follow. I'd kind of like to really almost see a cross section and say here's the affect on A, B and C. Kate Aanenson: There's a lot of layers... Councilman Mason: That's a good idea. That would be helpful to see it like that. Councilman Wing: Okay that Boyer, we were kind of sold a bill of goods on the Boyer conceptual plan that we were going to have all these wonderful things happen and it turns out when they go back to the standard subdivision, they couldn't get the density thought they could. It sort of seemed to start to work to our advantage. What if we take this charette and all our tree preservation and all our setbacks that we've developed ' over the last few years and apply it with a standard subdivision on this narrow strip. Would we win or lose here? Kate Aanenson: I think on the Boyer's you have to go back and look at, they were trying to do a different type I of project. They were trying to do a zero lot line which is a lot different. Councilman Wing: I understand. , Councilman Senn: I think if you, Dick I mean looking at this strip and if running a typical subdivision through it, I don't think anything that's been presented is even close to that. I mean I view that as a mild disaster. I , mean if you're trying to do that. Kate Aanenson: I understand. I think you still have the tree preservation, you still have certain setbacks but I think it'd be much more sterile. I think this is probably a little bit more creative. ' Mayor Chmiel: I think staff has direction as to what we're looking for. To accomplish this particular proposal. So with that we have a motion on the floor. Was there a second? 19 , t I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 I Councilman Wing: Second. Mayor Chmiel: Moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Councilwoman Dockendorf. I just have a comment to what Mike was saying about affordable housing. You know that's an issue that we have put on our agenda to address, and I don't think it's being ignored in this. I think we were looking at the specific topography and the constraints of this piece of land and saying, it's not appropriate here. Councilman Senn: I don't think Mike was saying that though, was he? I mean he wasn't saying put affordable 1 housing here. Councilwoman Dockendorf. No. He was, well. ' Mayor Chmiel: I guess what he's really relating to, and correct me if I'm wrong to what you were saying, was that you saw housing costs raising, whether it be affordable or not. Councilman Mason: Yes. Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Just the automatic overall. Councilman Mason: Yeah, thanks. Yeah. Councilman Senn: The larger the lot size. Councilman Wing: But the larger the lot, the smaller the lot is the greater the density so people we get in and then are we dealing with those issues. If we want to talk, density keeps coming up. Planning doesn't want to mess with it. I mean they can't get off dead center with density. They haven't for 10 years but yet density is the issue and I don't mind small lots, and I don't mind affordable housing. I don't see those as relevant issues at all. I mean let's talk affordable housing. Let's talk small lots. Density is what concerns me because I can't get on Highway 7 anymore. I can't get across Galpin Road on TH 5. These densities are really troubling me because they're making life unbearable. Councilman Senn: But Dick there's other parts of Chan that are better. Mayor Chmiel: With that we have a motion on the floor with a second. I'll call the question. 1 Resolution #94 -55: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve the Conceptual PUD of 39.64 acres of property to create a single family development subject to the following conditions: 1. . The City's recommendations will remain pending on the design components for the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. A charette will be held on May 26, 1994 concerning the design issues for the creek north of Lyman Boulevard. Buffer strip widths and areas will be addressed at this time as a guidance for planning. 'J 20 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 21 1 (Revised) Heeessery- (Completed) and dfainage ehaFaeter-isfies with the final gFadiag pkn. A suggested layout Fe or-iontifig thO FOad afid . Two regional stormwater ponds for water retention and pretreatment are recommended. One in the southwest corner and one in the east central section of the property to retain and pretreat stormwater prior to discharge to the wetlands. The southwest pond is in the process of being constructed in conjunction with Stone Creek 4th Addition (Hans Hagen) to take runoff from portions of the Hans Hagen property and the southern third of the Heritage property. The ' east central pond should be designed to take runoff from the northern two - thirds of the property in addition to portions of the Chanhassen Corporate Center property. Fees for trunk storm sewer will be evaluated based on the applicant's contribution to the stormwater infrastructure. feeammeads a PFOtFeatffient pond in the Southwest e@FR@f of wet6nd A15 !!(I) (Lots 50, 51, and 52)—. . — d A-15 , , ( 4. (Revised) (Revised) 7. The SWMP requires the applicant to pay stormwater quality /quantity fees and trunk storm sewer charges as , appropriate. The applicant may be entitled to some credit or compensation if they provide the necessary on site stormwater quality/quantity improvements as outlined or modified in the SWMP. This will be determined upon review of the storm drainage /ponding calculations. 8. The trunk sanitary sewer line be utilized to serve both a lateral and a trunk to benefit the adjacent property (staff recommends that the applicant provide a sewer service in the general location of Lots 3 and 4 for future extension into Timberwood Estates). The best location for the sanitary sewer will be further investigated during the grading and utility plan preparation process. 9. The north/south street shall be extended through the outlot to connect to a future east/west frontage road , within three years after the final plat is approved for the first phase. 10. Curvilinear streets are recommended to add aesthetics and character to the neighborhood as well as deter speeding motorists. The attached diagram suggests a street cut that will retain the stand of oaks in the central area of the property, provide public access to the park, and allow for larger lot sizes along the western border. 11. (Revised) ' 21 1 I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 12. Detailed construction drawings and specifications will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction should be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. 13. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council approval. ' 14. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 15. Trail easements connecting the interior of the development with the Bluff Creek Corridor trail system will need to be developed. 16. The applicant should investigate the use of private driveways to serve up to four lots from the proposed ' north/south local street in order to minimize impacts on wooded areas and the wetlands. There are a number of private drives on the east side of the road. It is recommended that these alternate between the east and west sides of the road. I � I LJ 1 17. The north /south street should provide a sidewalk on the east west side of the roadway to match the typical cross section for Stone Creek Drive. This sidewalk will make the roadway pedestrian friendly as well as permit school children to walk to the school site once the future frontage road is constructed. 18. A tree survey must be prepared as part of the development preliminary plat review process. In addition, a woodland management plan will be required as paA of the plattiRg pfeeesr,. 19. The applicant may wish to investigate the use of setback variances to accommodate the siting of housing in the vicinity of wetlands or to preserve existed wooded or topographical features on the site. 20. Submit utility plans for review and approval. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet maximum. 21. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Submit turning radius dimensions to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. 23. Applicant shall address the comments enumerated in the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated 32/94•" 24. A ten (10) foot clear zone must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps trees shrubs bushes NSP, NW Bell, cable TV, transformer boxes. 25. Submit turning radius and cul -de -sac dimensions to the City Engineer and Fine Marshal for approval. 26. The southern terminus of the trail shall not parallel the railroad tracks. It should be located between Lot 53 and the wetland with sufficient buffer to protect both. 27. A 50 ft. wide trail strip shall be identified along the westerly border of the plat from the Stone Creek Drive extension south to the railroad t racks. This corridor is for the future Bluff Creek trail which will Dass under the railroad tracks at this location. 22 r City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 28. The mid -way trail connection shall be relocated to the vicinity of Lots 35, 36 and 37. This easement shall maintain the 30 ft buffer distance consistent with the remainder of the site. This is accommodated as part of the staff sketch plan. ' 29. The trail shall remain on the west side of the creek in its entirety, crossing the west branch at the convergence of the east and west branches, then continuing on to the collector road. 30. Trail fee credit shall be granted for the construction of the trail. Buffer areas are required for wetland protection and shall not be considered for park fee credit. 31. One of the goals of the Bluff Creek Corridor plan is to provide a quality outdoor experience along the corridor. A necessary component of such an experience are open space areas which provide views and allow for the placement of picnic tables etc. Such spaces are not represented on this plan. , 32. A minimum one hundred (100) building setback should be maintained from Bluff Creek. This may be revised based on the outcome of the Bluff Creek charrette. fr 33. The two small ponds that are not required for stormwater retention or pretreatment should be removed the proposed plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 7 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING CHRIST ON ' PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE. Kate Aanenson: (A portion of the staff report did not get picked up by the microphone.) ...one of the additional , things that we asked for is that they place a berm facing the proximity to Highway 5. A berm in the parking between Highway 5 and the church itself. If you've driven across that, you're right on grade... south of Highway 5. We are ... getting MnDot approval. They are reviewing it right now. There's also a power line in the area. , The Planning Commission wanted me to review this project ... berm could not be placed so they wanted to see some alternatives because they felt that that soften the building. They are doing landscaping out in front of the church and that does help soften ... In addition we feel that there's additional areas that are outside the MnDot ' right -of -way that additional plantings can be done and also along the driveway easement even though... in that area. Other than that we feel like the church has met the requirements of the Highway 5 overlay and would recommend approval with the conditions in the staff report. , Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you Kate. I like the looks of that myself. It's really quite outstanding. Would the applicant like to come forward and go through your formal presentation with this. Jim Dewalter: My name is Jim Dewalter. I'm Chairman of the Building Committee. Don Wagner is here as well. He's the architectural firm that we're working with and if you'd like me to go through the changes we're going to make or the details of the plan? Mayor Chmiel: Yes, if you would. Just lightly. 23 1 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Jim Dewalter: I think that you pretty much heard what all we're looking to be doing here because this portion of the church, which is the new 7,500 feet that we're talking about is about 3,800 feet per floor. It's two floors. It's primarily for classroom and staff offices on the top floor as well as an improved narthex. That's what that 1 all is there. We've had a need for handicapped accessibility, both from the outside of the building as well as within the building and in these plans we have an elevator system to handle the traffic between floors and then also the ramping into the main level that's right in this entrance and then this is a new entrance down here and ' the vestibule that will accommodate the first floor, or the basement. The basement level. These are 3 well established crab apples already that if any of you remember, they used to be in this area. We needed to move those. They're quite large. We've had to do quite a lot of trimming to keep them alive but they're doing fine so far and I think that it's helped... Part of the berming that the staff has recommended or that we've asked to be able to do to accommodate some of the off site brick that we need to address as we do excavation as well as how we think that will tie in with Highway 5 with the parking lot and create somewhat of a buffer and we've agreed with staff that we would do the appropriate plantings once we see the berms in place and the building up ' and then we would go about addressing the plantings after as necessary. We do have concerns about that and that we have lost trees in the past because of the location of the property to Highway 5 and the snowplows and salt and that type of thing. We get quite a lot of burn out there but we'll work on that to come up with the right ' materials, whatever they might be. These are the materials. Don, maybe do you want to comment on these at all? Don Wagner: Good evening. First of all, this isn't my normal voice. ' Mayor Chmiel: It is too. I heard you at the Planning Commission. Don Wagner: ...that we're showing. This is a pre -cast concrete panel which is called corduroy and it's ... as a limestone buff. The buff is created by a granular...that's going to be used predominantly through all of the exterior surfaces as you see the vertical striping around here and here and around here. This other material, we were looking for something to provide a little bit more interesting accent and this is going to be used around these two walls that are ... added this as a band all the way across so that it would be significantly... Jim Dewalter: Kind of the timeframe of the project is we have... Thursday night we'll be looking for final approval from the voters and we're confident that that in fact will happen. Construction, we're hoping to start by mid -June. The panels start going up the first week of July and we've been in this building now, it will be 25 years in September so it's our 25th Anniversary in September and we're having a celebration at that time so ' we're hoping to have the project, if not totally completed, very close to completion so we can use the facilities for that so it's a fairly quick project. It's nothing that's going to be hanging around for 6 to 9 months. We surely can't afford to be in that situation. So it's going to go up in a hurry in fact if we get all the approvals here. Don Wagner: On the interior, as far as the space is concerned. The existing entrances are over in this area. We're relocating them slightly to the south and reducing them to just two doors and two side lights. This flows ' into the existing narthex. The new narthex is really an extension of the existing narthex so you'll actually see this space flow all the way through. You'll also see the ceiling ... same configuration as the roof. Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Does the Council have any questions? Thank you. We'll start on the far end. Mark. 24 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 n , Councilman Senn: I guess no questions. Don't really see any problem with it. Like what I see. I guess the only thing I'd like to see is I'd like to see item 10, under the recommendations, stricken because I really see it as being repetitive and it's already included in item 1 and I'd be perfectly happy with staff making that evaluation as the professionals if that situation arises. That wouldn't necessitate them having to come all the way back , through approvals which I think is a little repetitive and arduous. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael. , Councilman Mason: Looks good. Well it does. It looks nice. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah it does. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Ditto. No, I have a couple more comments. No, I think it looks great. I like how the applicant came in to the Planning Commission with a very sound plan to start with. I really like this, what ' would you call it? Kate Aanenson: They call it an isometric view. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: An isometric view. An artist rendering from what I can tell. It's very, very helpful. I agree with Mark about condition number 10. I don't see that as necessary. ' Mayor Chmiel: Richard. Councilman Wing: Kate, the last church we did, just almost as a casual comment we mentioned overstory shade ' trees and how it could enhance their property long term. And I counted 13 and they put in 16 without even asking. Was there a reason we didn't encourage that here? I mean there's a million little. Kate Aanenson: That was a brand new site plan. There was a lot of flexibility. This is an existing site plan. If ' you go down on the slopes. If we would have increased the parking lot in order to do that, what you'd be doing is cutting the grade ... the topography would be actually cut into the existing trees and put the parking lot down. You can't go ... No additional parking is required so really all we'd be accomplishing is taking down some ' existing trees. Staff concurred that we needed to do something to soften the front and we've identified places on the plan. In front of the parking lot too. It's not only the berm but on the eastern side in an area—There is a significant stand as you're coming to the west. On the down slope. ' Councilman Senn: On the hill there. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. But really, the site does drop off dramatically and in trying to accomplish that, we'd be , doing a lot of grading and taking out some existing vegetation. And we did look at that... Councilman Wing: Well I wasn't even suggesting that. You're right. It's an existing site plan. I guess all I'll , say is that because it sits up high it's sort of a stark area. Whatever trees they put in will really benefit them as well as us in the future. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess I don't have any comments on it either. I like what I see and I did spend an evening at the Planning Commission. I'd like to request a motion. n U n City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Councilman Senn: I move approval. Deleting 10. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Dockendorf seconded to approve Site Plan Review #94 -2 for a 7,560 square foot addition to the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ subject to the plan dated April 5, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain and comply with MnDot's permit for constructing the berms and landscaping within MnDot's right -of -way. In the event that no landscaping is approved by MnDot or NSP in the ROW or power easement, then the applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan for final review and approval by city staff. 2. Storm sewers and curb and gutter are not necessary with this phase of expansion. However, future expansions may require the site be brought up to city ordinance with curbs, gutters and storm sewers. 3. The parking lot stall design should be modified to provide a minimum of 22 foot wide drive aisles and 8 1/2 foot by 18 foot long parking stalls. This can be accomplished by restriping. 4. The applicant shall redesign the drive island drop off area to accommodate proper bus turning movements. Additional landscaping along the proposed berm of Highway 5 as well as the southeastern portion of the property along both sides of the driveway to the church. The landscaping along the driveway shall consist of a mix of 5 conifers and 5 deciduous trees as selected from the city's landscaping list. A landscaped berm be placed in the MnDot ROW. If approval from MnDot and NSP cannot be gained, it is recommended that intensive landscaping for the islands in front of the main entrance and outside the utility easement area be designed and submitted for approval by city staff. 6. A staff review be conducted of this parking arrangement annually for the next 2 -3 years to monitor parking needs and to require the additional spaces to constructed should the need arise. 7. All conditions as stated in the Building Official's memo dated April 14, 1994. 8. All conditions as stated in the Fire Marshal's memo dated April 21, 1994. 9. Any building lighting improvements shall be made in conformance with the city's lighting standards and shall be subject to final review and approval by city staff. 10. Deleted. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING FIREARMS AND CITY SHOOTING BOUNDARY MAP REVISION. FIRST READING. Mayor Chmiel: Scott. By the way, for those of you who were aware or not aware, Scott's daughter is back home after a long touch and go at Children's Hospital in St. Paul and it's nice to hear that. 26 City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Scott Harr: Very good. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor and members of Council, I presented to you in your packets a background analysis and recommendations of an ordinance amendment to the section of City Code dealing with shooting boundaries within the city limits along with the revised shooting boundary map... a significant effort undertaken by the Public Safety Commission the 7 years that I've been here and they have sought to balance the recreation and safety. Because of the continuous growth of our city, both the ordinance amendment and the map reflect increased controls of shooting by the city as well as a marked decrease in the area. The only response that I've received from the affected landowners that I mailed information about tonight's meeting to was from Mark Halla who requested that there be included something to permit shooting ranges elsewhere in the city. However, the amendment that would permit such a use outside of the area would defeat shooting boundaries themselves and a shooting range that meets the other authorizations would be permitted if it met the requirements within the general ordinance. One addition that I would like to ask that the , Council consider in addition to what I'm presenting tonight would be on page 3. Adding a fourth item to section C that would limit shooting to B -B guns, pellet guns, shotguns or bows, unless specifically approved by the Public Safety Director for the welfare or public safety of the community. We have restricted shooting to ' shotguns, bows and arrows but in the event they would get to the point where control might become necessary, the commission did want to provide the city with the opportunity to expand the boundaries and reference for safety sake in those specific situations. With those comments I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have but I believe the information along with my recommendation for the ordinance change and the map is ' within your packets. Mayor Chmiel: Good, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to address this at this time? Ben. ' Ben Gowen: My name is Ben Gowen at 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard. I've got established gardens that were established in 1939. The deer are devastating it. I've got approximately 3,000 lily plants, or ... plants that they ' have not affected. However I have friends over in Lake Elmo that say that they're feeding ... but I've got 6,000 lily bulbs down there that I've harvested... but I haven't cut any of them in the last 3 years because the deer wipe out all the buds the day before I want to cut them. I can't spray for deer away or any of them chemical products on lilies because then the florist can't handle the product because they get the product on themselves , and their face and what not and so they're not amenable to spraying cut flowers to keep the deer from eating them. I've tried fencing. By laying fence on the ground. For 2 years they didn't walk across the fence as long as it was laying on the ground. Now they've learned to walk through it. Along with that I've got 550 varieties ' of hosta with numerous stock grows that they anniliated. They eat them up like grass. I would like to be allowed to use bow hunting on my property and try to eliminate some of the deer that are down there. There's the highway is doing a pretty good job. They got 7 on Highway 5 in one week last year. 2 of them landed in ' my front yard. There's a couple folks here, Mr. and Mrs. Siebert that are bow hunters and want to use my property to hunt with bow. The lower part of my property, which is 7, approximately 7 acres faces the Herman ball park and the Carver County Park. There's kind of water areas, swimming areas in that area, down in that comer and that would be the area that they would be shooting to or for to deal with this swamp area. I'd like to ' have a permit to use bow hunters down in that area. These folks might have a word or two to say in that behalf for getting a permit especially for my property. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Karen Siebert: My name is Karen Siebert. I live at 101 East Broadway Street in Osseo. And Mr. Gowen and I have a mutual friend who explained his problem with deer ... to me and when I called the city last fall, before I called him telling him I wanted to hunt, I found out that he was not in an area that was open to bow hunting. And I suggested he get in touch with the city and see what there was that he could do to open it up for him. As , 27 ' f I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 ' it was explained to me and as I viewed the property since then, I believe that in his situation, where his lot is, the way that it's wooded, and the fact that he's adjacent to, that bow hunting would be a solution. A partial solution. Not a complete solution but the pressure that it would put on by the bow hunters in the area, not only ' hopefully we'll take one or two, maybe more deer out of there, depending on how many hunters come in and on the number of licenses that are available this fall to the bow hunters. But the pressure itself from hunters in the area does help to force the deer back out. He is adjacent to the park and a heavy trail that comes in from the ' park and the fact that he has seen so many deer killed on the highway right near his home indicates to me that there is some problem in that area. In the park and on his property with a high population of deer and if it is not addressed at this time, it should be considered by the County as some kind of a near future problem ... The accidents on the highway and the number of deer killed and people, the possibility of human life being endangered... And I think if the Council has questions, just looking at the property and the fact that it is extremely wooded in the back, part of the property. If you're not familiar with the bow hunting, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can... ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there any questions by Council? I guess not, thank you. Scott, maybe you could sort of address some of the specific issues. ' Scott Harr: Mr. Mayor, it was a very difficult decision for the commission to not endorse Mr. Gowen's request and they did discuss it at length. The fact that they endorsed the other request indicates that the commission was not against any changes because they added to and deleted from the existing map. The 500 foot mark that the ' Statute sets forth for firearms, the commission seemed reasonable for bow hunting as well. The size of the parcel and the proximity to the neighborhood to the north, the highway to the east, the park to the west, and the regional park to the south led the commission to question whether the risk ... analysis made it worth while ... to be productive. We had the DNR conservation officer deal with the commission and a concern that was brought up that's outlined in the memo was that even if the deer are shot, that they have, at least the potential for wandering onto the highway and the speaker was certainly right, and Mr. Gowen. The deer kill by cars are becoming an increasing problem for us but the commission was concerned about adding to it by creating a situation where an injured deer would wander off the property or perhaps even onto the school property and this was an issue that was brought up by the conservation officer. It was also discussed that the location of the property is just at a prime deer place. It's just right there with two parks bordering it and as I understand some of heaviest deer ' population in the regional park and it was questioned by the conservation officer whether any amount of shooting during the season would resolve this problem that Mr. Gowen eloquently put it. The deer like his property. And so for those reasons, weighing all of the factors, the commission did not think that a potential benefit of shooting some deer was worth the potential risk of the proximity and not only neighborhoods but the highway. And they did wrestle with this and as you see, we put a significant amount of effort into measuring and trying to find some way around this one spot. Mr. Gowen and I did talk about the possibility of him working with the DNR to ' try to come up with some alternative solutions. The commission talked about deer traps. It's just, it's a very challenging problem from our position and his. And I appreciate the input from the presenter tonight because I've learned a lot about bow hunting, as has the commission. It's a difficult problem. ' Councilman Wing: What does the season run? What's the dates on the season? Richard Siebert: September 15th to end of November. First part of December. ' Ben Gowen: End of December. ' Scott Harr: End of December? 28 f City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: I took 150 squirrels out of my yard illegally in one year and I never made a dent and I can't ' believe the impact that didn't have. So if we had a year round season, would it alleviate the problem? That was the question at the commission wasn't it? With this population and the movement, they'd have to be out there constantly protecting their property. Wasn't that the resolution towards the end? , Scott Harr: That was. That was a possibility... brainstorming different solutions. Councilman Senn: Question for you. In terms of the other areas, okay that you're allowing hunting, okay. Is the purpose for allowing hunting in those other areas thinning the population or some other reason? Scott Harr: Could you repeat that? ' Councilman Senn: Okay, the areas which you are proposing or the commission's proposing that we continue to allow hunting, okay. Is the reason or the purpose for that to thin the population or is it another reason just ' generally because it's there and it's a hunting area or what? Scott Harr: Good question. The Halla Nursery property and the Gorra property specifically requested to be included with the bow hunting because of the damage to the commercial product on those properties. The other ' areas are strictly recreational. Does that answer your question? Councilman Senn: Yeah. If you take this area as well as then those two areas that have been included for ' damage purposes, can we not in effect leave those out as designated areas and in effect still cover them under what you're suggesting through the ordinance, which is controlled hunt? You know for the purpose of thinning population. The thing I'm getting at Scott is this, you know I think we're fast coming to a day where you're not going to see any hunting in Chanhassen anymore and it's not because I'm against hunting. I've been one for 30 years. But you know the city's growing. It's getting hard to go anywhere in the city without running into population and I get real concerned about the safety that gets involved with that. But it seems to me that yeah, there's going to be problems that go along with it but to me there's logical and controlled ways to handle those ' problems, such as the one this gentleman has. Such as the other two requests. I mean if it's a thinning request, to me you put it in the ordinance and allow it to go in under a controlled situation and deal with it. It seems to me then everybody's happy. But at the same time we're not just creating open hunting zones which quite , frankly I do have a problem with. At least in terms of populated areas like TH 7 and TH 41. That's not to underplay the problem because there's a problem there but again I take what's in that area and what borders it and what's around there and it raises real concerns in my mind in terms of open hunting. ' Scott Harr: And you've addressed thoughts that the commission looked at as well because you're thinking is exactly what the community at large was thinking. Whether it's new residents moving from one suburb to here and not being used to the noise or perceived danger or because they want to maintain a sporting activity, the ' commission really has put in a lot of time because of the emotion and the practical issues here, to try to balance that. And as you look at the map, there just isn't much area left and particularly because platted property does not permit hunting. By the ordinance that exists or the one I'm recommending. ...close it down every year by ' just. Councilman Senn: Well attrition of this week, right? ' Scott Harr: And the hunters, exactly. And the hunters have been extremely responsible. We've issued very, very few citations over the last several years since we've really brought our program together and I think the ' 29 t I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 majority of those have been from people from outside the community. We just have been extraordinarily pleased with how the community's policed themselves. ' Councilman Senn: Well couldn't we get rid of the hair splitting I guess is my question? I mean the hair splitting in this is, to me is deciding where you pick these little pockets out. I mean to me we ought to go in and say these are recreational areas because they still belong as recreational hunting areas and those may thin ' and go away over time, as I'm certain they will but treat all the other areas the same, which is if there's a problem, then set up control situations to deal with it. What was the commission's reaction to that? Scott Harr: Well the difficulty is, how do we determine what a problem is. The goose situation on the north end has been a problem but is it worth bringing in a number of hunters to deal with that amount of geese coming over. ' Councilman Senn: Don't have to hunt them at all. Just lay the cord down and put them in cages and haul them away. ' Scott Harr: And that's, some communities are doing that with deer. With deer traps and I've seen some of the emotions that have come about that. I feel much better about having a very definitive ordinance because we get so, it's such an emotional issue. It's very difficult. The more opportunity the city has to say well maybe, the more difficult it is. Councilman Mason: How does, I know Murphy Handerhand Park, Hennepin County Park has closed. I mean they close the park and they hunt deer. I know even Highland Park here in Bloomington does that. I mean those areas are, (a) they're controlled hunts but good grief. There are people all over the place around the perimeter of those parks and that, I mean how, I guess I'm kind of. I Councilman Senn: Controlled hunt's a whole different situation. Councilman Mason: Yeah. And I'm kind of hearing what Mark is saying here and I clearly, in 10 years I question that there will be any hunting. In our fair city, just because like he said and like you said, attrition but is there a way that we can address Mr. Gowen's concern? I mean by a controlled hunt ... there are areas in town. I mean look. I will stare at Bambi for hours so I don't want you know deer lovers to, you know the phone's going to be ringing off the hook. I have seen and tracked more deer without killing them than those people probably could ever dream of. But the fact remains, I mean deer get like raccoon if we got too many of them. Something needs to be done. You know raccoons walk across the street and get killed a little bit more regularly I think than deer do but what ...but what can we do in terms of, is there anything we can do in terms of controlled hunt to take care of that problem? Scott Harr: I think that would involve dealing with the DNR to do a deer count. Population count and if it was determined that that was an appropriate step, to make arrangements to either open up hunting or bring in sharp shooters to thin the herds to whatever amount the DNR would determine would be appropriate. And that is what other communities are doing. Eden Prairie's getting... right now. Mayor Chmiel: Maybe what I'm probably listening to is that Council seems quite acceptable I think probably to this proposal but I'd like to maybe just see staff have some additional discussions with Mr. Gowen and maybe some other solutions can come out of that that could eliminate some of the given problems that he's having with the deer. And I think that maybe some of that could be done with that kind of determination. I would like to, c t City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 maybe I'll get back to what my position on this right now would be to proceed with the amending portions that , we've gone through because this is going to be the fast reading and we can probably have some further discussions with this prior to it coming back for it's second reading. Yeah Colleen. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question. How long will this be in effect? Getting at, we've got a large shooting area between border 1 and CR 17 south of TH 5. A big shooting area and we've got Opus going in there. We've got Trotters Ridge really close. It just seems that that's going to, I guess my question is, how long is this map going to be in place. Is this this year's map? Because next year it's going to have to change. Scott Harr: The commissions reviews it annually well before the hunting season. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: So this is for the '94 season only? Mayor Chmiel: For this '93 season. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: It's '94. Kate, is anything going to happen with, do you see any developments mi , that area taking off right now? Mayor Chmiel: Everything's sold. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Yeah, everything's sold. Mayor Chmiel: So you never know. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I guess it will need to be revised if you know, anything happens. Mayor Chmiel: But the commission does look at this on a yearly basis. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: Okay. That's my question, thank you. Mayor Chmiel: You had your hand up before. I wasn't ignoring you, I was just trying to get discussion here ' with Council. Richard Siebert: My name is Richard Siebert and I live at 101 East Broadway Street in Osseo. I'm the husband ' to Karen who is actually the hunter in the family. I wanted to point out a few things. I wanted to thank Mr. Harr first of all. His commission's obviously done a lot of work and I've dealt with Councils before on things similar to this. This is a better report than I've seen in most cases and I appreciate your effort. I wanted to ' point out that Mr. Gowen has 7 acres and you are recommending in your report 3 acre hunts for Capable Partners with shotguns. The bow range is not anywhere near where a shotgun range is. I'd also like to point out that even if no deer were taken from that area, the presence of hunters will or can alter the travel of the deer. ' So it may, even if we don't take any deer out of that area, help him with his problems in his gardens. I also want to point out that the safety record of a bow hunter is probably unequaled to any other type of hunter in the United States. There's never been a fatality of a bow hunter hunting legally anywhere. You mentioned trapping ' of the deer. That has proven to not be effective and it's not cost effective at all either. Special hunts provided by the DNR ... are about $80.00 a head or something like that. Karen Siebert: That's sharp shooting... I 31 1 t I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 ' Richard Siebert: And plus you get a media circus along with that happening. The animal rights protesters and... As far as small parcels of land being hunted, I would like to point out that ... in Minnetonka has had hunt. It was very successful. That was some 21 acres. Total. I think it's in the middle of the city next to a park. Plymouth ' has hunts on parcels as small as 10 acres. Fort Snelling had a hunt on the cemetery. The Fort Snelling cemetery last fall, which is a very busy place and had absolutely no incidents or problems. North Oaks has hunts within their city regularly during the year because they have a horrendous deer population. Much worse ' than you have here and they for the most part had no problems. We would recommend that if you allow bow hunters on smaller areas or preferably any area, that you require in your ordinance, Minnesota Bow Hunter Education Certificate. This at least means that that person has taken a minimum amount of training to learn this craft. And the bow hunting not only provides you somewhat with a control with no cost to the city but many cities also charge a small fee for an extra license to hunt within the city limits so that can be brought up. Again, as far as safety goes, we both belong to an organization called... Archers of Coon Rapids at Bunker Hills. we have targets within 50 yards of residences. You can see the residences from the targets and we've had few, if no complaints. Very accurate range. Again, just with my wife, we'd like to offer any services we could with your permission. If you have a question—can answer those questions. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Good, thanks. Councilman Wing: Scott we had a goose hunt, clearly was one of the most hilarious nights in the Council chambers I've ever witnessed. I thought it was worth paying to be there that night. Some of the goose and anti - goose people and I'm glad, well at any rate. We all know that the goose, not only collecting the geese off the lake at a fairly, well costs a lot of money but then we also had a goose hunt. We opened up this area north of TH 5 and east of TH 41 for a goose hunt and we're talking about a lot of birds. I mean we're talking about an ' influx becoming unbearable for health. It was just becoming a public hazard. So the DNR allows this special shoot and our process is to get rid of these birds and then they go out and tag because they're over their limit. I mean if there was one day I would have probably not been there or turned my back, it would have been that ' day. So I think we get into these things. You get 3 days to hunt and you're allowed 1 deer. But yet we've got 400 we're trying to get rid of I almost don't want to deal with them except off the record, quietly. Whatever they want to do. But I want to get back to Mark here has a real valid point that I'd like to see you address as we move ahead here and that's if the Public Safety Director, because of a specific need on a specific parcel, ' under his direction, so on and so forth, couldn't go through this thinning process without having to talk about it and get into the, this area is open. This area isn't. And work with the DNR with just that homeowner. Maybe it needs to be done off season if there's a critical issue. I don't know what the rules are and I'm not a hunter ' but whatever Mark was getting at, I'd like to tack onto that and ask that that be followed up on because I felt that had some real validity in this whole process. ' Councilman Senn: I think everybody jumps to the conclusion under a controlled hunt and assumes that means bringing in sharp shooters and stuff. I mean what I'm suggesting is if you take a recreational area that belongs to recreational and you make it that. Other than that you treat everybody else the same, which is if there's a problem, you organize the controlled hunt. A controlled hunt may be you're deciding to let 5 bow and arrow ' hunters into the area or something. I mean again, I don't think we need to be involved in that kind of a decision on a seasonal basis. I think that's something that's between you the DNR and stuff you do. But at the same time, I think we could have a little bit of a problem by saying well this parcel it's okay on but this parcel it's not ' okay on as far as the designations and stuff. I think there's probably some valid arguments saying well why do they get it, you know why don't I. At the same time, if they don't like deer, I still suggest they go buy some good dogs because they do wonders and stuff and we've kept deer out of our yard for years on that basis. But I ' mean again there's lots of ways, I guess what I'm trying to say, to deal with the problem so I think you should 32 t City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 have the ability to do that and go do that and this shouldn't be an annually recurring issue. I think what we should be dealing with is shrinking the recreational area which should really be the only areas we deal with. Councilman Wing: With Mark, I'd like to give you that flexibility to be able to do that. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, I'd like a motion. Councilman Mason: I'd like to make a motion to approve first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 11 of ' the Chanhassen City Code firearms and city shooting boundary map revision with directing staff or Public Safety Commission to continue to work with Mr. Gowen or whatever the case. If we need to look into these closed hunts or whatever you'd call them. On an as needed basis. Mayor Chmiel: Second? Councilman Wing: Second. Mark, did that cover what you were homing in on? Councilman Senn: I think it's a direction, it goes in that direction but what I'd really like to see is eliminate the other special parcels and lump them all into this category so Scott can just go and do it. Mayor Chmiel: I think at some time that's going to just automatically take care of itself. Okay. ' Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve first reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning Firearms and City Shooting Boundary Map Revision with direction to staff to continue working on discussions regarding controlled hunting. All ' voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: ' HIGHWAY 212 UPDATE REPORT, MAYOR CHMIEL. Mayor Chmiel: I just wanted to give you an update on the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition that I , attended last Tuesday, which was May 17th. Some of the information that they're talking about, there's several different things. First of all, the total amount of dollars that's been appropriated by the Feds and with the State. They have $7.5 million which is dealing towards the Scott County Bridge and that has been following through and moving along. There's also a million dollars that have been taken for the RALF funds so it can be done for acquiesce of given properties and so on for right -of -ways. And then of course one thing that will probably interest us as well regarding light rail transit where they still have $10 million that have been appropriated for that. With the jurisdiction and factor of that being the counties within each of the 7 county metro area who has ' that responsibility of creating a corridor somewhere within each respective county. They were also taking out $35 million to defer out to the 1995 -96 projects and some of the target dates that have been there have been set back in comparison. Some of the other things that I'd like to point out is that we did make a motion to inform ' the transportation coalition that we were not too excited about the toll road feasibility that they were talking about. Well plain and simple, we can either go along with it or we're going to get it one way or the other. Only because of the balance of the communities are in agreement to go through with that process for several reasons. To go through the acquiesce of that $75,000.00 for the road feasibility. The principle purpose of the ' study, and I think hopefully most of you have had an opportunity to take a look at it but I just want to reiterate a little bit. It says where this will assist local units of government in evaluating the potential viability of Trunk , 33 k I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Highway 212 as a toll way and 2, which is going to also provide a preliminary base of information for potential developers of the project should the State... study suggest that the desirability of proceeding further with the approach. And 3, which is also analyzing the prospects for funding Trunk Highway 212 by traditional non tollway methods. If the tollway does not work out, you're looking at this thing maybe 10 to 20 years down the road. If it goes with a tollway, you're still looking probably at 10 years down the road. So it's a combination of two different things. That input that I was mentioning before of other communities in and along this ' particular stretch for the TH 212 corridor is all the way from Eden Prairie as far west as you would care to go. Each of those communities are all in favor of getting this done to their respective areas as well. Right now as I mentioned, as far as the current funding sources, they're not available. I said it was going to be 10 to 20 years down the road. And the only way really that they can see is going the tollway. There hasn't been a tollway put ' in the State of Minnesota. I don't expect it's going to take place but they have to go ahead and proceed with this and determine what has to be done. How it can be done and what involvement is really there. MnDot is one who will fund up that $75,000.00. The City of Chaska has also agreed to be the lead community with ' MnDot in regard to that funding and also to conduct a study. Their City Council is basically in full agreement with that proposal at this particular time. There is a steering committee that's going to consist from 2 representatives from each local unit of government and what they are planning on doing is going out for an RFP on toll roads. And I think what they want to do that is by June I of this year acquire a consultant by August 1 and to have this pretty much pulled together by January of '95. So they can, for the next legislative session, to see whether or not there'd be any funding from the State as well. So it's understood that each of these agencies that are going to participate on the steering committee, is really for the purpose of facilitating and preparation of ' the feasibility report. And I guess that's all I really had to say. Only because of the fact that I did support our position at that meeting and I wish the hell the rest of you were there to defend yourselves. Councilman Senn: You didn't tell us. I think it's wonderful if you did that. Mayor Chmiel: But anyway, that's where that's at right now. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Could I ask a question about, where's the LRT going? Where does that sit? Mayor Chmiel: The light rail transit? Councilwoman Dockendorf. Yes. Mayor Chmiel: Normally the counties are the ones who sit back and determine where that route is going to be. Where is it going to go? Nobody's going anywhere on it. Nobody's spending anything. There's been a lot of dollars spent by all the counties within, well I should say between Hennepin and Ramsey. Washington really hasn't done too much nor has Dakota County. Carver... Councilwoman Dockendorf: So we did a study and it's just sitting nowhere? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilwoman Dockendorf: No one's even denied that it's. ' Mayor Chmiel: It's the dollar that is really where the problem is. And there's not enough funding coming. Is really what it boils down to. 34 r City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Councilman Wing: The Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, this is a private sector driven committee. , This isn't a government committee. Mayor Chmiel: No. All communities in and adjacent to. I wanted to bring out one other point too. Because when we were trying to do some of this with the Highway 5 corridor that we have at that time in trying to get it extended. We've had all these other communities also supporting our position in getting Highway 5 to work that , right now. And also there's support for the extension of Highway 5 to TH 41. And I sort of felt like I was there with a cloak and dagger. Councilman Wing: Yeah but we didn't charge them. ' Councilman Senn: But you shouldn't Don because we support the extension of TH 212 I think 100 %. Mayor Chmiel: That's right, and that's the position that I said except for that part of the toll but they still have to go through the process to come up with the determination as to how and when it can really go. Whether it's even feasible. Councilman Senn: I understand but I just, you know when you start talking about $75,000.00, 1 mean to me that one's right up there on the top of whoever that guy's list is for waste in government. Councilman Mason: The Golden Fleece. ' Councilman Senn: The Golden Fleece Award. Right at 100 %. 1 mean to study a toll road for 212. Mayor Chmiel: That's where that RAL funding has come in where they can attach onto this. And you're right, I'd like to see them put $75,000.00 into Highway 5 to finish it to TH 41. Councilman Senn: That's right. Or something. I mean anything productive. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Start building 212. Mayor Chmiel: What they're trying to do is eliminate the total years. Really it's a farm to market kind of road that really comes back in on 212. Councilman Wing: And they would like to get their... supported out past us and that's good. Well we're not charging them 25 cents to get there now and they charge me 25 cents to get there. Mayor Chmiel: Well there's different ways that that can be done too. As far as license plates are concerned. The City can ask that, we could have something put onto our tabs or onto our plates as a tab showing that there's no charge to be done in the city of Chanhassen. Or you could go through ... Some of the things that we ' have is where they can pick up on a vehicle and bill them on a monthly basis. Councilwoman Dockendorf. You can put a chip in my neck too doing the same thing. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. But you're going to have to stick it out the window. You've got to be careful ' how you're driving. 35 1 t I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Councilman Senn: Why don't we spend $75,000.00 to lobby to get the money to do 212. I mean to me even if we lost, that's money better spent that studying some goofy concept that could never survive or exist in this state and everybody knows it before it starts. Councilman Wing: In the State of Minnesota I would like to have the money to build our infrastructure and keep it for public use and not let the private sector start driving some of these issues. Or put it someplace that ' there's no chance I will ever visit, drive or go. Councilman Senn: If toll roads were feasible in Minnesota, they'd already have one on 35 -W. Come on. I mean they're trying to figure out how to pay for that one. Mayor Chmiel: ...hard time throwing that money in, they won't have those kinds of things. ' Councilman Wing: I have heard this Council every time this is brought up say let's now and for myself I don't want to. I don't want to be part of the study. I hope I'm not being short sighted. I hope I'm not looking a gifted horse in the mouth but I don't think this is the way to run government and I don't like. This is just another tax and either we've got the money to do it or we don't do it. And if we went as a community, want to get together and spend the $75,000.00 on lobbying, you would take it and I bet you would do a heck of a job for US. Mayor Chmiel: That's what he's thinking too. Councilman Wing: Boy, give it to Mark and turn him loose over at the State. That's for me. r Councilman Senn: You can't afford me Dick. � -1 1 Councilman Wing: 75 won't pass it huh? Councilman Mason: This is an update. This is nothing to vote on right? Mayor Chmiel: No. Just strictly as an update. Councilman Wing: Thank you Don. Councilman Senn: Except we haven't agreed to enter the project correct? Mayor Chmiel: Pardon me. Councilman Senn: I mean in our previous votes we haven't agreed to enter the project. Councilwoman Dockendorf. We're not signing this is what. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. We are so far being excluded from it. Councilman Senn: I'd like to really reiterate our support for the project but this concept I think is. Mayor Chmiel: I think maybe what we'll do is have some of those people talk to you and give you a call. 36 r City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 37 1 Councilman Senn: Sure, why not. What's a few more phone calls. I'm just really curious since we got this, who are these people? I mean there's not one from the whole southwest area but I'm just curious. Mayor Chmiel: The information that was being sent to them are people who can move ahead with some of the ' materials to pull together for the particular proposal. See whether any of those, they may be one of the RFB's that I think will go to. , Councilwoman Dockendorf: They're the consultants. Mayor Chmiel: Exactly. Okay. Your turn. You're on there Mark. Council Presentations. ' Councilman Senn: Ah yes. Real quickly. I think it'd be really nice. I just got my Chaska Community Center Non - Resident Bill again and I think it would just be wonderful that we direct staff to either initiate a fee for our new community center for anyone who lives out of Chanhassen, or better yet negotiate a reciprocal agreement ' between the two communities so we don't have to do that kind of, excuse me, idiotness. Which doesn't belong there in the fast place. But I think it's absolutely ridiculous that our citizens, who helped pay for the Chaska Community Center in the first place because was built totally with ... TIF funds, have to sit there and pay a non- resident fee on it. Especially now when we're building a community center which people who live outside Chanhassen and are part of the Chaska School system are going to be able to use with no differentiation of fee at all. How about if we kind of do something about that? ' Councilman Mason: Is Hoffman still here? Mayor Chmiel: That's how you create good working relationships between communities. Councilman Senn: It's turn about fair play. It has nothing to do with working relationships. I mean our residents have to pay $100.00 more than a resident of Chaska to go to that center and if that's the case, then ' why should we be making up part of our financial problems that way too. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Well, you have a choice of either going or not going as well. Councilman Senn: Well that's right but they all have that same choice. I mean our's, we're not tacking that on. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Same thing with our park which is not quite as high in price. But same thing again. ' Councilman Senn: More amenities in some ways. Don Ashworth: Why don't you ask staff to address that and put it in as part of a future, at minimum ' administrative section, if not tacked onto an agenda where we will report. I guess as I'm sitting here I don't know the implications. I guess I'd like to talk with Todd and see what we're talking about. I heard what you're saying. I don't know to respond. ' Councilman Wing: Well I'd like to see that on an administrative presentation... Councilman Senn: Yeah. I'd like to see it at least investigated and see where we can go with it. 37 1 f I City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Councilman Wing: In fact I do identify that as clearly as their city's recreational unit and I personally I guess expect to pay more if I was to go down there as a non - resident. The issue then, if you accept that. If you just ' feel we ought to be taking those same approaches. Councilman Senn: Well my understanding that the resident fee at Chaska Community Center is a resident fee based on whether you live in the city of Chaska or the Chaska School District. Councilman Wing: Or School District? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Now I may be wrong on that but that's what somebody on the Park Commission told me. If that in fact is the case, then I mean to me especially then that. Councilman Mason: Ooh yeah, that's a little different. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, then that would be a little different. Councilman Senn: And so I mean, that's one twist I'd like to look at and have the answer to. The second one that I'd love to have the answer to would be, just even if that isn't the case, just the reciprocal. I mean again, we're going to have gymnasiums sitting down there that are going to be servicing a good chunk of Chaska's ' population because of the School District. We have a park that already does that with very minimal fees and everything else like that. I mean hey, that's our park. It's going to be our community center. So I mean, you know it seems to me we ought to get rid of the silly boundary so to speak if we're going to do it and do it across the board or else we both start charging each other. Mayor Chmiel: I think what I'd like to see is staff really address that and come up with some conclusions. Because that could be just hearsay too. Maybe it's not the facts or anything else. ' Don Ashworth: I will look into that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, okay. Colleen. Councilwoman Dockendorf: Mine was already addressed. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. ADMIMSTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: ' A. REVIEW DRAFT LETTER FOR LCMR PROJECT, PLANNING DIRECTOR. Kate Aanenson: ...letter that we put together in draft form but...as you are aware we have applied for the $700,000.00 LCMR Grant for ... that meets periodically and we have people on there ... what we're suggesting here is maybe the Council, this is kind of a form letter we put together and if that's okay, if you have any concern with the language, that we just go ahead and type it up and have that available for you at your next meeting to ' sign... Mayor Chmiel: I would say that yes. As soon as we can. I'd like to see that done and have the entirety of ' Council sign that letter to them requesting it. 38 e City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 1 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I think it would be attached to something that would tell us what strategy J is and ' strategy. Kate Aanenson: Well what it is is a form that goes with the grant application... but we can certainly attach that... ' But there's certain criteria that you have to meet to apply for grants... Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to see us send them some, along with this letter, pictures of the given area so it gives them a little more of an idea as to what we're really talking about. How pristine that basically is. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Good idea. I Mayor Chmiel: Okay, no action is required on that. Don. B. WORK SESSIONS, CONFIRM SCHEDULE, CITY MANAGER. ' Don Ashworth: At our last work session, two staff members—recall exactly what the City Council did as far as dealing with future work sessions. The problem was every one of those positions was absolutely different. My recollection was that we skip this past Monday. Monday was a problem and so therefore we did Wednesday and that was just for that one time but from there on out we'd do the off Mondays at 5:30. Another position was to do the Wednesday prior to Planning Commission meetings. And another position was the Thursday prior to like ' an HRA. Councilman Wing: I don't remember any of those. Don Ashworth: What is the Council's pleasure? For the remaining work sessions, do you want that first and third, off Mondays or is there another? Mayor Chmiel: Let's scratch it for the summer. , Councilman Mason: That's a concept. Councilman Wing: I'd like to get TH 5 completed and then scratch it for summer if you'd like to. Councilman Mason: Yeah I can't. If we go to, if we stay at off Mondays, if I'm going to be there, it's got to ' be after 7:00. I've got soccer games at 6:00 and then over at 7:00. Now if you go ahead and have them at 5:30, I'm sure I can get input and updates from other people but. Councilman Senn: Why not just start at 7:00. Let's just start at 7:00 and have a late dinner. ' Councilwoman Dockendorf: I would prefer to start at 7:00 as well. Councilman Wing: I play fireman on those off nights so I'll have to get an update. Don Ashworth: What about the Wednesday or Thursday? 5:30. ' Councilman Mason: But don't you have soccer on Wednesday? 39 ' I H JI 1 C City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Councilman Senn: Yeah, I've got it Wednesday. Councilman Mason: So if we go later but you can go later right? Councilman Senn: Yeah, it depends. Some games are at 7:00. Don Ashworth: If you have it later then it gets into whatever commission. On Thursday like before an HRA meeting. You have two off. I don't want to say off. Councilman Senn: I can't on Thursdays. Don Ashworth: Should we just stay then on Mondays and go to 7:00 and have a late dinner? Councilman Mason: But you can't do that, right Richard? Councilman Wing: No. I've got to show up at the fire station sometime. Councilman Senn: But doesn't this count? Same thing. Councilman Wing: If it went to court I might win. You're a sensitive group. Councilman Senn: Just bring up fire trucks every week. Mayor Chmiel: Make sure you send Council a schedule indicating what's going to transpire because it seems like there's some problems. Councilman Wing: Can I just ask if there are any ... if we're going to have any special meetings, can we just limit them to Highway 5 until that's done and off our back and then we can move ahead on affordable housing or, and concentrate on one thing. Councilwoman Dockendorf: And really let's skip actually June and July. Councilman Senn: I say let's skip July and August... Don Ashworth: The seniors are quite concerned that we're not really doing anything with that senior housing and I do have it ... on June 20th. But moving ahead with Highway 5, I mean that's just simply ready to come back to the Council. Councilman Wing: I think Colleen and myself, well and you were there. You know most of us. I don't remember. You weren't at meetings on a regular basis like we were. Councilman Senn: On which ones? Councilman Wing: On the Highway 5 corridor group. The only reason I say that, the document to me is ready to go. I'm comfortable with the north road. I could stamp it tonight and be done. If there's a debate on the road, we need to resolve that. Is that a work session or a Council session? ME City Council Meeting - May 23, 1994 Kate Aanenson: There was a couple ... I'm talking about the overlay district ... at least the overlay district. Councilwoman Dockendorf. Put it on the next agenda. Councilman Wing: Okay. Then all we have to do on a work session is just the frontage road issues? Councilman Senn: We already discussed that issue. I thought, unless that's changed. I mean didn't we talk about the north frontage road and there was some ... to the south alignment and everybody right across the board said south alignment. Kate Aanenson: ...go back as far as land use which we never actually ... but as long as you agree that that's the direction you want to go, we can start that process... Councilman Mason: Before you adjourn. I did say I would not be here on the 13th. That is not true. I will be here on the 13th. Just so you know. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thanks. Motion for adjournment. Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 41 1 i 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION -� REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Ron Nutting, Matt Ledvina and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes and Diane Harberts STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 11; Bob Generous, Planner H; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer ' LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any additional comments or questions for staff? Any questions or comments from the Planning Commission on Minnewashta Landings landscaping? Hearing none, would the applicant like to make any presentation at this time? Ken Dun: Not unless... u I n Scott: It's totally up to you. Okay, if we have some questions, we'll ask. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Are there any members of the general public who would like to speak about the Minnewashta Landings project? Seeing none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Ladd? Conrad: None. Scott: Matt? 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Ledvina: I think it's fine. ' Scott: I agree. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ' landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition on one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval ' of the landscaping plan for Minnewashta Landings dated May 2, 1994 with the addition of one conifer in place of one deciduous on Lot 1, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ' DOLPHIN DEVELOPMENT FOR A SIGN PLAN REVIEW FOR ABRA AND GOODYEAR LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AT 40 AND 50 LAKE DRIVE EAST. ' Public Present: 1 Name Address ' Joe Harding 530 West 79th Street Tom Kotsonas 8001 Cheyenne Avenue Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments from Planning Commissioners. Can I have a motion to, or excuse me. Does the applicant wish to. Joe Harding: Yes please. Scott: Please state your name and your address. Joe Harding: My name is Joe Harding. I'm with Dolphin Development, a construction company and our address is 530 West 79th Street here in Chanhassen. We've been there about 13 years now. We have been working with the staff on this ... so they sent me to kind 2 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 f Al -Jaff: Correct. 3 J of represent the ... That is rather than have someone here from Goodyear and someone here from Abra and their respective sign companies, they said why don't you go and—we've been working with the staff for some time on these signs and there's only one exception to, a little , bit of a surprise to me which I saw in the staff report, and that was a brick pedestal for the directional signs. We agree to everything else and then in your recommendations that the staff has made, I believe it's number 8. It reads that brick shall be used to cover the metal , holes. It is not our intent to use brick for the bases for the ... and in Chanhassen there's not been a whole lot of precedent for these directional signs. In fact there's not many around. The closest example I could give you is about a stone's throw from here over at Chanhassen ' Bank. What they have and what they've done is the same thing we intend to do. Is use the same metal that you see in the buildings. That is anodized bronze metal for both the sign framing and for the posts. These signs, as with the bank, are functional. They do their job. ' Their primary purpose is to direct people and they're trying not to make an architectural statement. We also think that because each one of these 3 signs, the small directional now, are in a landscaped area to start with, that by putting a 16 inch square, and that's how big it ' would be for the pedestal... kind of a look out place coming out of the landscaping area. So I'm here tonight on that issue alone. The rest of the recommendations I agree with staff on and will ask for your consideration in allowing us to go ahead and do these directional signs ' with a metal anodized post. A bronze anodized. The same that's predominate in both the Abra and the Goodyear buildings. That is in their emollients. In their standing seam metal and their capping work you have cappings on the tops of buildings. And if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them to the best... Scott: Good, any questions for the applicant? Okay, good. Thank you. Just a question for staff. Is that, the brick around the base, is that a requirement from the new sign ordinance or? ' Al -Jaff: The conditional use permit, we wanted the signage to remain consistent throughout the site. It was something that was brought up with other plans that have been before you recently and we just felt it was the direction you wanted us to move in. Scott: Okay, good. , Nutting: Have we looked at directional signs or is it really more the monument signs that we've been looking at? ' Scott: Well I know that we came after the Planning Commission saw this so that's why I'm kind of, conditional use automotive in a business highway? ' Al -Jaff: Correct. 3 J L i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 I Scott: Okay. L� Ledvina: Well excuse me Mr. Chair. Just a question for the applicant. Do you intend to provide any landscaping around these signs? Joe Harding: Sharmin, would you put it back up there. Ledvina: Or are they in landscaped areas? Joe Harding: Yes, they are in landscaped areas. In the case of the Goodyear, only one sign. None of these by the way are illuminated. They're only one sided. Ledvina: Okay. These are not illuminated. Joe Harding: Not illuminated. Ledvina: Okay. Because let me clarify that because on the drawings that I have, they do indicate that they are illuminated. Joe Harding: Yes, that's been changed. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Joe Harding: In the case of number 1, the Goodyear sign. The one and only Goodyear sign which will say Goodyear entrance, that is right next to and underneath a maple. In the case of number 2, I believe there's also and I don't have mine here with me. Maybe I do. I think it's a flowering crab up there. Then over number 3, it's between two other trees in a grassy area. So that, yes they are in a landscaped area and to have this 16 inch square coming out of there just doesn't seem to fit. Does that answer your question? Ledvina: Well I was wondering if there was any specific treatment for the sign itself or right around the pole like shrubs or something like that? Joe Harding: No, no. This was a new surprise to me in any event so I haven't thought of that one. If there was a post there only, similarly. For grass cutting purposes, for maintenance of what is there, we wouldn't have accents or annuals or anything planted. Ledvina: Thank you. 0 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Joe Harding: I did take the liberty of making this up, which will show the 16 inch square and the sign on top with the 4 x 1 sign and show the proportions somewhat. This is from the front. This is from the side, because this is a 5 inch wide sign. It is a little odd looking. Scott: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing and may I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anybody from the general public would like to speak on this issue, please step forward. Give your name and your address and tell us what you'd like to say. Tom Kotsonas: Yes, my name is Tom Kotsonas. I live at 8001 Cheyenne, which lies just south of Lake Drive East behind the buildings. I guess I'd mainly like to emphasize our position and it sounds from conversations, we're worried about illumination from the side of the building. From that side. Also I think in general the signs, tents, banners, whatever. I'm not sure what they're about to do but be considered what it does to the effect of driving down Highway 5. The buildings as they stand now with the brick, which is close to the color behind your, at least in my memory, the building's do have some nice appeal to them now but like I said, we're not real excited about them being there but they're there and they do look nice and I would urge you to keep the signs and various types of things very moderate and very discreet manner, keeping in mind the residents that live along behind there. And what we have to look at on a daily basis. Not once in a while but on a daily basis so we're worried about illumination and it sounds like, from what I've ... there will be none. I don't know if I'm sure about that but it sounds that way ... As far as the posts go, it seems to me that brick posts, that blend with the building, would look much nicer than metal posts sticking up out of the ground. In deference to the developer here. I think they blend with the building and they would, that type of a ... in the ground would blend also with the landscaping and the colors. Just the natural colors around there ... And again, it's something that we're going to have to look at all the time so I want you to take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you sir. Joe Harding: Could I comment? Maybe I can answer some of his questions. Scott: Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Joe Harding: Sharmin, if you could put up that same one... 5 r n 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Al -Jaff: Which one? Joe Harding: That one you had up last time. When we first submitted our sign plan there was all the signs on the south end of the Abra building, which is the building to the right in this drawing. It was an illuminated. We did ask for illumination and we have since retracted that and said, no. We will not illuminate it You also see that there is a ... the lot, if you will between the residences across East Lake Drive. Lake Drive East and we also talked with Goodyear and they decided to move, in our plan we have submitted their signage to the west ' side of the building. So the only thing that really faces the residential area is the south wall signage of Abra's. The directional signage, which are 4 feet high, aside from the wood that stands between the residential area and us now... development of that third lot but those 4 foot signs, which are not illuminated, will not be seen at all from the residential area. Because of the berm and the trees on there. So I think that helps you understand that there won't be any ' illumination on the residential side of this. What Sharmin has written up and that's what we've agreed to. ' Tom Kotsonas: The first sign to the west, which is the western side, does affect because there is going to come a time when that third lot and those trees that are there are going to be gone, from my understanding, when they develop that third lot which is just north of the water. Whatever you call it. Pond. Man made pond that's there now. The sign furthest to the west is going to affect those houses that are at an angle. 1 Joe Harding: When you say furthest to the left, you mean. Tom Kotsonas: That one right there. Joe Harding: That is a 4 foot high sign. That's a 4 foot. That's a 4 foot. Tom Kotsonas: With those two you're getting close to DataSery and you have fewer houses because you have the park directly south of those two signs. The sign to the left or the one furthest to the west. The first one over here is the one that the neighborhood is going to see 1 more than anything else. Joe Harding: If you've been over there you know that this drops down. You won't even see these signs. You can't see them from the road. Tom Kotsonas: ...from Chan Estates. I'm just stating that I'm there every day so I mean I ' know what I look at and I know what I see and in the winter time I come down Highway 5 so I'm going to see, and so are my neighbors, are going to see whatever stands up there. We're asking for is the most subtle... signage that we can possibly... Z r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at the pub lic hearing? g Okay, seeing none. I Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron, comments. Nutting: I don't have a lot of familiarity with this project. Pre- dating me. It seems to me the main issue is just the condition number 8 and the brick versus the poles. They're 4 foot in height. Al -Jaff: ...5 feet total. Nutting: 5 feet total? ' Al -Jaff: Including the sign area. Nutting: Okay. And the legs below the sign. , Al -Jaff: Are 4 feet. I Nutting: Okay. We still have the sign ordinance too which needs to be addressed but I guess I would, it may seem a little cumbersome but I think there's a consistency issue that we've , been addressing with this and I think I would opt for consistency with staff's recommendation on the brick. Other than that I don't have anything else. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: I share those same feelings. I think about the sign over on Highway 7 and 41 for the Super America right there and they have a larger pedestal type of sign and then they do have a directional sign that's a monument sign. It's a low ground sign. It's a brick and it's done very nicely and I don't know. First of all I don't know why a directional sign has to be 5 feet tall but I guess that's up to the applicant. Because all people need to do is see it from 50 feet or 100 feet and turn in. You aren't attracting any people from any other locations and I look at them, the signage at Super America and it's very effective and it's very attractive. Maybe if the applicant, I would support the requirement or the staff recommendation for brick and I guess I would suggest that the applicant take a look at some different possibilities in , terms of height. I think with scale you can make that work out pretty nicely. So again, I support staff recommendation. L I i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Ladd. Ll Conrad: That's an interesting debate. You know do you make the signage, if you block it in, you block it in. Do you make a sign that could be not real obtrusive? Do you make it an object? And that's what blocking is. Whereas right now it's not very massive and therefore it's a debate. I don't think the applicant's persuaded me right now. It's hard to tell you know. In that case, if I can't tell, I'll go with the staff's opinion. I think you may have a chance to talk to City Council on that one. I think what I've heard is very rational what the rest of the commissioners are saying and I think the staff is trying to lead a consistency here. Yet I'm looking at substanance. I'd rather not make a sign bigger or more obtrusive than you need to and what I see is not very obtrusive so, but for lack of having too many alternatives here or a real good definition of what it looks like, I'll go with the staff report. The only thing that I think the signage requirements are good. I like what the applicant is doing. I like how staff's worked with them. I think the Goodyear signage is just fine. The Abra signage is just not very good. Now we haven't measured the square, and I'm looking specifically on the north elevation. I think the south elevation is okay. The north elevation is just super ugly, and I guess we're kind of, you know if they meet the 80 square feet. Now that is the absolute. It's 80 square feet per side based on, what's the rule? Is it based on street frontage or is it based on. Ledvina: It's 15% of the wall area. Al -Jaff: They are below the 15% wall area. And they are at or actually below the 80 square feet. Conrad: 80 per, on that side? Al -Jaff: Correct. Per street frontage. Conrad: 80 would be, 3 feet x 30. Nutting: But are you saying per sign or per. Conrad: Side of building. Al -Jaff: Per sign. Per frontage. Al -Jaff: Per side of the building. r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 f 17 Lj Conrad: Now I'm looking at that garage door you know on the left side, and specifically the north elevation. You know, a lot of this stuff goes right by me but when something just , doesn't look very good, it's just like a red flag and that's just not a very attractive signage on that side of the building. You know I see a garage door down there. What's a garage door? 8 feet? 9 feet wide? Something like that and then I see this big A that's got to be at least, on the facia or whatever. That's 4 feet high at least. It's probably bigger than that so there's 40 feet there. I don't know, maybe they meet it. And you're, I think your staff report says you haven't really measured that yet. Didn't I read that? Maybe I'm making that up. ' Al -Jaff: Okay, I measured it. Conrad: You did? Okay, and it meets the standard. Al -Jaff: It meets the 80 square feet. I Conrad: Okay. Al -Jaff: This is a conditional use permit. You could regulate the size of the sign. Per ' ordinance they meet the requirements. Conrad: What is the the auto body and glass. What kind of sign is that? You know the Abra sign is fine on the left hand side but the auto body and glass, is that a back lit? What is that? Al -Jaff: That's what they would be permitted. Back lit. Conrad: What is it? Is it back lit? Joe Harding: It's back lit, and the correct name of the firm is Abra Auto Body and Glass. That's all part of their name of their company. Conrad: Yeah I see that in the south elevation. It looks real good. I like that. It's only when you take it out of the logo standpoint and you start spreading the word across the front it's, I don't know. Joe Harding: And as Sharmin said, this would all be in back lit and separate letters. Conrad: And what I'm seeing, you know the Auto Body and Glass is not even lined up with the Abra. It just looks like bad design. Maybe you're aligning it with the bottom of the circle of the Abra but it's just not very good. v 1 i �I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Joe Harding: See the line above Abra Auto Body and Glass? Conrad: Yeah. Joe Harding: That's where the standing seam extends backwards. Now we could drop lower, the Abra with the circle to get it in line with that. Conrad: I'm the last one on this Planning Commission that even picks on this. But this really bothers me. This just is not, you know I'd rather, you know signage is a big deal in town. We're spending a lot of time on it and this just doesn't, I'm just not very comfortable with what you're presenting to me. And boy, I don't want to see this back, to tell you the truth, but I sure want to send a clear message to the City Council. A clear message to the City Council that they'd better look at this when it comes in so they're happy with what it looks like. Scott: Do you want to, Ladd as part of your motion, do you want to put a condition in with the position of the two elements there? Conrad: You know Joe, I just hate getting into design issues. I just want good looks. We'll do something like that. Maybe I'll make the motion and I'll make up some words. Scott: The floor is your's. Conrad: I just, boy. Scott: Yes Sharmin. Al -Jaff: You might say something similar to what's ont he north side. Conrad: The north side is good. You know. Nutting: You mean the south side. Conrad: Whatever the side is yeah. The south side is good. It's fine and Goodyear is fine. It just looks good. It fits. North side of Abra doesn't. Those are my comments. Scott: Do you have a motion to go along with those comments there? Conrad: I hate making motions on stuff that I don't like to get involved in. Okay. I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the sign plans for Abra and 10 r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions. And as per the staff report. We're going to change the wording on number 1. The monument sign, which will be on Highway 5 side. I don't care if it's perpendicular. You can orient it anyway you want but it's going to be on that side and that's the only change wordwise there in response to the applicant's request. Number 3. We'll change the 80 square feet per side. That's okay with me. Now. And all other conditions per the staff report I accept with condition number 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that faces, that's attached to the building that faces to the north so that we get a better idea of, well. Cut that comment there. That's what I want. A bettering rendering. A better vision for the City Council to review the merits of that sign. Ledvina: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with modifications. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of sign plans for Abra and Goodyear as shown in the attached plans dated April 18, 1994 with the following conditions: 1. The monument sign which will be on the Highway 5 side, shall be 12 feet high and contain only the names of the occupants of Lots 1, 2 and 3. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick and colors used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the north property line as shown on the attached landscaping plan dated April 18, 1994. 2. All businesses built on Lots 1, 2 and 3 shall share one monument sign. 3. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 80 square feet. 4. All signs require a separate permit. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color,size, materials and heights. 6. No illuminated signs facing south may be viewed from the residential section located south of Lake Drive East. 7. Only back -lit individual letter signs are permitted. 11 f 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 8. The area of all directional signs shall not exceed 4 square feet and the height shall not exceed 5 feet. Brick shall be used to cover the metal poles. The material and color of brick used shall be consistent with brick used on the Abra and Goodyear buildings. 9. That the applicant present a more detailed and more artistic version of the Abra sign that's attached to the building that faces to the north All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT ' LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. ' Public Present: Name Address Mark Bielski 8140 Pinewood Circle Andrew Richardson 8120 Pinewood Circle Patrick J. Minger 8221 Galpin Blvd. Peter Knaegle 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd, Edina 55422 Tim Dempsey 8241 Galpin Blvd. Jean Rollins 2081 Timberwood Drive Joan Heinz 2071 Timberwood Drive ' Richard & Elizabeth Larsen 8141 Pinewood Circle Craig Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace Bob Generous and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions for staff. ' Conrad: It's a good staff report. I guess just philosophically, it's zoned agricultural estates. That's what it's zoned. What, and I didn't do my homework, what else is zoned A2 around there? Generous: Everything south of there basically. 12 t Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Conrad: So is this an eating away at the A2 and basically saying well, there really isn't a A2 area other than Timberwood? Is that what really this is going to boil down to? Generous: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Generous: It's providing urban density for...2 1/2 acre minimum under A2. Scott: Okay. Would the applicant of their representative, do they wish to speak? Yes sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. Peter Knaegle: My name is Peter Knaegle. I'm the engineer for the developer. My address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. With me tonight is Pat Minger who is the owner and developer of the property and also lives on the site. We're not prepared tonight to make a detailed presentation. A lot of the information—city staff and much of what staff said, we're in the process of making changes based on the recommendations of the staff report but we're here tonight basically to answer any questions that the Planning Commission or some of the neighbors may have. In fact because I'd just like to reiterate that we are in the process of making changes, we're going to be submitting them back to the staff in the next couple of days and they will be incorporating all the requested changes in the staff report in regards to ponding, shifting of the roads, larger cul -de -sacs, tree canopy plan. But every item will be addressed... Scott: Okay. And do you have a copy of our latest tree ordinance? Peter Knaegle: Yes I do. Scott: Okay, good. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Any members of the general public who would like to speak, please step forward. Identify yourself and give us your address and let us know what's on your mind. Tim Dempsey: Good evening. My name is Tim Dempsey. I'm the property owner directly west of this proposed development. The one where Dave and I have been talking about some essential ponding. Pat and I have been talking about this issue for over a year now. Since he first found out I was going to be buying it, he let me know that he had plans to develop this 13 u 1 I� �J u t I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 so this is not a surprise to me. However I still have my concerns and I've shared those with Pat and we've been trying to work together to come up with a plan. There are some issues though that I feel very strongly about and I want to put before the committee. One is the drive. Specifically ... It's currently a very mature, classic element drive. It's surrounded by trees and you drive up in it, and it's this warm green tunnel which brings you to your home. It's a route from the busy city to the homestead and if those trees were taken, just for the sake of a 10 foot discrepancy to an ordinance, I think it would forever change the character that I drive through every day and that if this development does go through, which would cause the people to drive through. And you'd end up with just yet another new development with lots of space as you drove into it and nothing particularly interesting about it. So I think for the people that would be living there and for the people that do live there, I would ask that we really look at this 50 foot, to save the trees. My personal side, the second issue is the loss of privacy for myself and my family. Currently I'm surrounded by woods and most people make the comment that when they come out there, it's like you're living out in the middle of 50 acres. Can't believe you're in Chanhassen. And I can walk out of my house, go to my barn and don't have to worry about who's watching or don't have to worry about anything. It's a very peaceful, serene area. Any development there, no matter how careful the developers are, is going to change that forever for me and so that I ask that any plans, certainly protect whatever privacy they can by spacing. I know some people from this development around that with 2 1/2 acres are concerned and when I look at what their ... back yards with trees in them and in their back yards they've got hundreds of yards and I'm looking at the 60 feet to a road that's going to be about 40 feet from my bedroom window. Pat is trying to work to make that less of an issue but it's still going to be within 100 feet, I don't think without really taking a lot away. That's going to change my privacy and I have concern about that. Conrad: Where's your house? Tim Dempsey: If you put that back up, Pat and the developer were going to try and make that a little clearer but it's up in that area right there. So I go from my quiet, quiet, quiet to a, flash, everybody else has I guess. The third issue that I have is a traffic nuisance, which I certainly don't have now. Currently though I have a once a week a garbage truck comes up my driveway and picks up some garbage and whenever I call Frankie's, they come out but basically it's my wife and I and maybe my daughter driving in and out. That will be changed also as people drive up in there to service those 4 houses, although Pat has suggested, and this is one of the points of contention. That instead of a full road, that a private drive be used to serve those 4 houses, which would... It would minimize the destruction of foliage between that road and myself, which would enable my privacy to be held a little bit more. It would cut down on just general nuisance traffic of people thinking that... someplace I can go out and drive around with a private drive sign and things like that. And from my standpoint, 14 f Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ■ I think if I was a home buyer, that would enhance the home that I was looking at if I knew it wasn't going to be accessible. But the way the road goes, and the plan I gave Pat showed it ' somewhat different than I think the people in Timberwood Estates probably would object to the way I would like to see it. And that is I would like to see the road follow the current driveway and keep that bend away from coming so close to my house. That will keep the road traffic and the nuisance traffic the farthest away. Now it would have an effect on the number of lots, in fact the development. Because he's got some economics that he's got to deal with and I'm not, he doesn't make me privy to his economics so I don't know what the break even point is here. But I could certainly prefer... suggested to him in my drawings, that the road follow the current drive and it would also I think minimize some of the trees that the street would take anyway but of course the houses are going to take some. That would keep ' the road and the traffic nuisance at least further away from me than it currently does now where people coming down that road you might see headlights and hearing noise that I don't hear now and that would put that further away. That's my comments. Thank you. , Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Mark Bielski: Yes, my name is Mark Bielski. I live at 8140 Pinewood Circle and I guess I ' would have all of the same arguments for keeping the road where it is as the other gentleman ' did for keeping it ... 600 feet of property just to the left of the house which is going in on the other side of the driveway that's in red there. And I have all the same concerns about the traffic and the headlights and just privacy in general. And I know when we moved there, it , was zoned agricultural. Now it's going to high density and I'd just like to know what is the criteria for changing. You know if somebody just comes to you and says, can I change the zoning? Do you just go ahead and do it or exactly what do you follow? Can I take my lot and make it high density? It's zoned agricultural. Aanenson: The City has a Comprehensive Plan that guides all the property—the property is guided for single family residential. And it's been that way since our comp plan was adopted in 1991. So this area was, it's currently zoned agricultural but it is guided. There's other areas of the city that don't have development on it and are guided. , Mark Bielski: Can you explain what guided means? Aanenson: It's a comprehensive plan that's approved by the Met Council designating future land uses in the city. Okay, inside the urban service area there's designations for all the property inside the urban service area. When you've got sewer and water are available, given the ultimate land uses. Now right now people are still farming or under utilizing the property and then generally it's given an agricultural zone. 15 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Mark Bielski: Okay. I guess my concern is number one, the loss of privacy. Cars. The width of the road that would access the site. I'd like to know if any of the trees along my i property line are going to be taken out. And the development would infringe on my property at all. I know sometimes when you have a road that's fairly narrow you have to go beyond property lines to get the sewer and water put in. And if that was the case, I think that I'd probably lose most of the trees on my property line. Just simply because there just isn't enough room but you go right down the center of the existing center line of the road. ' Scott: Okay, excuse me sir. Dave, can you address that? Hempel: Sure. That is correct. A majority of the tree loss is not just from the street right- , of -way it's actually for the utility construction that goes on and boulevard grading. The street construction usually falls within the parameters of the trenched excavation and with this plan here, the sewer elevation, in order to service this site, would require removing quite a few of ' the trees on that 50 foot corridor. Even with the special construction techniques. Trying to reduce the impact on there so. The tree loss is for the first approximately 300 feet I believe ' it is and then where the road bends to the south there, the remaining trees will be on the property line to the north—preservation easement in the back yards. ' Mark Bielski: The thing that really protects my lot from the density housing is that existing tree line. It's nothing beautiful but it's got some scrub oaks and it's got a few red oaks in it and it's got some box elder but they've been there enough, they're mature enough that it does ' provide a good buffer and I think if you put the utilities through, if you took those out, you'll just open that whole view to the south for the higher density housing and the road. 1 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, there is in the staff report, you'll see that the staff recommended a landscaping plan along that side where the trees would be lost. Obviously they're not going to be the same size caliper that you have out there today but in time they will reforest or revegetate that area. Mark Bielski: But I think realistically those will be in 20 years or 25 years. Hempel: 5 to 10 years approximately. Mark Bielski: I haven't seen, I've been there for 5 years and I haven't seen a pine tree grow up more than 2 feet. I'm just trying to be realistic. You know it's going to pretty well decimate that back area back there. Conrad: Dave, when I look at the tree calculations, I don't see any trees on the plans in that first several hundred feet. So what's a function of? You're saying we're going to get 16 r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 significant tree loss but again, as I see them measured here, none are in the right -of -way. Hempel: Actually there are quite a few trees in the right -of -way. In the commission plans did not provide the trees... Conrad: Okay. I don't think we're seeing what you see on our plans right now. Mark Bielski: I don't know if any of you have been to the site or to the area but ... and take a look to the south, you can really see what buffer there is. If those trees are gone, it's going to really devastate our view and our privacy and one of the reasons we'd like ... is we set our house fairly close to the back lot line. Now I bet we're within 100 feet from the existing driveway to our bedroom window and had I known something like this was going to happen, I probably would have moved the house another 100 feet towards the cul -de -sac that we live on. So it's kind of a, it's getting a little bit close and I hope you understand that. Hopefully you can go out and take a look to the site. Come over to, you're welcome to come on my property and look to the south and... Ledvina: We will. Question for Dave. Will there be a construction easement associated with this road here that will involve the removal of trees actually off the property? Is that what's going to happen? Hempel: Not on the north side. Not on the Timberwood Estates side. The property that will be probably most impacted will be the Dempsey property on the south side ... trees outside of that 50 foot strip. There's also the city's cemetery lies just north of this road. It's fairly heavily wooded at the entrance but I'm not sure ... goes back at least 300 feet off of Galpin Boulevard. That's where the trees will be lost along the property line and as you continue east on that property, the road bends away from that north property line and the trees that are out there today will stay so. It'd be nice to show on here where the property line is and cemetery as well as the adjacent properties in Timberwood Estates to see exactly where the trees are going to affect. Scott: Dave, here's a what if. What if utilities go on the other side? Obviously we're going to, what's the impact there? Hempel: The elevation drops. Scott: Is it because, as I'm looking here where you've got, as I'm trying to read this it looks like it falls off rather quickly. So you're just saying logistically they're really, engineering wise, there's less of an option? 17 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: It does require... some of the utilities that go through there... ' Scott: Okay. Alright. The public hearing is still open. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? Craig Harrington: Craig Harrington, 8140 Maplewood Terrace. Just two things that I have. On the, I would agree with Bielski's view is that the committee consider, as far as the protection. We're one of the last in this area and probably as far as with the large lots or small acreage type properties in that we had as much protection. As much as could be given with either buffer, which is being considered all the way around our development as far as ' with the elementary school. With the other proposed lots that are coming in and this is probably the one that's closest to us coming in with houses as close as they are. And that whatever consideration you could give, most of the owners that are abutting right up to this would appreciate that because of the way, our lots are set up. Especially Bielski is probably the closest right there. The other consideration that I have is, along again that north side just to the east of Bielski's residence there's a low land that originally was a swamp area that was for ponding at one time. Even sprayed it for the mosquito control and it was supposed to have a culvert that went through originally, when the plat was developed, to go under and Pat's driveway. That was in route to the east to run as a drainage ditch all the way down through Timberwood to the east. And as we relook at how, especially in conjunction with these new lots, how that drainage is going to work as far as on the engineering of it because currently it is not draining well. I know several lots there the water just stands there and it's ' a mosquito breeding ground right now. If they could either look at, if that could be compounded with additional drainage by the sloping of these new lots that are going to go in, that could also create further problems in there. That's only the comments I have. Thank ' you. Hempel: Maybe I can address that Mr. Chairman. As part of the subdivision, it will be maintaining the pre - developed runoff rates of the site. The continental divide, as I'll call it, it does break at the northerly property line of this subdivision. Part of it drains east. As Mr. Harrington indicated, there is a low lying area just north of this plat which drains east out to Timberwood. Mr. Minger's property there's a high point that's great for drainage to the north and also to the south and that drainage break will be maintained with this new subdivision. So essentially you'll have just a back yard of the home draining to the north as it does right now. The remaining part drains south into the storm sewer system and water treatment pond. ' Joan Heinz: I'm Joan Heinz, 2071 Timberwood Drive. We own right east of where they're trying to build that and like my neighbors, before we bought our lot we researched and we saw that that was zoned agricultural so we felt pretty confident that there wasn't going to be ' houses back there. So our big concern is just loss of privacy and the fact that we're all IV r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 I wooded back there now. We own about 50 feet into the woods and we're just concerned that instead of looking out our back yard, there's going to be these ... and that just seems like a lot ' of houses for what is it, 8 acres. That seems like a lot of houses back there. Thanks. Drew Richardson: My name is Drew Richardson. I live at 8120 Pinewood Circle. I'm on , that 800 feet of, what did you call it, a tunnel. Mr. Dempsey called it. In the winter I look out the back of my house and I see basically the horse pasture Mr. Dempsey has. In the summer I look out and see trees and granted, like Mark said, they're not the best looking ' trees but they are a very nice border. I'd be concerned with loosing that. At the back of my property there's a fair drop off that goes up and then comes down and that's where all the trees are. I have trouble envisioning how the drive is going to come through there without ' basically wiping that out. Without building a wall or something. I guess you'd have to see it to really understand. That would be, that's at the corner of the cemetery... You're welcome to come out and look at it. Come out and see what it is. Thanks. Jean Rollins: My name is Jean Rollins. I live at 2081 Timberwood and my property is by Patrick Minger and I guess my main concern is, besides the number of houses, which does ' seem like a lot between our woods, is the drainage site which you said wouldn't be getting a majority of the drainage. However I live right on the border of the ditch and my property is wetland... washed out from the increased drainage and have a terrible time getting the water to ' drain. And my other concern is that, is there going to be erosion that's going to come down from these other lots and fill up our ditch again? Because right now the city has had to redig , our ditches in front of our houses twice... increased drainage or erosion is just going to clog it further.. It's going to add more water to it. Scott: Okay, Dave. , Hempel: Yes Mr. Chairman. As I indicated earlier, the site will not increase the runoff to , the Timberwood Estates development. The water will be conveyed by storm sewer to a regional holding pond. Hopefully there from the Dempsey property which overflows and into the Bluff Creek corridor. It should not affect Timberwood Estates homes. ...there's a lot of ' drain tiles in the area in the ground with springs and so forth that creates some problems in that area. Scott: Okay. Good, would anyone else? Yes sir. Rich Larsen: Hi, I'm Rich Larsen at 8041 Pinewood Circle. I live next to the Bielski's and ' to take the last issue first. Drainage is a huge problem in Timberwood now and I don't know if this is the forum for complaining about that but nothing has been done. I live in a swamp that Craig Harrington talked about. And it's been a constant problem since we moved in. , 19 1 I 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 The City is doing absolutely nothing to help us. They've been out there several times but told us ... I'm wondering, to help alleviate some of the concerns, can we somehow tap into that drainage because as Craig pointed out, the drainage has been diverted away from the Minger's property now and it has to go at a 90 degree angle at our property. Water doesn't like to turn at a 90 degree angle so it collects in our back yard. So is there a possibility of tapping into any new drainage systems... because it's not working now. So that's one comment. A second thing about that, as ... said, we too found that it was zoned A -2 when we moved in. Nobody bothered to tell us that this is going to change. It's agricultural now but it could be high density housing and to deal with the overall planning that if you isolate Timberwood as the only large lot area, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. It's going to be very uncoordinated looking so I have a recommendation for you guys. If you approve this thing, that you require a 1 acre minimum lot size for this development. That would tie in better with Timberwood. It would reduce the amount of traffic past everyone's house. I probably live a little farther away from the road than the Bielski's and the Richardson's do but it will still affect us, especially if the trees get reduced. So that's my recommendation. That you look at requiring a minimum of an acre lot size. That's awfully dense for the area and requiring an acre would also save quite a few trees and help that. And the last question I had was, when another development's being proposed, there were a lot of discussions about roadways and somebody from the city said that there's a minimum setback between roadways. When you're looking at putting a second street into that new development just, what is it boulder? Whatever. Aanenson: Stone Creek. Rich Larsen: Stone Creek, thank you. They said it was a minimum distance between roadways. I'd like to know, there's Timberwood Drive and yet you've got that proposed street going in. Isn't that closer than the minimum requirement and is there a variance being proposed here? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. The street spacing is adequate for the ordinance for that type of street... Scott: Okay, and then when this is upgraded to a 4 lane, how does that change? Would it become inadequate when they decide to widen it or how does that play? If this were a 4 lane today, would there be adequate separation between the cuts? Hempel: That's what we're working on right now. The comprehensive transportation study predicts ... in the future so our comp plan guides us for what our street widths will be on certain collector type streets, but this has been designated as a 4 lane urban section. In the future an urban section with curb and gutter and storm sewer. That will change the spacing... M f Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Okay, so the spacing is adequate for as big as that road is purported to be. Okay. Y P g � g P Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Okay, can I have a motion? , Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Ledvina: The only question I had on the streets. We've talked quite a bit about cul -de -sac lengths and I don't see that being addressed anywhere in the staff report here. They measure ' the cul -de -sacs at 900 and 1,000 feet respectively and I'm just wondering, was there any thought in connecting two cul -de -sacs? Bob, or Dave. Hempel: Commissioner, maybe I can address that. We thought about trying to loop them ' into a looped system there. Unfortunately it does make a lot of double street frontage or lots with streets on 3 sides and probably would be reducing the amount of houses out there a lot and would increase the impervious surface from the street. We also even looked at, future ' extension into Timberwood. Those are large lots there. At some future date... probably subdivide as well into smaller lots. So part of our job is to look at future street extensions ' where feasible or possible. We know the impacts the Timberwood Estates residents have had with the Stone Creek development, the Hans Hagen development that's developing and proposed east of the Timberwood Estates. There was some consideration there also to provide some stub street to Timberwood for some future extension. However, due to the size of this small parcel and how we envision it developing, you have the creek on the south side. You really can't develop any further to the south. You have Timberwood to the north and to , the east there is an opportunity to stub a future street connection that way but I don't think the residents would appreciate it. We do have other streets in the city that are somewhat... we're looking at 17 homes on here which is going to generate a large volume of traffic for a dead end street. Public safety has looked at it and didn't seemed to be too concerned about the cul -de -sac. Ledvina: Okay. Well I can see, certainly see your point as it relates to the scale of the development. Looping those together, you'd have essentially maybe 6 houses, at the most, inside that loop and that's a lot of street. It wouldn't seem that efficient for all that much , pavement so. Conrad: What does our cul -de -sac ordinance, what does it say? ' Ledvina: Can you address that? What happened? Did that die at the City Council? ' Aanenson: ...we've been shooting for 600, 700, 800 minimums... what we'd be doing is taking out more trees and ... impervious surface, which is one of the reasons why we ' 21 ' 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 recommended private drives. Ledvina: Right. So are you recommending a private drive for the, that would be the, let's see, the west cul -de -sac? Hempel: Temporary common drive at this time to serve the ... The intent however is to dedicate a full right -of -way with the future intent of upgrading that road when the Dempsey parcel develops and subdivides to a full urban street section. The problem we have with those homes that will be platted that way on Lots 14, 15, 16 and 17. Those will be responsible... Ledvina: Okay. Well I would favor the use of techniques that could save as many trees as possible along the drive and I even to the extent of supporting a reduced right -of -way. I think that could possibly be employed along that north boundary for tree preservation. I think I would also support staff's recommendations to pull the easterly cul -de -sac further away from the Timberwood lot lines there. I think that would provide a little more buffering capacity in that area. Also the reduced setbacks are an applicable alternate in this instance. I think that can also help. That's the extent of my comments at this time. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I would agree with staff's recommendations and Matt's comments. We're going to be getting this back. I guess I personally would like to get out to the site and get a closer feel to the issues that have been expressed. Just to understand visually a bit more of what we're looking at and after that, maybe a better condition when we get this plan back to kind of... some of those issues. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: Yeah, I'll make sure I get out to the site and walk it. I would like, when it comes back, I would like staff to give me some guidance on the A -2 district. I'm not convinced I need to rezone it. Unless there's some really, unless I feel there's some capability here. But I also want to see how it fits you know and Timberwood sort of set a precedence in terms large lots out there and whether I was for it or against it, it's the matter it's there and we zoned it this A -2 because we felt it made sense. Now so when I said, I'm looking for some vision. I guess I'm looking for some realism. Is there a demand for A -2? Do we see that as something that a property owner could reasonably get, sell today you know and again, I don't know what you do staff but I need that kind of insight. If A -2 is, if these large lots are not going to sell and they're a detriment, then I think we owe it to rezoning. But I'm not convinced yet. I need that insight. I also respect the Timberwood residents in terms of what 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 r ' they moved out here for and what they bought. So therefore, I 'll be real interested in how the developer adapts to their neighbors and there's a lot, it looks like a lot of tree loss here , and if you want to stop the tree loss, you keep it at A -2 folks. That's an easy one. That doesn't take a lot of insight so, yet I think we have to be, so whoever brought up the fact that something can be rezoned. Yeah, something can always be rezoned but we did guide this for ' large lots. So before we rezone it, I think we've got to take a look at not only this but we've got to be kind of, as I said, I prefaced, I said hey if this goes, well then we don't have a A -2 district out there. We have Timberwood and so I think we've got to be pretty confident that ' A -2 is something that's. Aanenson: Let me make a clarification. It is guided for 15,000 square foot lots. ' Conrad: Is that right? Aanenson: Yes. , Conrad: Okay. I Scott: RSF. Aanenson: ...I just want to make that clear. We can get a legal opinion on that issue but... ' Conrad: Thanks for those comments because I was not sure of that Kate. Anyway, that sort , of deletes about my last 3 minutes of conversation. I think, I'm real concerned with tree loss here. I'm concerned with what the residents have to say. There's some big trees here and I think the staff report is good. I think we should table it and wait for more information. ' Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything else to add. Can I have a motion please? v the Planning Commission table the development, , Ledvina: I would move that g p , Case #93 -25, Subdivision 94 -1 and that the additional conditions in the staff report be addressed by the ' applicant, as well as the commission's comments this evening. Scott: Good, can I have a second? I Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we support the staff recommendation with ' additional comments. Is there any discussion? 23 1 Ll 7 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Preliminary Plat #93 -25 and Rezoning #94 -1 for Patrick Minger so that the plan can be revised to meet staff's and Planning Commission's recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: HARSTAD COMPANIES TO SUBDIVIDE 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 38 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, THE OAKS AT MINNEWASHTA. Public Present: Name Address Allin Karels Loucks and Associates 1075 Red Cedar Cove 2981 Stratford Ridge 3961 Stratford Ridge 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 3900 Stratford Ridge 4100 Kings Road 4071 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 6900 Minnewashta Parkway 6850 Stratford Ridge 3861 Stratford Ridge 3920 Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant tonight. They were unable to attend because ... We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and... recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on Steve Johnston B. Fuller Terry & Bonnie Labatt Keith Bedford Dave Headla Kevin Cuddihy ' Lowell & Janet Carlson Margie Borris Susan Morgan Linda Scott Larry Wenzel Bill Munig Harold Taylor Allin Karels Loucks and Associates 1075 Red Cedar Cove 2981 Stratford Ridge 3961 Stratford Ridge 6870 Minnewashta Parkway 3900 Stratford Ridge 4100 Kings Road 4071 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 4031 Kings Road 6900 Minnewashta Parkway 6850 Stratford Ridge 3861 Stratford Ridge 3920 Stratford Ridge Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Steve Johnston: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Steve Johnston. I'm an engineer with Loucks and Associates. We're located in Maple Grove. We represent the applicant tonight. They were unable to attend because ... We have reviewed the staff recommendations and...I don't believe there's any problems with any of the conditions that were placed upon the development and... recommendations. But I'd just like to point out one thing, if I could on u Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 the adin ... grading contract out just so you don't et the wrong impression of what we're �' g g g J Y g g P trying to do ... The difficulty that we've had and the situation ... is that we had a trade off. We ' could either save the majority of the trees in Lots 22, 23, and 24 by setting the grades at an elevation to best serve those lots. Or we could lower the street down and save more trees on the end of the cul -de -sac. The decision was made that we'd keep the cul -de -sac up, saving ' the trees on those lots. With staff's suggestion to go to a private drive for those last 4 lots, I think we can do both. We can do the cul -de -sac up higher and we can drop the grade off then and lower some of these down hopefully preserving more of the trees. The requirement ' for 130 trees be planted on the site.As acceptable to the applicant and we will provide a plan to replace those trees on the site. A clarification that we'd like though to get, it appears that we would be allowed to place those trees within our site and not necessarily out along Kings ' Road and Minnewashta Parkway... Aanenson: Correct. That's what we're saying. You come back with a specific plan. Our ' ordinance requires 1 tree per lot. What we're saying is instead of just doing 1 ... put them in one lot or put them in where you can cluster them. I think that's an advantage to go back and get another canopy instead of just doing... ' Steve Johnston: We'll take a look at that and bring those options. The other question I have had to do with the, it's unclear from the staff report regarding the utilities on Kings Road. Specifically to get the utilities at the park property. Is the park department participating in the cost of the utilities ?... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Margie Borris: My name is Margie Borris. I'm that little thing by the driveway on Kings ' Road. That little thing is 2 1/2 acres. Okay. We looked for lots from Maple Grove to Shakopee to find the rural area that we could relax in. Have our privacy, among other things. It's a safe area. People come and walk down our little road. I noticed that in her little tree ' plan that she forgot to mention I have a stand of 10 red cedar trees on the other side of Kings Road, which we own. Not just the road area. We own 5, every one of those are 5 feet from the other side of the road. Okay. And from what I understand you can only take the area ' that is being currently used as a road. Okay. And also that stand of trees shoots up on a bank that's about 8 feet high. It has been a wind break for all these years. It's a privacy barrier, and I'm sorry but the creed of the 80's has just spilled all over Chanhassen in 1994. It is almost disgusting. We had a rural area. It's been ... If I have to become a hog farmer and put my pans in that front yard, I will. I'm just about up to here. Now you're going to tell ' me that we're going to spend $20,000.00 to hook up to your utilities. To tear up my yard. Tear up my basement, and who's going to pay for it? I've got 12 months? This is your guiding. This is the guided area that you were talking about. You just changed your mind I 25 ' 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ' on what the areas are like? The City of Eden Prairie has just got some press about these kind of plannings. The over development of a community. Granted this is a better plan that,what ' we've seen before but you don't have to live on it. We do. We moved out there for a reason. We spent our money out there for a reason. We don't live in slums out there. These are not old, I mean the Scott's and I, which are the ones that you're talking about adding these new things to, those are new homes. I mean and you're talking about all these extra things you're looking for. How very wonderful. We've heard some prices about what this land was sold for. Or what the asking price is and I also know what they sold the lots for in that Stratford area. $45,000.00 was the minimum so there's a lot of money trading hands and what's happening is the existing people just take it in the shorts, which is a very nice way of putting that. The drainage thing, I'm glad you took a look at it this time because it was by- passed several times. But I will not, I don't know if you'll build a house over to that one side because my house is in the center of that lot which is going to put that new road right in front of my house. Take down my wind break. That little area there that was originally, that was supposed to be moved to the park. Those row of houses that are on the east. I can't read the name of the road. Country Oaks Road. That was going to be part of park development. Now ... but that is the only sliding hill in that area. It's the only sliding hill on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. And you know, you talked about this ... you don't come down the road and see the trees that arch over. I mean grant you they're not maybe oaks or ' anything but red cedars are not common. And when did they rezone this area? Nobody told us anything. Nobody sent us a letter that said we're going to guide this or whatever you can that thing. I'm serious about becoming a hog farmer. We can have animals on our property because of existing grandfathering, and I will do it. We need something, some consideration for us. Not just the developers. Not just for people that are selling their property. That's going to be developed, yes. But think about it. I want to know who's paying for my hook- , up. Does anybody have an answer? Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. She can certainly appeal the commission and the staff report to the City Council has the ultimate decision. They may look at waiving that until your septic system fails ... first do an inspection of your existing system and make sure it's functioning properly. That's ultimately up to the City Council. It is an ordinance so it does take action by the City Council to amend. As far as the cost associated with that, for sewer and water hook -up, the connection charge, you're probably looking in the ballpark of about $5,000.00 to $5,500.00. ' Margie Borris: Does that include breaking up of my foundation? ' Hempel: Well. 26 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Margie Borris: No. That's the hook -up to it. Hempel: That's the hook -up charge. , Margie Borris: That doesn't include what you're going to dig through the yard to put in the site. And who's going to fix my lawn? , Hempel: That would be part of the property owner's responsibility. ' Margie Borris: Oh yeah. Hempel: As far as the connection charges, they could be assessed against the property. ' Margie Borris: My husband's in construction and he tells me it's close to $20,000.00. For ' the entire hook -up. To repair all the stuff. That's not pocket change. That is not pocket change. We recently got assessed for all the work that was done on Minnewashta Parkway and they were telling us, because we had the larger lots, we had to pay more, which we did. ' We didn't get the benefits of these new retaining walls or any of that stuff. I don't care. And yet you sit there and you tell us, okay well we're going to charge you more because you have the bigger lots. You can drive a driveway, I suppose we could put a driveway over my drainfield and build a house down at the lower level, which is below the high water mark, but nobody gets back to me on that either. I paid my assessment, by the way. Scott: Excuse me ma'am. Specifically the points that you would like us to consider are, I've ' heard a lot of things and I'm personally kind of losing track but if you can specific zero in on the most significant ones, that would help me understand. ' Margie Borris: My trees. My red cedar trees that are sitting on 5 feet across the other side of the road for my privacy. But one of them, the main reason we took this area was the ' privacy and the safety and now you're going to be adding, probably 2 cars per household. I would assume that's the average these days. Some have more. And there's 38 lots. Or 37 lots as it sits right now. So there's going to be 60 some more cars and they're going to be ' splitting now between that Stratford and Kings Road. If you want to dink around with this stupid road, put the road on the property that's being developed or where the park is being developed... Kings Road that we have right now. Then we can keep our trees and whatever is out there but I'd really, I'm not happy about this hook -up thing. There's the Ziegler's, they have their money. They're gone. They're in Colorado. They could care less what you do ' with their property. They just want the dollars and let's go. Scott: Okay. Do you have any. ' 27 ' Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Margie Borris: The idea of, I mean we got a lot of grief about trying to build a house on 2 1/2 acres when we built in 1986. A lot of grief and now, and you're saying that now you've got 20 some thousand square feet. How does that compare to an acre? Like the other people before us were all talking about, you're crowding us out You're crowding us out. You're crowding us out. Where's the planning in this? What if you make those 1 acre lots? Somebody will buy those if they want that peace and quiet. I went from a corporation to a small business to get rid of that hassle and rat race. My home is a safe, quiet place. There are now so many deer being pushed towards us because we have the last of the big land. Every day you can take a walk and you'll run into a deer near dusk. We've got Lake St. Joe behind us. It's supposed to be a protected wetland. They're already planning to develop on the other side of that. There's nothing left. Scott: So your specific concerns have to do with the roadway and the impact that that's going to have on the trees. Number two is because of the proximity of the proposed roadway to your house, the hook -up requirement to the utilities. Traffic on the road. Margie Borris: Among other things, yeah. Scott: Okay. We just want to make sure that we can specifically understand the points that you have so. We appreciate you for taking your time to come down and we encourage that because that's why we have public hearings. Margie Borris: I know. I've been to several of them. Scott: Keep coming. Thank you ma'am. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes ma'am. Sue Morgan: My name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road, which is this property right there. There are several concerns that I have about the way the road is going to be moved. It was my assumption, is it Kate? That the road is going to be moving closer to us rather than going this way? Aanenson: It's moving to the north. Sue Morgan: It's moving to the north? So we have existing like 8 or 9 -90 year old cedar trees that are here so they would stay where they're at? They wouldn't be encroached upon? Hempel: It depends on where they are. The utility installation, the trench... Sue Morgan: Okay. When we purchased this land...we had the DNR come out and evaluate the trees on our property to help us decide which ones we should keep, the value of them and W. f Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 , to help us plan where the house was going to go because we wanted to maintain that type of treed area here. As I mentioned they're like 90 year old red cedar trees that we will keep. I don't know what that means to you but we will keep them. And then also on this part of the property, we have 8 acres here. There is a ravine that drops about 25 feet, 30 feet from the road and there is water that runs from over in this pasture area, under the road and through our property into Lake St. Joe, which is down in here. We had some concerns last year because this is a natural environment lake and we were concerned because of development. These people using Chemlawn. Using whatever they need to use on their lawns. That ' water's going to carry stuff into Lake St. Joe. Is that ravine going to be rerouted or is that going to be closed off or what happens with that if they put a pond in the ground? Hempel: That's correct. That location there is proposed for a storm water quality pond for i treatment of storm water runoff generated from the additional development. It will pick up surface drainage from streets and lawns and pond it into the pond for treatment and then will overflow to the storm sewer system down Kings Road and towards Lake St. Joe is an outlot. Sue Morgan: This way? , Hempel: Right in that area ... down to St. Joe after being treated. Sue Morgan: Okay. So it's not going to flow. through our property any longer, is that what you're saying? ' Hempel: That's correct. It will be rerouted. Sue Morgan: Do you know how that's going to affect Lake St. Joe b shutting this off? I , g Y g g Y g don't know if this supports Lake St. Joe with aquatic life. With wildlife. ' Hempel: It will have to be rerouted ...it will end up in Lake St. Joe approximately 300 -400 feet east. , Sue Morgan: Okay. What happens to this existing culvert that's there now? Does it just get blocked off? , Hempel: That would most likely be removed for the utility installation to be installed. Sue Morgan: Okay. Also when we purchased this land more than 4 years ago, we were forced by the City of Chanhassen to put in a mound system. I don't know if you're all familiar with a mound system but because this land was natural environment lake, we weren't I 29 1 t I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ' able to put in a regular septic system. That mound system cost us over $7,900.00 whereas we could have put in a regular septic system for $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. We will not hook up to water and sewer until that mound system fails. I don't know what that means to you people but we're not going to go into hock just because you want to force us into city water and sewer. You already forced us into $7,900.00 we didn't have to spend. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Again, if you'd like to appeal to the City g Y PP ' Council...way to proceed. City water is not required unless the well goes bad ... but the septic system is a requirement per the ordinance. It is in an effort to help from an environmental standpoint... Sue Morgan: So what...? Hempel: So you can appeal the decision or the condition that we stated to the City Council as it proceeds to the next level. Requesting that they give you a variance from that condition... Scott: What's the precedent because I know that we run into this quite a bit. How, and I'm not going to ask you for percentages, but does that, are variances like that granted in instances such as, recent purchase of that particular, inspection of that particular system. Is that a criteria that carries a lot of weight with the City Council? Or is it all over the board? ' Hempel: It's pretty well all over the board. It really depends on the condition of that homeowner's septic system. Somebody will go out, a qualified person will go out and evaluate the system and see that it's functioning properly... I 1 Scott: Okay. And that's what I'm trying to do here. If anybody else here has got that concern, is to at least start thinking. If this development does go in and you are faced with the issue of connecting to city services, that'd be something that you'd all want to consider and make sure that you know what's coming. Dollar and cents wise but I would think that would make sense to me that the City Council would look at that because it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have someone who's just invested the money within a couple of years and we won't go into the life of systems and so forth but what other issues do you have? Sue Morgan: The other is the trees. If the trees need to be taken out, how are they going to be replaced. I guess they will be replaced. You said ... We have 9 red cedar trees. You had mentioned earlier that... Steve Johnston: I'm not sure Mr. Chairman if you want me to address that. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Okay. And I won't ask you about why we can't do that on the previous issue because we're not talking about that now. Okay. Sue Morgan: Also, how will this development or the hook -up to the water and utilities, whatever, affect the other... subdivisions on property? We're what, allotted 3? We only live on one but there's two others. So if we hook up to the septic and water, how does that affect us as far as...? 31 1 1 Scott: Well I know that the comment was made that for trees that are taken out of the development, that we're encouraging with our new tree ordinance to have them clustered so we'd have perhaps 2 in each lot. But what we're talking about here are trees that are going to be removed due to utilities and roads. And let me just ask you a question. If the road is moving north, the reason why these trees are going out is, is it utilities? Because I'm thinking if these utilities are being brought in to serve the development, why aren't we running the utilities on the other side of the road? Hempel: Well it's a combination of utility installation and you're also grading for the road. i The road will be actually north of the existing Kings Road. The City Attorney has reviewed the city's rights with regards to Kings Road. We're able to show maintenance of that road within the last, over the last 10 years and we were granted a reservation, or an easement essentially for use of that roadway system and where a portion of the ditch has been plowed or drainage standpoint maintained I guess. They do have a valid point. Maybe working with the applicant or the park department in trying to provide a landscape plan in this area if these trees were, or most likely going to be removed as a part of this development. Be replaced. Scott: So the tree removal, since we don't really have the benefit of seeing that on our plans, I mean I'm just going from what I remember of going through the site. But the trees that are going to be, are proposed to be lost on the south side of Kings Road are being lost because of either (a) the road itself, (b) the utilities or (a) and (b)? Hempel: I would say a combination of the two. ' Scott: The utilities are running south of the road? Hempel: It would be running down the center of the 50 foot right-of-way that's being g g Y dedicated with this new plat. ' Scott: Okay, so these utilities are going under the road? Hempel: That's correct. ' Scott: Okay. And I won't ask you about why we can't do that on the previous issue because we're not talking about that now. Okay. Sue Morgan: Also, how will this development or the hook -up to the water and utilities, whatever, affect the other... subdivisions on property? We're what, allotted 3? We only live on one but there's two others. So if we hook up to the septic and water, how does that affect us as far as...? 31 1 1 1 L 0 71 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Hempel: If you subdivide your property you would have to pay connection charges for those additional lots as well. It's probably going to be actually cheaper than having to drill your own well or do your own septic or mound system. Sue Morgan: And do you know what is proposed for a holding or ... that little outlot? What it's going to look like... Hempel: Maybe the applicant—could address that. I believe you refer to it as the outlot, as Outlot A ... on that site so the rest of it is... Sue Morgan: But if there's runoff from the north side of the road under the road to the south side, there's got to be some opening for that runoff to go into. Hempel: That's true. There would be a storm sewer extended south of Kings Road through that parcel and discharged... Sue Morgan: And the city would run it through... Hempel: The City would maintain it... Sue Morgan: That's all I have. Thank you. Scott: Good. Yes sir. Lowell Carlson: Lowell Carlson, Kings Road. I don't understand the road here. Not only on my property but everybody else's. Let's start from the property up on, where the property begins and the road ... There will be nothing taken off of me or them because that's the way we've got it set up. Instead of furnishing part of our property to develop this property, what are we saying? Hempel: Well it's a change in constructing this road. The right -of -way, most of it is being dedicated with this new subdivision of Harstad's. 50 feet of right -of -way's being proposed. It includes up to the south end of the gravel road out there right now. The roadway would be set within that 50 foot right -of -way. In the future when you come and subdivide at that time, ' the city's going to ask that you dedicate an additional 10 feet of road right -of -way. ' Lowell Carlson: Has anybody ever seen my plot of the road or the property line that we own in here where the property stakes are? Are we furnishing part of this property to help this development develop? So when we develop our's, we'll be short? ...my property see goes way down here by ... and it's way on the north side of the road. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Aanenson: They went out and staked the existing, the southerly right -of -way of that road. Lowell Carlson: Okay, so it will start on the north side of that stake, on my property stake, and go north, right? Hempel: There will be no road constructed west of that intersection that you see right here. Lowell Carlson: Well right here, right where my property starts right here, we're back in the ' first tract. We're the last tract to the north. My property stake is out in the road right there. Hempel: The plan that you have before you shows the south property line of that I subdivision. That will be your north property line. Lowell Carlson: Just south of the road? 1 Aanenson: Yes. Lowell Carlson: So my 6 acres, you're going to start, so when you develop your property ' you guys come and say hey, you ain't got enough to develop your land because now you're short. You ain't got 6 acres no more. We had to take some for this road over here because this guys needs it for there and you ain't got enough down there. You took some of the curb there and that curb, my property stake starts right there and cuts this up. That corner right there is a deluxe piece of property... squaring this corner off the way it's supposed to be or. ' Hempel: At the time that you come and develop, that corner would be discussed. Lowell Carlson: Well I hear ou that right now if that road is going to be, as far as I don't t Y g g g know what we're going to spend doing this. But we're at least going to gain our own property. That survey has read for years and years that our survey of our property. You're not stealing no more from me. And we're done someplace, they want, pretty soon you're going to have 3 acres left. But when the Minnewashta Parkway come in they said I've got 8 ' units in there. Who surveyed it and told me I got room enough to put 8 units and be big enough to qualify for 8 houses on that piece of property? Has anybody? Hempel: What they did to determine that ... they figured out how much acreage you had. 8 ' acres or whatever it was. Or 6 acres and they used the factor of 1.7 units per acre. They figure you should be able to develop on your parcel. That was over the whole Minnewashta , Parkway area. That was the factor that was used to determine how many units you would be able to develop. You'll maybe only develop one. 33 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Lowell Carlson: Now they stole a piece off of here. This road is on the south edge, no way. According to the stake. You can go by the property stake. You move that road on that ' property to develop it so we end up with our right acreage. Hempel: What the plat is dedicating Mr. Carlson is 30 feet of their property for future right - of -way. The gravel road actually lies south of their 30 feet. So when you come and further subdivide your parcel, you're going to be asked to dedicate the other 30 feet for a total of 60 feet. Lowell Carlson: It will be right on m doorstep, like on Minnewashta Parkway. Y P P . Y ' Hempel: I'm not familiar with the location I guess of your house in there but the road would be centered in that 60 foot strip. Scott: I guess what I'd recommend is having a. Lowell Carlson: ...for years and years. All it was was a horse trail and they said well, Chanhassen's maintained that road all these years. For 7 years. Carlson and Chanhassen have maintained that road for all these years. So ... whoever develops this land, my neighbors, ' whatever, they're stealing part of the property—as far as I'm concerned because ... lot is. He can't be ... sell the land or the property. They've got a lot stake on every piece of property around here. Can you walk over and take a chunk off of this one and chunk off of that one ' and say hey, good enough or what can you do? Scott: Mr. Carlson, I guess what my suggestion would be, is if you do have some plans, which it sounds like you do, to subdivide your property at some future date, would be to meet with city staff and then they'll be in a better position to talk specifically about, and maybe it's going to require a trip out to your property, but I think that's probably a better way to do that. They'd have the specific information at their finger tips to help you understand precisely what's going on because we're talking about red or orange lines on an overhead and I know, I'd have difficulty understanding what I'd be getting into if I were in your situation ' based upon that. Lowell Carlson: Well we've been in court for about 10 years. Over a building. And we've ' got it settled that we're off the property line and ... set back from the building we're going to build now finally. It's on it's way. So we're set back from a property stake. Where my property stake is 25 and 50 back to the road, and that's where we're going to be. They say ' that the road is going to come back here and go in that building too? Scott: I can't answer that question. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Lowell Carlson: Its so loused up that... development, how far is the sewer and water going to run? Come into our property. Where is it going? At least have some kind of Hempel: Mr. Chairman let me address that. It is proposed to eventually extend sewer and water all the way down to, is it the curve. Lowell Carlson: Down to this here? Hempel: And dead end it there. ' Lowell Carlson: Are they putting a lift station to pump it up on top of this hill and go back I down or what are they planning on doing? Hempel: The sewer will be ... intersection of Country Oaks Road and Kings Road. It will be serviced through gravity. That westerly edge of the curb and street. From there on it may... Lowell Carlson: If the thing will get that close to my house, I want to put a deeper foundation if they're going that deep to that lift station. Hempel: We have to go over the plans sometime in the office to make sure we're adequately ' going to be able serve your parcel. Scott: Yeah, that's alright. Are there some other people who would like to speak at the ' public hearing, if I may? Margie Borris: ...Mr. Carlson about losing his property? ' Scott: Yeah, excuse me. Mr. Carlson, okay. Yes ma'am. ' Margie Borns: We're getting taxed at so many square feet in our ... and if you lose the square footage of the road and the 5 feet on the north side of the road, which belongs to each one of ' us as we go along down Kings Road. So you're going to take the road plus the part that would be all the across the width of the property. So we're all going to lose several hundreds to thousands of feet of our property. Are we also going to get property, like he said, ' resurveyed? That we now go to a smaller lot and pay less taxes? Scott: Those are issues that we don't address here. I think there seems to be a lot of concern ' as to what's going to happen. Perhaps, would you mind drawing a drawing up there so that everybody that's concerned about right -of -ways, you can say if your property line is here, the road goes here. Right -of -way is here. If you decide to subdivide 30 feet here, etc, etc. I 35 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ' think that's a lot of the ro ert owners have that question. I think we can deal with all f P P Y Q o ' them fairly surgically, if you would. Hempel: Okay. Right now Kings Road is a gravel road that kind of meanders down to the south property line. But based on the drawings I was looking at, something like that and then meanders even further south. What this subdivision is doing is dedicating 50 feet of right -.:;'- way, actually on the north side of Kings Road. The road will then be built basically centered ' within this 50 foot right -of -way. Resident: Excuse me, you just drew a line both north and south... ' Scott: It looks a dimensional arrow for the 50 feet. Hempel: Right. That heavy black line is actually the north property line, all the way along there. The gravel road actually lies south of that. The right -of -way that is being dedicated is north of that. The new street will be centered within that 50 foot right -of -way. The gravel. Ledvina: Excuse me Dave. What's the width of the street? I Hempel: The new street will be 31 feet back to back. Curb to curb. That's a standard urban section. Scott: So basically that 30 feet is going to be in, and the street is going to go within the 50 feet and as of right now the property owners have not lost anything. They have not gained anything. That's going to impact, because of the utilities and the street construction, that's ' going to impact trees. I mean that's an issue that they should be concerned with but as far as any change to their boundaries. Any change to their property size acreage, zero impact. Hempel: That's correct. Scott: Okay, does everybody understand that? Sue Morgan: No. See the only problem is, there's some legalities and I think that that's the issue. Not so much property. The actual where the road is. But there's legalities because I don't know if our deed says anything about ownership of the road or how we get into the road but Margie's and Carlson's does. There's some ownership of that property because Kings Road was originally just put in there by plow horses just to get back to the fields. So the road was never really a city road. So these people own some of that land. So what he's saying is, there's still some legalities that haven't been figured on all the lot lines as to ... from the gravel and whatever but still there's some legalities that have to be resolved. 36 L Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Yeah, and that's I guess what we're doing here is we're collecting feedback on these issues and there are going to be some other avenues to discuss that. That's not something that we're going to recommend but what I'm thinking here, since this seems to be the bone of ' contention and I think it's important that everybody understand what's happening and if it has to do with taxation, I mean this is not the forum. Future development. That's not the forum. I mean you need to talk to city staff about that but if you could continue, because I think it's important for people to know what's going on here. ' Hempel: Sure. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, the gravel road that's out there will eventually be abandoned with a new road built. And driveways would then be connected to the new street. ' Scott: Now when that happens then, so if, would that be a vacation of part of Kings Road that would revert to the property owner? Hempel: There would be no vacation involved because there's nothing in writing that the city has an easement over it. We've acquired the rights to use it with adverse possession of maintaining it for all these years. Scott: Okay. So when you're talking about the, so the road ownership, actually there's no ' change. The people own it. It was an easement to the city. Okay. Hempel: Eventually if you further subdivide your property at some time, then the city would i request an additional 10 feet of right -of -way to dedicate the total of 60 feet. The road won't change. The road will still be there where it's going to be built, or proposed to be. ' Scott: Okay. Are we all tracking with this? Lowell Carlson: Not really. This stuff you dedicated as right -of -way, who's dedicating it? Hempel: The Harstad's development. The applicants of this development. ' Lowell Carlson: Because where's he dedicating it from? Is he dedicating it from the north side of the road and he's going to go in 50 feet into that property? ' Hempel: He's going from your north property line. From your property line or his south property line... ' Lowell Carlson: 50 feet deep. 37 1 i 5 r Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: It's all contained in their property. It does not affect you. Lowell Carlson: So when this thing moves over, let's see that would be, well let's say that's their property. Where are we? Their property line. Hempel: This is the 50 feet area here. Then as you go beyond this property and get in front of here, the right -of -way is being reduced down to 30 feet because we're not constructing the road beyond this point. So it would remain a gravel road. Lowell Carlson: And you're going along with sewer and water at this particular time down there? Hempel: I don't believe we are going any further at this time ... Those homes are a future phase. It's shown on this as a preliminary plat. The final plat will not plat those at this time. They'll be remaining as an outlot. Cannot be built on until they are platted. Margie Borris: But they don't have to hook up and we do? You can't build on them? Scott: Yeah. They will. Margie Borris: There will be at some time. Hempel: There will be at some time and at that time the road will have to be upgraded so sewer and water also can be extended in front of those parcels...so it's going to remain a vacant piece of property. These parcels right here will remain as an open space. They will be replatted... Lowell Carlson: Is this sewer and water coming up...in there or where is it going? Hempel: That's correct. Sewer and water will be brought from Minnewashta Parkway, up the new road, up to the intersection and then brought into the subdivision. Lowell Carlson: Okay what about, is there going to be curb and gutter, blacktop and storm sewer and the whole works going up to the point then also at this particular time? Hempel: That's correct. Up to this point. Lowell Carlson: And it gets assessed back to, what portion of it will probably be paid by the people that live on this side, on the south side? IN Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 f Hempel: There will be no assessments for the street or storm sewer. There will be future assessments, what we call a connection charge when you want to hook up, or need to hook ' up to the sewer and water lines. But at this time there will be no assessments to those property owners to the south. Lowell Carlson: For instance if I owned this property right here and it was coming by at this ' particular time and I wanted to subdivide this out, could I have a stub running to that one at no extra charge? ' Hempel: They would put in stubs at this time but with the understanding that they would be reimbursed by the City. When the city collects a connection charge from those properties for ' hooking up. Lowell Carlson: Okay, that's... ' Margie Borris: When they're building this road, how are we going to get to work? That's the only exit we have to Minnewashta Parkway. ' Hempel: That's correct. That will take some coordination. It's not uncommon for a lot of construction... similar to the downtown businesses. We kept the downtown businesses going while we reconstructed downtown. Margie Borris: Are you going to put us all in a hotel? ' Scott: Probably not. Okay. Excuse me, Mr. Carlson. I'm just saying, if you have a, if you've got some plans to subdivide your property, it'd probably be a real good use of your ' time and the city staff's time to speak specifically about your parcel and talk about stubs and reimbursements and potential future assessments. It sounds like it's a project you're quite ' interested. Lowell Carlson: Well my Metropolitan Sewer friend, my brother lives down here. At that ' time the send box for the Metropolitan Sewer, now it's $800.00 or whatever... Scott: Build now. Develop now. Beat the rush. Okay, good. Is there anybody else that I would like to speak at the public hearing? Linda Scott: I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and one of the things that kind of ' struck me when I sat down tonight and I heard this plan, I mean we just got the drawing in the mail like last Thursday and it's the first I had heard that anything was even going forward since the last time we were here when it got, we thought it got denied. And I looked at it 39 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 and I thought, well this looks like a much better plan. It seems to deal with things better that were concerns at the time. And then I was sitting here and I heard these things about the, when the road comes through, that we are likely to lose these trees and I don't know if any of you have been, drive out Kings Road but our house is very close to the road and right now we have a buffer that is a very sharp drop off to the road. It's about 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall. And right on the edge of that are all these huge old cedar trees. And if those go, the hill goes, suddenly we're totally exposed to the road. I moved out here with a natural environment lake in my back yard, protected from the road and I'm not naive thinking that development won't come but that whole property is vacant, or will be. And I don't see any reason why it can't be done so that it doesn't disturb anything that when people who already live there have and have tended and part of the reasons that we bought the property is that we bought you know, he's saying the road won't affect it but if, I mean these trees are right on the edge of the road. Anything past the edge of the gravel is going to kill those trees and they're not replaceable in my lifetime or any that's here's lifetime. And so it concerns me a great deal and I think about what happened on Minnewashta Parkway and these crumby old huge maple trees, which are beautiful in the fall but they're not beautiful the rest of the year, were saved to make it difficult for all these boat owners to get their boats down the ramp because Minnewashta Parkway got diverted by that. I just see some inconsistencies that really bother me. And when I hear about the concern for the trees that are existing on the property that's being developed, and I don't think there's one tree out there that's nearly as old as any cedar trees that we have. I do also have some concerns about the sewer business but that's been fairly clarified that that will happen sometime in the future and approach the City Council, did you say on that? But I think all of us, you know like people who's property is being developed or don't live there yet. They don't even know what it looks like. They don't know what they'll be losing if all of the right -of -way is on the north side of the road and not infringing on our property or taking trees. And make that a legal battle if it comes to it. I think it's unfortunate that these things just keep getting sort of popped on us. We come here and here about all these plans that affect us and no one will ever come directly to us and talk to us about it and explain how the road's going to work. We see these little stakes out there and it's like control point. I wonder what a control point is and I see little stakes staking out the edge of the wetland and stuff but it's almost like a big secret or something. I don't know how to get more involved. I know before I had spoken to you in person. I have spoken to one of the city engineers in person. But when I saw this plan it looked, where the pond was, so it didn't concern me too much until I got here tonight and ... my stomach dropped out when I heard I might lose those trees because they're very beautiful. Another aspect, Sue mentioned where we have drainage that now goes through our property. Where the road is, it's a really steep drop off and I'm not sure what the plans are there. I would really like to know specifically how this plan will affect my property because it's my property and any changes to it impacts me and how I think about it and how I feel about it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Scott: Good thank ou very much. ' Y rY Hempel: Mr. Chairman, if I could just make one point. In some projects like this which you ' know really impact neighborhoods and that, it's not uncommon to hold a neighborhood meeting between the applicant and the neighbors out there. ' Scott: Has that happened? Hempel: I believe that...from the applicant's engineer, that that would be a doable process , here and maybe could shed some more light on the residents. What action will take place out there. , Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak at the public hearing with new information? Larry Wenzel: Yeah, I'm Larry Wenzel, 6900 Minnewashta Parkway. Would you put up ' that little drawing? The only thing that I, I have a concern where they penned in the cul -de- sac going from the west to the east and the balance of our property, the most feasible way to ' develop the rest of that land if it were to be developed and I'd just like to state that there might be other options other than that ...I'm not sure. That leaves 2 houses to gain 5 lots which might not make an awful lot of economic sense. The City has to assess 6 lots on the ' front as far as the street on Minnewashta Parkway is concerned. I don't think they could fit in there anyway but I just think that alternate concept certainly should be looked at. Scott: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? ' Kevin Cuddihy: I'm Kevin Cuddihy, 3900 Stratford. I'm just curious as to what's going to ' be submitted to the City Council. Is this plan here going to be redrawn as we see it here? Future development as compared to the one that's been up most of the evening. Primarily these three lots being pushed back. ' Aanenson: This is what the applicant is proposing. Part of our job is to look at the surrounding properties. As Mr. Wenzel has indicated... via a private drive. Mr. Headla who has indicated that he wants to subdivide his property in the future. We certainly recognize that someday the Hallgren property will also be subdivided. It was always intended for ' Stratford to go through and as it turns out now, the way it was, the easement is given to the homeowners association. In looking at this portion of the Hallgren property being a cul -de- sac possibly... We're recommending that the option, the other option with the cul -de -sac , serving the Wenzel property... probably be most desirable. We're just putting that forward as the staff's recommendation and having the option if it should develop. Whether or not the Planning Commission supports that or the City Council. Again, it depends on too, as far as I 41 1 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 what the Park Commission is recommending. We're just showing that there's a possibility that they can ... more lots. You know whether that happens. Certainly this is what they understand... But right now we feel that this proposal is probably the best way to do it. This would be our, the staff's first choice. Certainly there are other options. To have this road go through. I mean you have ... that's an option. That's not our desire to have a private drive. Certainly that's obviously an option or have Headla get access off of Stratford Lane and have the street be cut down instead of showing, that certainly is another option too. That wouldn't be our first choice. This would be our first choice as far as access and future development. That's what we'd be looking for this plat. I Scott: Okay. �I U I Kevin Cuddihy: I'd just like to do something a little bit different and say, I think this... recommend is my first choice as well. Just speaking for 3900 Stratford. That this would be a first choice as well. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Dave Headla: Dave Headla, 6870 Minnewashta Parkway. I'd like to address the two ladies and their concern about red cedars. We lost a tremendous amount in that area. We had an awful lot of them at one time. And what I'd like to see you do is just save the big cedars. They don't go. They are not going to be touched. Find another way to solve the problem. I think there's, I'm not sure of the size of some of these. I know conifers can be moved a lot easier than the cedars. I think we ought to see if we can't move the other red cedars someplace for these ladies if they so choose or be convenient for them. But I sure hate to see us lose any more trees, the red cedars. Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Anyone else? Bill Munig: Bill Munig, 6850 Stratford. I'd just like to encourage you to vote for this little amendment that they got up there to access the, I know that Mr. Headla would like to have future access to subdivide his land there and I understand it's restricted coming off of Minnewashta Parkway. Like he said, by putting that up there you're going to greatly reduce the number of triple fronted lots that would be in Stratford and over in the Hallgren property. And since I do live in one of those triple fronted lots, I'd like to vigorously encourage you to go with this plan allowing the extra cul-de-sac and moving those other 3 lots further to the north. If you vote for that, you'd be greatly enhancing my quality of life. Thank you. Scott: Okay, would any residents like to, yes sir. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 f Harold Taylor: 1 r: M name is Harold Taylor. I'm at 3861 Stratford Ridge. I think this plan is ' My Y far superior to the last couple that we saw. I think most of our concerns was the traffic and the trees. I don't know anything about red cedars but if it takes 100 years to get one, it , seems like it ought to be worth something. Do whatever is necessary. I guess I do have a question as far as the parks ... as far as they like this plan or don't like this plan. What ' happens to the outlot as far as the beach area? What type of uses... Aanenson: That's going to all be discussed at the park meeting on May 24th. I think what ' they looked at ... is that would just be maybe an area to dock boats or anything like that, just a beach area... Harold Taylor: Does the developer have a plan or has he submitted a plan? , Aanenson: No, the city will take it as a park lot. So it will be in the city's. 1 Harold Taylor: Okay. And at that time the city will decide what type of park facilities it will have? , Aanenson: Correct. The Park Commission makes that decision. Harold Taylor: Okay, thank you very much. Allin Karels: My name is Allin Karels, 3920 Stratford. The plan that's up there, my concern ' would be increased traffic going down Stratford. But the plan that's there now would not feed all of the traffic through Stratford, is that my understanding? Aanenson: Right. Right now the only access still that would go down would be Mrs. ' Hallgren who still has a 33 feet right -of -way. When that property's developed, then it would touch these lots. So you'd have lots that... ' Allin Karels: So it wouldn't feed all 50 cars down that, from the development? ' n n . The intent is to o back onto Kings Way. Eventually ' Aanenson: That's not the intent, o g g Y when these streets tie up, Country Oaks Drive is going to be open to the north towards ' Highway 7. Allin Karels: I obviously would prefer this just to keep the traffic, the speed of traffic, which ' is our, which is my concern also, on Stratford. So I'd certainly be supportive of staff's suggestion. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: Good, thank you. Keith Bedford: Keith Bedford. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. The second—reflects back to what people refer to as Stratford Lane proposed. I, in visiting with Mr. Headla, understand his need for the extra 30 feet ... to have them to cul -de -sac him and to have this issue settled at this time. I would be very much against any increased traffic on Stratford Lane. I think it would have a devastating affect on the marketability of those properties because they are close to Stratford Lane now. It's been reported in the City of Shorewood that each new house generates approximately 7 ... traffics a day. So if we have 50 lots times 7, and Stratford Lane did go through, that would be the main feeder onto Minnewashta Parkway and because of the decrease in value of those properties, I would be very much against it. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Yes ma'am. Excuse me. Lowell Carlson: Is that, who ends up with the beach part of it on that particular? Is that part of Chanhassen? Aanenson: The City of Chanhassen. Scott: Yep, the City of Chanhassen. Yes ma'am. Janet Carlson: I'm Janet Carlson. I live at 4131 Kings Road. How many openings we were wondering into the park will there be out onto Kings Road? Aanenson: That's something for the Park Commission to decide... Janet Carlson: Okay, and those—make a comment on, as far as the upkeep on the road. We should keep track of how many times the city blades that road and how many times Lowell Carlson blades that road. You'd be amazed. We've done it 7 times this year and the city's done it once. It's a mess. ' Scott: Any other comments? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the ' motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I want to talk about trees. I understand the value of the trees and I don't know, is there a possibility that those trees can be moved? I mean if you're talking about a 100 year old tree, I would imagine so. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 Margie Borris: We tried to get some moved and if the truck is over 6 inches, they said it couldn't be done and they're all over 6 inches. , Ledvina: Okay. Aanenson: ...trees on the survey, it's hard to speculate on a lot of things. I think what Dave ' suggested is that the engineer meet on site and we certainly... tree ordinance. We try to meet on site and work out this. I think at this point, they didn't show up on the tree survey ' because they weren't on their property but the trench will obviously impact that I think that's something we'll have to meet out in the field to try to see if there's a solution. Ledvina: Do you have a recommendation on that then? , Aanenson: Well that they work with the applicant's engineer to go out on the field and see I what we can do. See what the options are. Ledvina: As it relates to what we have in front of us? 1 Aanenson: Yes. I think the condition would be that we work to save the trees. Ledvina: Dave, is that possible given the grade that we're looking at? I mean the grade, the street grade that we have is fairly straight forward in terms of. Hempel: The... rett good street grade through there too. I would say it's 5 or 10 ... to match ' P P Y the contours out there. Match the existing properties. It would be helpful to see the placement of the trees ... They are north of the gravel driveway and the gravel driveway is all ' being disturbed as part of the new. Ledvina: So let me understand this. The trees that are going to be lost now, are they on the ' developer's property? Hempel: That's a question that probably should be addressed by the applicant. That can be shown on surveys. On a survey... Ledvina: Okay. I guess I see that as a very significant thing and I don't know exactly if that , precludes our acting on it tonight. I can't speak for the other commissioners but ... Let me take a look at some of the other things and I'll just set that aside ... The Outlot A ... is there a residence on Outlot A? Or what are those? Are there buildings there? Resident: Those are ... barns. Or sheds. I 45 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: So there's no development that occurs whatsoever on Outlot A? Aanenson: ...engineer to save the wetland and basically we've determined that to meet ... some kind of wetland setback and natural environment. Previously they had to ... two lots but we always felt they were questionable... Ledvina: Okay. Well yeah, I want to say initially here that I feel the plan is much better than what we previously saw and I think the developer has tried to work with the parcel quite a bit. I understand that the residents concern with the trees and those are some things that I'm sure he is dealing with probably for the first time tonight. So but overall I like the street layout. I'd support the staff recommendation as it relates to the connection or the streets or connections with other parcels. The surface water ponding area now, this is property that's going to be owned by the developer? Is that correct? Aanenson: Well we asked that it be put in an outlot. Are you talking about on the park property? Ledvina: Right, right. Aanenson: Yeah. We'd be taking... Hempel: That's correct. Originally it was proposed as parkland. What we're saying it should be dedicated as an outlot. Ledvina: Okay. Well, the reason I ask is, this is, this looks to be a very large ponding area and I'm certainly all for having a pond that's going to work and do the job but I don't know what the total area here is that this pond will serve but it appears overly large and if that's subtracts from usable park property, I wouldn't want to see that. Because I don't know what's going to go in here but if we can make sure that what's laid out there in it's final form is reasonable and not necessarily oversized. We need it functional, yes but not oversized such that we're essentially wasting park space. Dave on condition number 16. You say that the city has allowed up to 10% street grades, etc. Consideration should be given to Kings Road street grades in an effort to reduce impacts to the properties to the south. What are you thinking there? Are you talking about modifying the grade of Kings Road there? Hempel: Yes. That's the intent is that we would allow them to increase the street grade, if that would help reduce the impact to the properties to the south, then we would be in full support of that. 46 f Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. That's the extent of my comments Mr. Chair. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: It's a far better plan than we've seen. I live it. I think the neighbors have brought up some valid points. There should be a neighborhood meeting. Without a doubt. The comments, the surprise. We hear that all the time and I think, the way to solve that is a neighborhood meeting. Hard to feel like you're fighting a developer with the money that they have or stand to gain and hopefully we can bridge that little gap with a developer talking to you a little bit more. I do need a tree survey on Kings Road. Absolutely, positively. Can't review this without seeing it. It's a big deal. Hook -up costs and those other things. You've got to follow those through. We don't do that here. Thank goodness but you can, you're going to need a variance. There's a reason for hooking up. It's a protection yet they're also, we do know that septics, that mound systems and septic systems can function very validly so, without polluting so, but the ordinance says you hook up. So you'll have to follow that through. Don't consider you telling us that tonight solves the problem. It doesn't. That's it. I think staff did a good job again and I think the developer has done some nice things. I think it's starting to fit a little bit better. But I guess I need it back. Scott: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think the tree issue is very significant and I want to know what's actually coming out as a result of the road development. I want to know who owns the trees and how, if this things goes through, they'll be compensated for that if they can so. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I'll echo those comments. Trees are a significant issue. Short of just putting it as part of condition 16, minimize disruption... not removing the trees. I think there's probably some issues that I've heard about who owns them so let's get it back with that. I didn't see the original plan. I wasn't here but I'll take the comments of the other commissioners and that it is an improvement over the past. I didn't have too much. I don't have a whole lot of other comments at this time. Scott: Okay, good. I don't have anything to add. The other commissioners have touched upon what I'm concerned with. I would like to thank the residents for coming in, as well as the applicant. That's an important part of the process and I think that a lot of people feel that the city kind of does what they do and never tells anybody and if perhaps some of you feel that that's the case, that's certainly not the intent. But it is important that you're here and as 47 L Ll Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 we said, we make recommendations to the City Council. They make the final decisions. Since in my mind I believe that this property will be developed sometime and it will have an impact on your hooking up to city services, I would suggest that right now you become as familiar as possible with that ordinance. The process to get a variance and all of the City Council members have got their telephone numbers in the phone book, except for one as I recall, but you can get those from City Hall. There's nothing wrong with calling and lobbying so I'd encourage you to do that on any issue. My thoughts, I'd like to see this again. The directions are quite clear from the other commissioners so I'd like to ask for a motion please. Steve Johnston: Could I address the commission please? Scott: No. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table preliminary plat, Case # 93 -11. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that the issue be tabled. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat #93 -11 for Harstad Companies. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this as soon as possible so it looks like June 1st. Okay, thank you all very much for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18 -57, STREETS, BY AMENDING (O.) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS SERVING R4, R8, R12, AND R16 AND NON - RESIDENTIAL USES. I I L H Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item and stated that because of a change, the public hearing would have to be re- published. Scott: That kind of brings up an impervious surface issue. Where we get dueling ordinances. I think if we're talking about an R -12 or an R -16, so that's, if there's any direction. I just don't want to get in a situation where we're focusing on a particular issue and we kind of forget about what's going to happen with another ordinance and then we get a development and we have, and then all of a sudden the development gets held up because of you know, V Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 dueling ordinances so. We need to see how that's going to play. Maybe we have to do something with, you know if it has to do with a public safety issue, obviously we have to take that into strong consideration but then if it impacts the ability of someone building an R- 16, that may preclude someone's ability to do that so, just as long as we don't, I personally don't want to have to deal with that when we're considering a large development, which is probably what we're going to be getting when we're looking at this kind of zoning. So anyway. Al -Jaff: I might add, for instance the development you were looking at before this one. Kings Road was going to be 31 feet curb to curb. So in most cases it will be below the 36 that is recommended or that is requested by the Fire Department. But again I have been looking at the ordinance before and I asked for their input and that's what they requested. And that's what their reasoning is behind it. Scott: Okay. So you're just looking for comments. Al -Jaff: Input and comments. Scott: And then we'll have another public hearing. Ledvina: This is the, you know the forest through the trees. I mean talk about all these things creep up and when you look at a multi - family and all of a sudden you're going to require a minimum of 24 feet. You've started to build a barrier to affordable housing again. I mean these are little things and maybe I'm off base but I don't know. Sometimes you have to look at the overall goals and see what's happening here. I don't know that that makes any difference but I don't know. I think it's kind of a creep process. Al -Jaff: So you would rather see the private driveways narrower? Ledvina: Narrower, I don't know. And getting back to Joe's issue with impervious surface. I mean that's going to work into it too. I mean you get these things fighting against each other. You're trying to get the densities up to make things affordable. I don't know. I'm just throwing it out. I don't know how it all fits together but just a thought. Al -Jaff: Well... Ledvina: Than having a full street, yeah. Right. Nutting: Is this guidance or confusion? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Scott: I think you get some of both from us. More of the later than the former sometimes. Ledvina: This is a public hearing though, right? Scott: Not yet. It wasn't properly noticed so we'll have to continue it. To be continued. Conrad: Just philosophically, I'm sort of not listening so bear with me. Philosophically the standards for a private street, why are they different than a public street? Al -Jaff: We would not be maintaining a private street. It would be the responsibility of the homeowners association. Whoever owns that strip. It will be dedicated to... Conrad: So in terms of construction requirements, it would still be the same for a public versus private? You've changed some tonnage requirements. Al -Jaff: Correct. What's required. We still want to have emergency vehicles to be able to ' access the roads but we won't be maintaining them. Conrad: So this is a, there's some environmental impact here. We can allow a private street ' that may not, they can come in at a smaller size with a private street so that's one thing this does. What else? ' Al -Jaff: It reduces hard surface coverage. In comparison to a full fledged city street, which requires 60 feet typically. ' Aanenson: We see them a lot when we've done condominium or apartment projects and you see them ... Again what it goes back to, as Sharmin indicated, the impervious surface. What we're doing right now is trying to legitimize what we've been doing. As the attorney indicated we're promoting private driveways for whatever reason but certainly not, there's really more streets when you're serving more than one person. And we're going to ... and we usually talking about land functions and things to do that in and it does address... wetland plan. Our tree canopy, which I think is really on the cutting edge of tree preservation. And now with this private drive. Again, it's tools to preserve landforms. Conrad: Yeah, I sure like some of the tools that are in place or real close. It sure makes some decision making a lot easier than willy nilly. You know it's nifty stuff. Ledvina: Does that mean that sewer lines don't go as far and you have longer laterals and things like that? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 Aanenson: Not necessarily. Ledvina: I mean because your city improvement is less. I mean it's not going all the way kind of thing. Al -Jaff: It would be than the private street's. Ledvina: Well I mean just for example White Oak Lane. The one that we had today. This evening where you're actually truncating the street 100 feet or something like that. Well, that means 100 feet less sewer and are those laterals coming in longer or does the? Aanenson: Actually it came to a Y and they all separated. Under that circumstances it would come just like a big cul -de -sac and they all have their connections off that. I think you have to look at it on an individual basis depending on where the driveway is split off and... Ledvina: But that means longer laterals right? Aanenson: Again, it depends on how the lots lay out. I mean it may have a continuous... Ledvina: I don't know that that's necessarily bad but. Aanenson: That's a legitimate concern but I think it would depend on the length of the common driveway. It's just like if we looked at townhouse project ..and this one I don't think so. When we were looking at the Oaks on Minnewashta, I think the laterals... Conrad: So do we recommend private streets? Are we recommending or is the developer requesting? It can be either? Aanenson: On this one he. Conrad: Well, in our ordinance. In the ordinance is it staff saying, we don't want to maintain that or build that. Al -Jaff: Well if he's going to meet our standards, therefore we don't want to maintain them. Aanenson: Are you asking who's asks for them? Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Normally that's the only way to subdivide the property, we would recommend 51 1 F� Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 that. Or if for environmental reasons it makes more sense. That would be two options. This engineer wasn't even aware that was an option so we showed him and he said well hey, that makes sense. Great, I'll ... can save more trees. Ledvina: Are we compromising our infrastruction though for people to gain access to their houses? By doing this. Aanenson: As far as, do they have an association to maintain that segment? Ledvina: Right. Aanenson: Well that's a trade off. It's a trade off. Ledvina: I understand you know but. Conrad: I think it's a nice tool. It gives us some liberty to do some things. Ledvina: Sometimes it's going to work really well. Sometimes if it's misapplied, it's not going to work. Aanenson: I think we've got—where we apply it and certainly for the right reasons. Not just because well, the developer wants to do it. There's got to be a specific reason. Scott: And then what happens? Let's say you've got some sort of a homeowners association or something that has, I'm thinking about like a R -16 and then for some reason the association does not take care of it or something like that. Is the city going to end up with the responsibility? It's just like henceforth and whatever. If your association doesn't handle it, get your shovel out. I just don't want to see stuff coming back where the city's going to have to then maintain something that's not easy to maintain. Al -Jaff: The intention is also to have all those agreements with that association recorded with the County. And Kate, I don't know how much weight that carries. Aanenson: No, but that's what we do right now when we get those agreements... Scott: Okay. Do you guys have any questions or comments? I Ledvina: No. L i Aanenson: I guess we wanted to have this ... because the next 2 weeks agenda is ... hopefully 52 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 , we flushed out a lot of issues tonight, we thoug h we ta bled q uite a few of them... Al -Jaff: So the two issues that you definitely want us to look at is, impact on affordable housing as hard surface coverage? Ledvina: Well, just some thoughts. I mean I don't need a science project or whatever, or a , research study but what I'm thinking about is, and kind of working off of your comment is that, we've got things that we're trying to accomplish goals and are we putting hurdles in the ' way of ourselves without even knowing it I guess. You know a lot of times we look at things. We work hard to do it right but we don't see it in light of the big picture and that's, I don't know. ' Scott: Do we need to do anything? I mean do we have to vote to continue? Okay, it's continued. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 4, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: I Aanenson: ...Just a reminder that I need somebody from the Planning Commission to attend the charette on the 26th. I think Nancy was going to try to. , Ledvina: What charette? Aanenson: That's on the Bluff Creek. ' Ledvina: What's the? ' Aanenson: It's from 9:00 to noon. Possibly 12:30 down in the senior center with Bill , Morrish and we're going to try to... Ledvina: Those day meetings are really tough. I'd really like to go but I just can't sneak I away. Aanenson: Well after we. , Nutting: Didn't Nancy say something about a charette? 53 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 ' Aanenson: ...we'd like at least one Planning Commissioner. We're trying to keep that... ' Ledvina: If I can make it I will but. Aanenson: What we're going to do with this ... LCMR grant and then you'll see. Other than that I just wanted to let you know that ... and focusing on the three intersections. Kind of the old TH 101 and. ' Scott: Not Dell Road and Highway 5. ' Aanenson: No. And the other one is the Target site. Powers and TH 5... Scott: TH 101 and TH 5, Market and TH 5. Aanenson: ...and just a reminder that it will be a lengthy agenda ... so hopefully you did flush out a lot of the issues even though these were tabled... ' Ledvina: I've got a question now. When I looked at the items today, on Minnewashta, I thought to myself, well you're recommending us to table it. And I said, well this one here and the last one that we did. Aanenson: I didn't recommend tabling. There was actually one... Ledvina: Oh, oh, oh, the one before. I'm sorry. Well that one. And I looked at it and I said, well why are we doing it? We're not going to act on it essentially. But I guess after I heard the residents speak I felt wow, that was a good way of understanding the issues and not really putting yourself under the pressure to have to make a decision on it and I like that. But is that going to be something that we're going to see more and more recommendations to table? ' Aanenson: Well I think when we feel comfortable with it. Ledvina: I mean first of all, is the developer requesting that we, that you bring it to us with a recommendation to table? I Aanenson: No. ' Ledvina: Okay. I wouldn't think so. So how does he react to that? Aanenson: Well normally when we get to the point where we realize there's too many issues, then we begin dialogue to say, you know there's some issues here. Right when we start 54 Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 1 working on it we say gee, we're missing this and we're missing that and sometimes staff misses stuff and that's your job to tell us. We don't have enough information. But we try to do is have a dialogue that we need additional information in order to make a recommendation , on this and if we agree that we can't get the information in time or a substantial change from, and they can't get it to you. You've had it ... once or twice. What we don't like ... we certainly feel like we're capable of following through with a specific, I mean... Ledvina: I don't want to belabor it. I just wanted. I Scott: That's one of the things that's interesting about the chair person is you want to move things along but you don't want to be what you really are. Anyway. , REVISED SIGN ORDINANCE. Aanenson: I just put that into the packet because I think the next packet ... is going to be pretty lengthy. I thought this would give you some additional time to read through it. As I indicated, we've got some slides showing the wall signs, I think will be very helpful. To give you an idea where we're going with that. And also we're going to have slides of each of the different definitions so I think that will be helpful. And I'm sure there will be quite a few people here to hear that. But we're hoping after this discussion, trying to finalize it and then come back with just the ordinance itself and then have the public hearing and pass it on. But I envision this next meeting ... to be a work session again. Not a public hearing ... for you to understand and then have the public hearing on it. Conrad: So June 1st is a work session? Aanenson: I think we want to... Nutting: So we're talking 5:30? ' Aanenson: The other thing is we're trying to get on the shoreland regs. ' Scott: The who? Aanenson: The shoreland regulations. We had an extended deadline from the DNR to get ' that adopted. Fortunately they haven't worked on it and we're pressing up against that time window and the other things we want to do is we've got some big comprehensive planning ' issues and that's the storm water management plan which we've been actually ... on these projects but we haven't officially adopted ... And that's another meeting that, I think if we can put maybe just the shoreland regs and the storm water management just as a separate I 55 1 L Planning Commission Meeting - May 18, 1994 meeting. That might be appropriate. Ledvina: A full meeting. Aanenson: A full meeting just to talk about those issues because I think Diane needs to be there and then we can just handle that and try not to take anything else. I think that will take up pretty much of our time. ' Conrad: Storm water's a big deal. Aanenson: It is very—give me some direction. Scott: I think we just need to have them earlier at 5:30 and then those who can make it, you know come and the other folks just get there when they can. Aanenson: I think you need to have a work session before you have a public hearing... Conrad: And then we're going to let the Chamber folks, the chamber's doing some stuff, right? Scott: Yeah, they're. Conrad: And they'll be invited to the public hearing? Aanenson: Yeah, they can certainly come to the work session. I think at this point you have a better understanding what we're doing before we, just like we did with the comp plan... Conrad: But do they know that yet? Aanenson: I sent... Scott: Yeah, I appreciate the work that you've been doing with the Chamber of Commerce. Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 56 r 'i CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' JUNE 1, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ' MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy Mancino MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Diane Harberts ' STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner H and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer ' (The quality of the recording on the first tape was very poor and therefore a lot of the discussion could not be heard.) ' ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95 ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT; ' WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED ON ' MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE, NEUMANN SUBDIVISION. ' Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Would the applicant or their representative wish to speak? Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, the consulting engineers for the applicant. The applicant... Mrs. Neumann is ' here ... Harry Peters and Harry Peterson. I'd like to address several of the recommendations. I'll just go through them item by item. On the first one, the 13 foot front yard variance on Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 4. I believe it should be Lot ' 3 which is the ... On the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue, I did make a transparency and if there's any questions on the location of that. We'd like to just make a clarification of what Mr. Weimerskirch was misquoted in the Minutes of the previous meeting on the vacation of actually Sandpiper Lane and I believe he's... Ann Wiemerskirch: On page 18 of the Minutes ... my husband said, but they do nevertheless ' have the right -of -way to that so we have no intention of, and he said disturbing that and he's quoted here as saying preserving that and we don't want the neighbors to think that we have no intention of preserving that right -of -way to the lake. He... 1 Ci 7 Ken Adolf: Okay, I have... additional clarification. In determination of Lots I and 2, the applicant feels that both of those lots ... both of those lots meet the ordinance requirements so we don't need variances. We feel that the justification ... all the mitigation that is necessary is provided to the street construction. There isn't any ... included for providing a buildable site. And the other, two other items... adjacent to a wetland. One of the items, we don't feel that that's necessarily a justification for ... There's no justification to require that. So that should be Lots 1 and 2, Block I ... On the, I guess which is now item 14. I had in my notes number 7. Storm water trunk fees. This is something that apparently is something new which did not appear in the previous report and the applicant is questioning if it's appropriate for them to be subjected to something that hasn't been ... or adopted by the city. If I guess that's going to be upheld we would ask that the lots for the two existing houses be exempted from having to pay that fee. One of the justifications for the question of whether it should be done is if this had been approved at the last Planning Commission meeting... would have been able to avoid this. Aanenson: If I could just make a clarification. We didn't ... in the last staff report ... that it be tabled so that's why it wasn't in there ... We just put four reasons why... Ken Adolf: I guess I'm referring to the discussion in the main report. Last time there wasn't any mention of this that I know of. On item 11, which refers to the tree conservation easement and the 10,000 square foot area that would be available to construct a home. That's basically been shown on the tree preservation plan. A 60 foot pad, which is required by law needs to be shown plus 20 feet around the perimeter of that—We feel that that's really too restrictive in that it wouldn't necessarily... larger area than that but ... being just restricted to that specific area ... a tree preservation easement and ... is considerable effort to get that relocated if necessary. What we're asking for is some additional flexibility for that. We feel each lot here is unique and that we'd like to just sit down with the staff and identify a tree preservation easement area on each individual lot rather than just using a rule of 100 x 100 square and trying to find that ... lot so we are asking for additional flexibility. Mancino: Excuse me, what is the tone of the development? I mean do you want it to be, are you going to market it, advertise it as a wooded area and draw people in for part of that? Ken Adolf: That's correct. That's what the intent is and the initial site grading would be... storm water pond and the lots would be cleared and graded at this time. That would be done with the home construction and we're ... homes here which we design to best fit the site. Mancino: Do you see it's an added benefit and an added enhancement, enticement to the people who are going to come to want to live here, to know that their neighbors are going to preserve their trees too and that there is an easement and so that you know that you won't have a neighbor next to you that's going to clear cut let's say or take 3 or 4 trees. Want a nice front yard instead of this wonderful treed lot that you have already existing there. Ken Adolf: I think I'll defer that to either Harry Peters or Harry Peters. 4 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 t Harr Peters: I can't quite hear you. I can only hear out of one ear. ' Y q Y Y Mancino: Okay. Am I loud enough? ' Harry Peters: Yeah, that's fine. , Mancino: Can you hear me better? Harry Peters: Sure. ' Mancino: Okay. My question has to do with, in some of these neighborhoods where we ' have a lot of trees to be begin with. If they're forested, etc. People you are going to attract and buyers to these areas, these wooded lots and build custom homes, tend to, one thing... they like knowing that the other people in this development want to preserve the trees too. And ' they like the idea of having a conservation easement on each lot knowing that the other neighbors will not be taking down lots of trees. So it is an enhancement. It is an incentive for them to want to move in this type of area because it is so special and it is unique. I Harry Peters: Well I think this is very true. I think anybody that's going to be interested in building in this area is going to like, appreciate nature because this is a very unique piece of ' land. But most of these lots that we are creating are all very, very heavily wooded. You can say you're going to build a house and not take a tree down. I mean take a tree down to arrange that. But more importantly, your ordinance calls for a side lot requirement and the ' setback requirement from the road, the setback requirement from the rear lot line, so the configuration that can be built on on these various lots depends on what that side lot requirement is and the setback from front and rear. And we don't know until someone comes ' in and becomes interested in a specific lot, what kind of a house they're going to build. Somebody may want to build a long rambler. Somebody may want to build a two story. And some of these lots, the best building site is back away from the road where you get up ' on a ridge where you can take advantage of those beautiful southerly views looking out to the parkland to the south. ' Mancino: So would this Kate, conservation easement that we're talking about in 11, restrict that? Is that that area? ' Aanenson: Yes ... if you go in a setback area, you have a lot of flexibility. When we go back and we look at the tree ordinance, the one we just adopted, if someone's buying these lots ' and wants to go in with a swimming pad or cut it down to put in a swimming pool, then they're in the wrong type of lot. And that's why you try ... and maybe it's not a first time buyer. Maybe it's the second person that comes in and wants to add on. You try to identify ' 3 ' 1 i `' Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' the conservation area. Obviously ome trees are coming out. We're we're saying Y g Y g ' beyond that, that we want... that's described into the home, is aware that they ... I think we could look at some different—In this circumstance we thought it would be easier to say this is a 10,000 square area you can build instead of trying to find the... Here's we're describing the ' area you can build in... Mancmo: ...you will be flexible in listening to what they think? ' Aanenson: Well, on their tree plan they show a .... and we support that. ...move around within that. We're not saying it all has to be...We're saying within that 10,000 square foot there's ' flexibility. Mancino: That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you. ' Harry Peters: Well am I correct, am I correct if we're going to merchandise these parcels of land, these people should be allowed to build on that lot wherever they wish to dependent ' upon the side lot requirements, as required by the building ordinance. I mean people buying this type of property, a lot of them are going to have an architect and they aren't going to be restricted to this little square that you're talking about. I think we don't have to restrict them. Aanenson: I agree but in talking about, how do you try to do a tree conservation? As they come in and do it lot by lot you know. I'm not sure there's a mechanism to do that sort of thing. Harry Peters: Well if you're going to restrict these lots to having a building of just a certain ' little area, you're going to destroy the value of the lot. Aanenson: Well that's the same approach we've taken on quite a few with a home placement t plan. That's the direction, the city has had a home placement plan for years. Harry Peters: I mean we aren't, to build on this kind of lot that we're creating is a lot more expensive than these lots all around on the old farmland where they cut in a road and punch in basements. Aanenson: We just looked at the Song property. They had numerous trees on there. ' Ken Adolf: Well as I said, what we're asking for is just some flexibility to work with the... tree conservation area on each individual lot. The comments we had, a couple items I'd just like to mention. We did show a center island in the cul -de -sac and we'd like to get approval ' for that ... but I think the natural setting and breaking up the big expanse of the bituminous in a ' 4 r Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 cul -de -sac would fit in with the area a lot nicer. An additional comment that was ... in the ' record. The property has some deferred sanitary sewer assessments along Sandpiper, basically into the wetland area and the applicant is asking that those sewer ' assessments...wetland area which is not going to be developed and it's in the same area where the two lots that are being... Scott: Excuse me. Was that a articular condition that you're? ' P Y Ken Adolf: Well I think we just wanted to have that on the record that that's being ' requested. Scott: Oh okay. ' Ken Adolf: I don't know if a condition is a proper way to address that. Maybe the Council ' will... On the wetland alteration... and that's where we're kind of sandwiched between the existing house and the wetland and getting into the wetland with some small amount. As far as the mitigation, we discussed this with staff and rather than showing it on the north side... ' proposed to do it on the east side ... So we'll work with staff in picking an area that will... bast time there was some question on the docks. ...if you have any questions on that, Art Johnson is here to address those type of dock ... I'd be happy to answer any questions, further questions , you might have. Scott: Are there any questions or comments for the applicant? I guess not at this point in I time. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and I the motion carried. The public hearing was open. Scott: Are there any members of the public who wish to speak at this public hearing? ' Seeing none, may I have a motion to close. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and ' the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Comments. Jeff. ' Farmakes: If the city has verbiage I think in there requiring for dockage, isn't it worded as ' being temporary? Being removable. Aanenson: Speaking to Ceil Strauss from the DNR, their amenable to leaving it in ' 5 i J Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 permanently as it appears or it may be taken out and... Farmakes: I was just wondering. Is this in conflict with the city ordinance? Aanenson: No. Farmakes: So it's not a requirement that it be removed at the end of the season? Aanenson: No. Farmakes: Okay. Aanenson: Again... Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the islands. I know we've discussed these ... city engineer has had quite a few problems with it in the past. This is a very small development. In general the recommendations are ... It seems logical to me how this development's been proposed. The areas for the housing. I would support staff's recommendation in the areas for housing pads...come forward with a more flexible plan that makes sense and seems to minimize the loss of trees. I don't have any further comments. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I've got a question Kate about the conditional use permit. We're receiving some DNR approval for the dock... Aanenson: They have more than 4 slips... They're allowed in a recreational beachlot permit to have, based on their square footage, to have 3 docks. 3 boats at each dock. We're recommending, based on the wetland, that they ... one dock. But when you do that now, you're taking a requirement for pemutting from the DNR. But you have 4 boats at once, that requires a marina. They do support ... and again the only issue we've got... Mancino: Okay. My only other question, and I do support staff's recommendations, is on the ... What I'm looking at is, I'm looking—canopy coverage and I assume that everything... Then we have a house pad. Then you have broken lines that give us the 10,000 square foot outside. And I see trees right next to that. What trees are going to come down? I mean they're not just in that 10,000 square foot area, is that right? Aanenson: Right. What we did is look at a driveway and then ... and we figured to have a Z l Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 base line of 50% and the ordinance allows 35 %. They were allowed to remove, we feel ' confident that removal of the trees in this subdivision keeps them within the 35 percentage. But that's why we're concerned with saying, just going with the setback, that would allow in ' excess removal... we're willing to work with them as far as some flexibility but just to leave it open, that's unacceptable... Mancino: Okay. I think the staff recommendations look very good and I support them. ' Y rY g Scott: Matt. , Ledvina: Last time we talked about the dock and I asked the question, is there going to be ' any dredging that's going to be required to access the dock? No dredging, okay. Do we know if the installation of the dock will require a wetland alteration permit? Aanenson: I did check with that and no, it does not. ' Ledvina: Does not, okay. Alright, let's see. On number 14. What would the city's status ' Dave on exempting the two existing houses from these fees? Would that be standard fare? Hempel: That's a good question. The surface water management fees were partially based ' on the remaining developable land in the city by the estimated construction dollars to arrive at the rate per acre. Now that would tell me that these homes probably were not included. Would not be included in the surface water management fees. Similar to park and rec trail , fees. Dedication fees. I don't think they're claiming these two parcels should be charged those fees as well. I'd like to do a little more investigation I guess with our consultant who put together the fee structure. The proposed fee structure and get some clarification on that. ' But my initial reaction is that they should be exempt. Ledvina: Okay. I think we can add something to that to get staff evaluation on that for the , developer so. Let's see. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good, Ladd. ' Conrad: Kate, under condition 4. Would you just give to me the rationale for 1 and 2 being combined? ' Aanenson: As Dave indicated in his part of the report, Lot 1 has a ... pretty steep driveway... ' which exceeds the city requirement of 10% and the other lot is right on ... wetland. You have to get—and again we were recommending that the mitigation be moved over to the other side of the wetland. That really it probably would make more sense... , 7 i i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Conrad: On condition number 11. I don't want, I'm not sure what kind of precedence I'd be setting but I guess I would staff to review the alternatives in terms of a per lot canopy review, and that sounds like a lot. I'm not sure ... I think I want you to do that. I don't know ' that I'm disagreeing with the condition however. That's all. L L Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #94 -3 as shown on the plans stamped, or dated May 17, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1 reads a 13 foot front yard setback variance to Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. Number 2 as is. Number 3 as is. Number 4 as is. Number 5 as is. Number 6 as is. Number 7 deleted. Number 8 deleted. Number 9 as is. Number 10 as is. Number 11 reads, a tree conservation easement shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant for placement of these ... on these lots. Number 12 as is. Number 13 as is. Number 14 reads, staff will evaluate whether the applicant should pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees for storm water management improvements in accordance to the city's surface water management plan. Scott: And conditions 15 thru 23 remain as is. Conrad: I second that. Ledvina: Friendly amendment? Mancino: Sure. Ledvina: As far as item 4. Or as far as condition number 4 is concerned. Could we add a descriptor identify Block 1? Mancino: Block 1. Lot 2 shall be combined into one lot, Block 1? Ledvina: Well no. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. ' Scott: Is that acceptable? Conrad: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the staff report with conditions. Any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #94 -3 as shown on the plans stamped May 17, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2. 2. City Council approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue. 3. Approval of the 50 foot right -of -way for street. 4. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be combined into one lot. 5. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. 6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 7. Deleted. 8. Deleted. 9. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails. 10. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and city's address grid. 11. Tree conservation easements shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the applicant as to the placement of building pads in relationship to the canopy plan. 12. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet Z 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 13. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 14. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees of pfevide in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology. 15. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event. 16. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. I 17. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right -of -way and maintained by the property owner. ' 18. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and ' formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 19. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and ' provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. ' 20. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department. ' 21. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 10 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 22. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. 23. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: I recommend that we recommend approval of conditional use permit #94 -2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4 as is. Conrad: I second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation on that item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina: I have a small item here. On the first one, the first condition. I think we should probably say with more than 4 slips because they're looking at 9 slips. We know that so that would be a friendly amendment. Scott: Is that acceptable? Mancino: It is. Conrad: And I would second that. Scott: Is there any more discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #94 -2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips. 11 r I � i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20 -232, conditional uses. 1 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Can I have a motion on the wetland alteration permit please? Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Conrad: I do. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the wetland alteration permit. Is there any discussion? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site. 2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland replacement ratio of 2:1. 3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland Ag/urban wetland 10' -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback 0 -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 AGRICULTURAL T RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND CU U RAL ESTATE O R F , S PRELIMINARY PLAT INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT LOCATED AT 8221 GALPIN BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF TIMBERWOOD ESTATES. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. I Scott: Questions or comments for staff? Mancino: Bob, in the staff report. The property is bounded on the north and east by ' Timberwood Estates which is a large lot subdivision with 2 1/2 acres, right? Generous: Yes. , Mancino: So the north and the east. The west is Galpin and south is a park. Correct? I Generous: Right. Mancino: So why wasn't this area also guided for something with larger lots? I mean this is a perfect place. Why did we go from 2 1/2 acres to 15,000 square feet? Isn't there something in the middle there? And this is the perfect place to have it guided for something ' between where you have the 2 1/2 acre Timberwood lots and. Aanenson: Well that ... that issue came up at the last meeting as far as what's going in all around and it's zoned for agricultural and that's a holding zone. It's zoned agricultural.. -and it falls within that range. Mancino: Can we reguide it? ' Aanenson: Again... , Mancino: Ladd, you were here then. I mean maybe somebody else was. What was the ' thinking when you have these larger lots and then going to 15,000 square feet? I mean why wasn't there some thought on something inbetween the two? Conrad: Because you do have some, we've had some zoning districts and it really goes from ' 15,000 and it jumps up to what Timberwood is. The 40,000. And I think back then it was, back then? A couple years ago the feeling was that there probably wasn't going to be a huge ' demand for the large lots anymore. You didn't see the general public coming in when we, and I advocated different lot sizes years and years ago and we'd open it up for public comment and nobody would...another zone and nobody showed up. So the general public I 13 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 really felt pretty comfortable with the 15,000 square foot. And we had the 40,000 I think when we did the comprehensive plan. Mancino: Well this is 2 1/2 acres. This has got to 90 to 100,000. Ledvina: 100,000 yeah. Conrad: 40,000 is what we were talking. When I said the 40, that was what we were looking at as a different zone. But we didn't get any support for that so we had the 2 1/2, or we have what Timberwood is and then we have the 15,000 and there really wasn't a public outcry or demand for it. Not that the public leads all the way but when you kind of advertise ' to the Chanhassen residents. Say hey it's there ... and nobody shows. ' Mancino: It would certainly give us more diversity on different levels. Conrad: It would. It's probably not an economic, and I'm not sure what's economically feasible anymore. Mancino: Well we just ... 4 1/2 acres. People are out there looking for it... Farmakes: Yeah, but ... you've got a fair amount of land... ' Mancino: But to some people that's important. I'm just trying to figure out why there's such a big gap there and it just seems like this particular area would work... ' Farmakes: I wouldn't agree with that. Timberwood was one of the developments on tlie ... and you had a minimum size that they could be... Aanenson: I think that point is well taken. Those lots were all outside of the urban service area ... when we start talking about city services and the cost—when you talk about urban services, it's a different thing... Farmakes: I remember the farmers were in here that owned property at the time before the corporation... and they were, some of them were doing their own subdividing and a lot of it ' was minimal farmland and they were arguing how many acres the minimum could be. And they brought it down to 2 1/2 I think. ' Mancino: It was 10... ' Farmakes: Yeah. That was something that they were arguing back and forth with the Met 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 because the Met pressure was to get as much density as possible and eliminate the large lots. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? And please, state your name and your address. Peter Knaeble: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble and I am representing the owners... Patrick Minger. I'm with Ron Krueger and Associates and our address is 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd in Edina. Bob went through most of the ... based on the staff report our clients came back with the ... In regards to the tree conservation area, here tonight... proposing to purchase the lots from the Mingers and ... might have some comments also on ... concur with the staff report on their recommendation that this project be approved. The only requirement we have is exactly where the individual trees... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments for the applicant? Mancino: You made a comment that you might want to change ... and you may want to put the houses back further and saving trees in the front. Unless I'm viewing this incorrectly I don't see too many trees in the front that need to be saved. If you put the house back. What I do see, according to this plan is if you move the house back you would take out more trees. Peter Knaeble: Yeah, what we started out with every cul -de -sac we got right at the 20 foot setback line ... 20 foot, then there would be trees ... front setback area that would be taken... to overlay the proposed tree conservation area on our grading plan, to do that, at least a few lots ... actual tree conservation line is encroaching into that 60 x 60 pad area...Lot 1, Lot 15, Lot 17. Mancino: 7 and 8 and I'm sorry, what were the other two? Peter Knaeble: I said Lot 1...15, 17 Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant? I'd like to see a show of hands please. Is there anyone from the general public who is interested in commenting on this particular proposal? Okay. Can I have a motion please to open the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If you'd like to speak, please step up front. Identify yourself and give us your address. 15 t r J i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' Tim Dempsey: My name is Tim Dempsey. I live at 8241 Galpin, which is the property adjacent to this and I had a couple of things. Regarding your comments earlier, we talked ' about that quite a bit at the last meeting about the A2 and ... and all that and we had a meeting, myself and a few of us ... also to understand why guiding happens. I guess I'd like some... some legal ramifications there. I'd like to have more understanding of why we have to have ' 15,000 square foot lots if it's guided... Farmakes: Excuse me. Do you, when you identified yourself, are you representing ' Timberwood Estates? Tim Dempsey: No, no. I'm just saying these questions came up. I live right next door to ' the project. Farmakes: Are you part of the Homeowners Association of some sort? ' Scott: No. The own the property between the proposed development and Gal in. Y P P Y P P P P Farmakes: That house right there? ' Scott: Yeah. Farmakes: Okay. I thought you said... ' Tim Dempsey: ...were talking to the people that were from Timberwood Estates at the last meeting brought up the A2 and the response that it was guided for further development. And ' myself, I would like some more clarification on what legal barrier there is... Aanenson: The same thing was discussed at the last meeting. The comprehensive plan... ' meet all the setbacks and the lot configurations ... that's what they're allowed to have. Now if you say they cannot have that, you have to have a Findings as to why they can't do it. The topography or whatever... Mancino: So guiding really means that it... ' Tim Dempsey: They just haven't changed the initials yet. Aanenson: No. What it says is that... Metropolitan Council that when urban services are ' available ... If you choose not to... Tim Dempsey: I understand the ... Now the other two, the prior meetings before the last 16 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 planning meeting that we were talking about item number 15 in the plan you have which is , on page 16. First line says the Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line becomes operational. The second line...Dempsey parcel will have to ' connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months ... hook-up only when the present system fails. When the property's developed or (3), when we sell the property... Hempel: Yes it is Mr. Dempsey but we also said that the City Council is the only authority ' that has the power to change the ordinance... That's something staff would support when it came to City Council for discussion. Tim Dempsey: Okay. Well I want to bring it up... ' Scott: And that's true with any issue. If you're for something or you're not for something. Is to say the ultimate decision gets made at the City Council. At least in my experience I see ' in certain circumstances, in an instance where someone just made a significant investment in either a well or a septic system or if it's in good working order, I can't predict what's going to happen. However, gather your case. Usually the items that people highlight is the age of the system. How it's working, etc, etc and take it from there but we recommend that you follow that issue through the City Council because that's where the ultimate decision is made. Tim Dempsey: Okay. I'll follow it...And looking at the layout... where my worst nightmare was and that is the ... large oak trees and ... and if we could straighten that out, maybe take it another 10 -20 feet away from that... somehow straighten that out, it would pull it away from ' that. I don't know what you're achieving by the 10. If there's some street maintenance issue or whatever but it seems to be moving close to my house with no real benefit. Scott: Dave is that to give it more of a T intersection? ' Hempel: That's correct. To try to have them perpendicular ... The ordinance requires that I they... Scott: And you can get out your protractor. What's the angle, begs the question. ' Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have one with me here this evening but it appears to be within the 50 ... It can be looked at further but I don't think it can be shifted that much... ' Tim Dempsey: Well those are my questions. Scott: Did ou have you wanted to respond? ' Y �Y P 17 , Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I Peter Knaeble said something which was not heard on the tape. Scott: Okay, well if these gentlemen could perhaps talk that through with city staff. Okay. Would anybody else like to speak at this public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion please? L Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ledvina: I guess as it relates to the situation with subdividing this parcel, I'm comfortable with the staff's evaluation of the neighboring properties. I guess I genuinely feel that the site is fairly well screened from the other parcels. Due to the extensive trees along the boundary so as far as that's concerned, I'm comfortable with that issue. If there's some tweaking of the boundaries that can be done as far as the tree conservation easement I would, to whatever to provide some flexibility with the house pads and to actually save trees potentially in the front yard that would be in the tree conservation easement. Obviously if we cut down a 24 inch oak to save a 6 inch box elder on the back side we're not getting anywhere so I would be very receptive to the applicant demonstrating to our staff where things can be jockeyed and we can be precise in that manner and I would certainly be for that so. Scott: Would you want to modify a particular condition? Scott: Maybe number 4? Ledvina: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know how we'd go about that. Ledvina: Let's see. Mancino: It seems that's very appropriate to move those boundaries... Ledvina: Yeah, for the boundary, yes. Farmakes: It seems like they'd be able to deal with that through asking for a variance. They come in. They say the topographical area requires them to put the house here and not there I believe is criteria for a variance. ...relegistating that to that specific development. Ledvina: The applicant talked about Lot 15 and that's not on th boundary of the site so I don't know. Mancino: And micro manage every single lot? Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 11 Ledvina: Well I don't know. I don't know how we'd do that. I Farmakes: I think you're going to get this with the tree conservation zone every time we get ' an area in there that's not farmland. You're going to get saying well what if we want to put the house up here or move it over there. Mancino: Well and one of the reasons why we had the tree preservation, had them put the 60 , foot pad, housing pad was to make the developers think about it and where it goes in relationship to the trees right away so that we can get these ... So we could start—mapping of tree preservation areas. Farmakes: ...to argue that you can't do that. If there's a significant stand of trees or a , significant landmark of some sort to say no. On the other hand. Mancino: And that's what staff supports, to go out and look at the... ' Farmakes: And you can always ask for a variance. Under the criteria, if there's something that's in your way, you're certainly allowed to come in and ask for a variance. Ledvina: Bob, would you feel that, do you have any suggestions for condition 4 to meet our I objectives here? Generous: Well I think if you incorporate some of the same language you did in the previous case and say work with staff on the individual lots maybe. The Tree Board worked hard to come up with this concept and they're supposed to look at ..critically and say this is the area that we think is best. You know if they wanted to shove the house in the back and have the ' easement on the front, that'd be fine with us too. We're looking for significant stands. Around the perimeter, especially on the east side. The south side. Then one in the middle. There are perfect areas of significant stands of trees. Dense vegetation. If we can keep their development out of there, that'd be fine. If they want to tweak it around and say instead of a 50 foot on Lot, what is it, 8. Have a 40 foot on that one in terms of the cul -de -sac and everything. Well maybe that's something we should look at prior to adopting it but let's get ' it recorded and platted. Ledvina: Okay. Now I'm comfortable with that, yes. Okay. I guess I would also suggest ' that we add a 23rd condition which would essentially codifies what the residents and the developer have just discussed as it relates to that westerly cul -de -sac in shifting of that cul-de- sac the appropriate distance. We should agree with that. Mancino: I think it was 15 feet. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Ledvina: 10. 10 to 15 feet. Something like that. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Okay. Nancy. Mancino: Well I was going to listen... Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I have a lot of comments on this development. One thing on clear cutting on the land issue. It would be nice to see a buffer in here. However, under the circumstances of how it occurred, how the development occurred. Particularly when you take into Stone Creek. We discussed this issue of Stone Creek ... the relationship of land versus the adjacent land and the 2 1/2 acres throws a wrench in it. The reasoning for that, as I recall, the hearings that took place. Some people were coming in complaining that Timberwood was being developed saying that that housing was too dense and they wanted a more open row of land and 2 years later you get the residents of Timberwood coming in and saying, this is too dense. So it's just a matter of 5 years here or 5 years there point of view I guess. I don't think it's relevant to expect somebody's going to pay for 5 or 6 acres of land as a buffer. There's a quarter of a million dollar investment before you put up the home on the property. You're going to have 2% or 3% population that can do that. Mancino: No, but by 2 1/2 acres we could go half acre. You don't have to go down to a ' third. You could do something inbetween where it's not something... Farmakes: But again, how do you look at that as a second zone? Where you have a larger ' lot. I think that's been discussed infinitum over the years. That issue and it's not on the current plan. Mancino: ...two cents worth in. Farmakes: That's right. 10 years ago you should have been here. But there was reasoning for that and I think it's sound reasoning. The problem that occurred is that there was a motivation to develop outside of town but when they lowered that down to 2 1/2 acres, they brought it down enough in money where people sort of jumped out in front of planning and started building. And you've seen how those type of developments dictate what goes around them. Just like, almost like an old tree that is there and the other trees come around it. It's hard to predict what that is because it's in the realm of a developer. A developer is dictating not only that acreage but other acreage around it and future development. Anyway, I really don't have any further comments on this. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about this development but I think it's within the realms of the rules that we set up. Although I would be open, if 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 you want to relook at or talk about buffer. The buffer situation on this is really going to significant change this development if that's what you're steering towards because of the property that's already owned on the west side. That's it. , Scott: Mr. Conrad. Conrad: I was here for the e com rehensi plan and I've kind of looked at it again in terms , P of what this was guided for, and as I said the last time, if you wanted to protect trees, then you keep it in the large lot, 2 1/2 acre. We don't have another zone. Period. We don't. So , there's nothing, and if we did, we should have been doing something before now. The proposal's here so I'm comfortable with the rezoning. It still makes sense to me. I support ' the guide plan. But when I say that, I'm not a real proponent of transition and therefore transition is real important and protection of the quality of the life that the neighbors had who bought the property. So therefore I'm fairly rigid in what I'd like to see. I think the staff ' report tonight is excellent from the comments that they heard 2 weeks ago. I think they've put in the protections. It's meeting a canopy coverage which I think I thought was pretty strict. So it's meeting what those guide plans are and so it's hard for me to say it should be ' something different. In the staff report, on page 4, halfway down the page staff has said, staff still believes that the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac will afford additional tree protection. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blab, blah. That was a statement but it wasn't really worked into recommendations so basically you support that but you've dropped it and I guess I'd like to know why. Generous: Well Dave and I sat down to try and do it and we couldn't make it work with that , house placement. Especially on the ... but we'd like to see the applicant investigate this further and see if they can make it work. Not only are we concerned with the tree preservation in ' that area but again there's that drainageway that we think the building pad is encroaching on. Conrad: For Lot, which one? I Generous: Lot 10. If you look at the contours, it goes right through the rear of the building pad. I Mancino: Going back to the other thing about making the cul -de -sac shorter. So do we want to put a recommendation that the applicant investigate that further with you and Dave? And see if you can work out something to save some more trees and shorten it up. Generous: Sure. ' Conrad: You've looked at it and you're saying you don't have a solution so. ' 21 i i F1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: We looked at it kind of 12th hour. We didn't spend a lot of time on it. Unfortunately. It is difficult. There's a drainageway, as I indicated on one side and you've got the trees and the tree buffer on the other side. Cul -de -sac does expand the setbacks out further. By shortening that up you may save Lot 10. The house pad being on the drainageway but then Lot 11 house pad ... so you're not really gaining anything that much by shortening it up unless you can offset it further. We threw it out on the table I guess. The applicant's engineer maybe can investigate to see if there's a feasible alternative to this with a private driveway that would save trees. That they wouldn't lose a lot. That was another thing that they were concerned about. The potential of losing a lot because ... so there's some balancing between the two. Conrad: Lot 13 is a strange lot. Scott: Wasn't there a condition that basically we recommend cutting that lot up and adding it to. Conrad: Along with some of this other, yeah. Which made a terrific amount of sense. You know again we have a fair amount of land here and we are trying to buffer the neighbors to a degree and I think the staff and the applicant has gone along with some of the staff recommendations. I'm real appreciative of that. It's just that geez, we just stuck, there's a real strange lot there and I guess it's legal. I wish if staff had found a good way to preserve some of the things we were looking for, I would have loved to have carved that 13 up and moved it into some of the other lots. I'm going to stop. Mancino: Aren't we doing that? Wasn't it suggested that? Farmakes: It wasn't a condition. Conrad: It wasn't. It was not a condition, no. It was a thought but it's not a condition right now. But I'm hearing from staff that they haven't really found a good way to do a lot of these things and make it a smart. We don't have a better idea right now. Now we can challenge staff again but there's a good chance that there's not a solution to this one. It's just that in general that's, Lot 13 bothers me and it's just grabbing another lot out of here which is legal but, and I think again as we're looking to sort of move out of a large lot subdivision into a small lot, I guess I'm not always trying to squeak out every 15,000 square feet that we can to put a new house on. And I think the rationale for that was if we could be saving a significant. I'm not looking for one tree. I'm looking for a significant benefit and if it's not there, I don't think we should do it. But I guess I'll challenge staff one more time. That if there is some way to do it, and I'd sure like to see their recommendation to the City Council of that way. But at this point in time I don't want to see it back. I'd just like to challenge 22 r Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 Dave and Kate and Bob to take a look at that. I think that is, you know again, I just think that this is a lot better thing than what we looked at last week. Or 2 weeks ago. I think that it's a good report. I thank them for that and I'll go along with the recommendations in the ' staff report. Scott: Okay. t Mancino: I don't have too much new to add except that I would also like to see staff and the applicant investigate the use of private drive and shortening up the easterly cul -de -sac to see , that it will afford the additional tree protection. You know when you drive into this land, I think I read a little bit of it in the Minutes. That it was addressed. On the northern part of , the entry to this area there is a stand of trees that separates the land to the north and this drive thru which is a really nice entryway. Are all those trees, I don't even see canopy coverage up here. Are all those trees going to be gone? On the north side of this new road ' that goes in where there are, it's a private road right now and there are existing trees and I'm sorry if you. Hempel: Maybe I can address it on the overhead here. This is where the existing driveway currently is on the property and it continues up right through here. The tree removal will be contained in this area here. The vegetation actually goes on the north side as well. On the cemetery property as well as on the homeowners property there in Timberwood Estates. The vegetation, the property line essentially is centered on that vegetated road there so half of it would be lost. The southerly half would be lost and this first 300 -400 foot of roadway. , After that the roadway curves south. The remaining vegetation is, as Bob has pointed out here in the purple, will be a tree preservation easement area and all saved. Mancino: So are you taking vegetation off somebody else's property...? Hempel: No we are not. ' Mancino: Has there been some soil ... in your woodland management plan request for maybe putting some trees in that area that's being, that were existing? ' Generous: No, not specifically in the woodland management plan but there is I believe a recommendation that they provide a landscaping plan. ' Mancino: I think that that would be a good place as a buffer between the cemetery and it's, it was there and those, a lot of trees will be down. I think it would be good to have some ' coniferous trees there so we get year round buffering. 23 i i I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Generous: Yeah. Well under condition 3 we address the... Mancino: Okay, good. Those are all of my comments. Scott: Good. Could I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93 -25 and 94 -1 Rezoning providing for the preliminary plat of 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to RSF and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the staff conditions. Modifying condition number 4 to include the applicant shall work with staff on the individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. Adding condition number 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac approximately 10 feet to the east at the intersection of the main access street. Mancino: Can I give a friendly amendment? 23. That staff and the applicant will investigate further, investigate the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. Mancino: 24, thanks. Ledvina: That'd be 24. Ledvina: Yes. Scott: Is there a second to that motion? Conrad: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #93 -25 and Rezoning #94 -1 for the preliminary plat on 8.46 acres of land to create 17 single family lots, rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential, RSF, and a front yard setback variance of ten (10) feet to permit a front yard setback of 20 feet throughout the development subject to the following conditions: 1. Accept full park and trail dedication fees as prescribed by city ordinance for the Minger 24 r Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 subdivision in lieu of land acquisition. , 2. Provide a 20 ft. trail easement to the west of Lot 17 for connection to the city park and ' construct an 8 ft. wide asphalt trail stub within this easement . The city shall reimburse the developer for this construction. In addition, design an adequate landscape buffer between this easement and the home which will be constructed on Lot 17. 3. Prior to final platting, the applicant will be required to provide a boulevard landscaping plan for the first 300 feet of the entrance road into the development in order to replace ' the existing vegetation that will be removed as part of the road and utility grading into the site. A Woodland Management Plan shall be developed for the subdivision prior , to the final platting of the property. This plan shall comply with section 18 -61 (d) (3) of the City Code. 4. Incorporate on the final plat a fifty (50) foot tree conservation area to be dedicated ' along the perimeter of the plat. Within this area only selective thinning to promote the health and survivability of trees be permitted. Additionally, this area, especially along the northern border of the plat could be used as a forestation or replacement area for ' trees. Thinning, forestation, and tree replacement are conditioned on the development of a Woodland Management Plan by a forestry professional that would address these ' issues. The following tree conservation easements would also be dedicated as part of the plat: a forty (40) foot easement centered on the common lot lines of lots 2 and 3, and lots 4 and 5; a twenty (20) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 5; a twenty , (20) foot easement along the north lot line of lot 7; a fifty (50) foot easement along the rear lot lines of lots 10, 11, 14, and 15: a forty (40) foot easement along the south lot line of lot 12; an easement over the southern 115 feet of lot 13; and an eighty (80) foot easement along the east lot line of lot 16. No construction activity of any kind will be permitted within these easements. The applicant will work with staff on individual house pads to maximize tree preservation. ' 5. The applicant shall include runoff from the cemetery in the proposed pond design and construction. ' 6. Remove the applicant's existing private driveway once the street is paved with the first lift of asphalt. ' 7. Provide water quantity /quality ponding according to SWMP requirements. 8. The applicant shall employ the use of retaining walls to save the 34 -inch oak and 28- inch oak on lot 1, block 1. ' 25 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' 9. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division, for review prior to final plat approval. The plat must be revised to include the ' approved names after their review and approval. The existing homes will be required to change their addresses consistent with the new street names and numbering system 1 10. A ten foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. ' 11. Compliance with the terms and conditions contained in the memorandum from Bill Weckman, Assistant Carver County Engineer to Bob Generous dated 4/25/94. 12. The applicant shall investigate the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac the use of a drive to service the four houses at the terminus of the cul -de -sac. private ' 13. Detailed construction drawings and specifications for the public improvements will be required for submittal with final plat approval. All street and utility construction shall be in accordance to the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Final construction drawings are subject to staff review and formal City Council ' approval. ' 14. Prior to the city signing the final plat, the applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. 15. The Minger's house shall be connected to sanitary sewer within 30 days after the line ' becomes operational. The Dempsey's house will have to connect to sanitary sewer within 12 months after connection becomes available. The homes may utilize their existing wells until they fail, then the parcel must connect to city water. The existing septic systems shall be abandoned per state and /or local codes. 16. The applicant shall apply and obtain all the necessary permits of the regulatory ' agencies such as MPCA, health department, watershed district, DNR and Carver County Highway Department. 17. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction. ' 18. The applicant shall submit storm drainage and ponding calculations verifying the pipe sizing and pond volumes. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to handle 10 -year storm events. Detention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well i 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac approximately 10 feet to the east I at the intersection of the main access street. 24. That staff and the applicant will investigate further the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And your thought is? Mancino: ...I just don't think it's a good ... use. I don't think it's a good transition land use between Timberwood and a park. That's what I think. I think it's too dense. Scott: Well, here's a thought. We've seen a proposed development on the north side of Timberwood. As part of the. 27 1 1 as maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100 -year, 24 -hour storm event. Drainage plans shall be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Best Management Practices Handbook. , 19. Prior to the City signing the final plat, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee construction of the public improvements. 20. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants so as to avoid injury to , fire fighters and to be easily recognizable, i.e. NSP transformers, street lighting, cable boxes, landscaping. i 21. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements ' and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. 22. Depending on the storm ponding calculations, if the development is not meeting the ' City SWMP for water quantity, then the applicant will be required to contribute into the City's SWMP program. The proposed rate per acre for single family is $1,980 /acre , excluding wetlands." 23. The applicant shall shift the westerly cul -de -sac approximately 10 feet to the east I at the intersection of the main access street. 24. That staff and the applicant will investigate further the use of a private drive and the shortening of the easterly cul -de -sac to see if it will afford additional tree protection. All voted in favor, except Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Scott: And your thought is? Mancino: ...I just don't think it's a good ... use. I don't think it's a good transition land use between Timberwood and a park. That's what I think. I think it's too dense. Scott: Well, here's a thought. We've seen a proposed development on the north side of Timberwood. As part of the. 27 1 1 i i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: At the school. Scott: Well there's a, I'm trying to remember who had it. Mancino: Oh, Heritage. Scott: Yeah. So there's an opportunity if you would like to make a proposal on that particular piece. See there's, we've retained some of that, we've seen a request to rezone property adjacent to the north side of Timberwood and I believe there are some 15,000 square foot lots. At least the development that we saw had 15,000 square foot lots lined up, you know where the power line goes through there? Mancino: Yes. Scott: Abutting the east side. So that is a similar, it's guided similar to this particular property but it is not as far along. Mancino: And this one has some other site characteristics being... 100 %. 99.6% wooded so... to preserve some of our woodland areas. And I think that this is important so that we do have bigger lots... Scott: And severe topography. Mancino: Severe topography which will be a little different. I just, I don't know. Don't think that this is the best use of that land. Scott: Okay. This is for the 13th? Okay. Thank you for coming sir. And the applicant, thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 10,315 SQUARE FOOT KINDERCARE FACII.ITY AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED DAY CARE CENTER IN AN IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DELL ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 5, MARCUS CORPORATION. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments from commissioners? Mancino: Sharmin, I just have a question about the site plan review on page, starting on page 1. The April 13th meeting. That those need to be revised. That those are not the ... l3th Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 meeting. The staff recommendation that we adopted the following motions on April 13th. That those are different than the ones that start on page 34. So I wanted to make sure that you've got the right ones in here. On page 34 it says, Mancino moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to approve the site plan review for a 54,760 square foot expansion of the Press building shown on the site plan received April 13, 1993 subject to the following conditions. And if you look for instance on number 6 on page 2 of our current report dated May 26, 1994 it says, the Press addition shall contain architectural detailing to break the long wall masses. If you look on page 35, number 6. You had put in bold, what we wanted to add so that all of these 1 thru 21 should really reflect or be the same ones as what's on page 34, 35, and 36. Is that correct? Because I know that we wanted to keep the impervious surface of the Press at 70% and you had that in 19 on page 36. Is everybody kind of following me? Commission: Yes. Mancino: Okay. So we need to change that. Thank you. And I don't know about 20 and 21. Yeah, 20 and 21 stay also. That are on page 3 of the most recent staff report. Thank you. Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff? Dave, I've got a question for you on the SRF memo. Item number 1. The tight turning radiuses and turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Would this be the kind of thing that would be sent to the fire department, staff or, because I saw this and then I was looking through my staff report expecting to see a memo from Jim. Is this the kind of, I mean they've reviewed the site plan that we saw the first part of April and my expectation was to see a comment from them on that. To your knowledge have they had a chance to review this? Hempel: No they have not. Scott: Huh, okay. Not yet. First of all are there any other comments for staff? None. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Mark Senn: Good evening. Forgive my voice. It's almost gone. We don't have any problems with the consultant's suggestion in terms of the Kindercare parking lot. The other thing we did in response to some of your concerns was redesign the parking lot here creating a detached driveway basically going through here towards the south. Basically there's a fairly substantial barrier to use this thru traffic. We just have done the absolute, I didn't get a chance to mention it earlier today to staff—but I think it answers a lot of the questions about the pass thru traffic... 29 1 1 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' Scott: Good. Just a show of hands. Are there any people here for the public hearing on the Kindercare/Press expansion? Seeing none, we'll forego the public hearing. Ladd. ' Conrad: I'm glad to see Mark go back. I don't want what you have. Well Dave, tell me about the traffic engineer's report in your mind. Have we improved? They've made some statements. Have we taken it to the level that you're comfortable with? ' Hempel: I believe we have Commissioner Conrad based on the parking lot movements. The one restriction that still is, makes me uncomfortable is the sharp turn into the site. But given the fact that they've then restricted the access to the site, we're really limited. I envisioned ' seeing a lot of U turns happening at the intersection of 77th Street and Dell Road, or 24th Street. Whatever you want to call it. Essentially traffic signage will be installed there to prohibit those type of turning movements. And as people get more accustomed to access the Kindercare through the Press site, it may alleviate that problem. ' Conrad: So you haven't seen what Mark has done in terms of the internal roadway. In my mind that is solving a major part of the traffic issue that had me concerned before. You have not seen this? ' Hempel: That's correct. I have not seen that in detail. ' Conrad: Okay. On the surface it sure looks like it's taking care of the traffic needs which would basically. The no U turn would basically force most traffic down that internal roadway, correct? Hempel: That's correct. 1 Mancino: Ladd, can I further ask a question of Dave? Looking at this... As I was thinking about it, one of my suggestions and can you put that up on an easel for us all to look at while I'm talking and Mark, you want to be too. To maybe simplify the circulation problem and I know that we were all concerned with the U turns. When you're leaving on Dell Road and the U turns we create on the 77th, we were concerned about the people from the Press parking lot cutting through to get to Dell Road and they still can go around the barrier, although that's much better. The barrier that's up there. But it still doesn't close off the cut thru. My question is, and it's something that's, I know that Jeff brought out in the last meeting was, flip flopping the playground and the parking lot. First of all the parking lot, according to the consultants, would be 33 spaces versus 45 and that's 1 per 6 child which is what our ordinances require. But if you have the parking lot, flip flop it. We have it on the north side of the building, you egress and ingress through the 77th driveway through the Press 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and go into the parking lot and that's your egress and ingress. There's nothing on the Dell Road so that people can't cut through. The Press employees can't cut through to get to Dell Road. You have one driveway that accesses both the Press and Kindercare, which is done for Abra and Goodyear and the emission controls where you have the one driveway and you go to each individual place, and doesn't that cut a lot of the circulation problems? Easy. Scott: Yeah, you don't have the U turns. Mancino: You don't have U turns. You have people coming off of Highway 5. If they're coming west, obviously a right turn onto Dell Road. East on 77th and come through that way. And you don't have any cut throughs and you don't have your turning radiuses so small. I mean you have to kind of redesign that entry point but that seems to me to be very, very simple and we could use it in other applications. Farmakes: How has the pad changed? That he's proposed. Conrad: I thought you didn't want to put the kids close to the electrical wires. Mancino: The building's in the same place. Conrad: But the kids are closer you know. I think. Farmakes: You need more room to the north. Mancino: You need less room because first of all the parking lot wouldn't be as big. The parking lot gets smaller. It has 33 spaces, not 45. And you can actually take the building a little bit more to your east and if you wanted to put some staff parking on the west side of the building there. The buildings are in the same place. The kids are going to be in the building 3/4 of the time you know in the day and that's the same distance from the electrical wires versus they may be outside a couple hours a day. And in the winter they're never. Conrad: Well did I read things wrong the last meeting we had. I really thought that, I think that's a real logical thing to move the parking lot to the other side in terms of traffic. Mark Senn: As far as traffic goes, I can't disagree with you but they can't build the facility then and the reason is the lot, the playground cannot be on that side of the building. Yes, there's the regulations as it relates to the readings coming off of the lines. Okay. The building right now meets that setback because the parking lot is in front of it. The playground area is considered the exact same way that the building is as it relates to what's emitted off of those power lines. They're actually more exposed because now you've 31 j 1 Cl I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 eliminated the shell building and putting the kids out in effect an open area and stuff. The other thing is that you also have a highway out there with 55 mph speed limit and stuff and if ' a runaway car would occur, you have absolutely no barrier at that point between a playground area in effect and where the kids would be outside. And in a situation, I mean you'd have a limitation of a berm and that's about it. Farmakes: There's two berms there though. The signal light berm and then there's the hill plus the trees you're planting. I see what you're saying. As 200 feet for a setback. That ' was their recommendation though. Mancino: It's not a state recommendation. ' Farmakes: Well there is no recommendation based on what we've read there in... There's ' fielder's choice. They can't say there is and they can't say there isn't. Mark Senn: There is no current U.S. law. There is a current U.S. standard which follows the ' European standard of 150 feet back. Okay. And the standard has no basis in law one way or the other. Right now there is pending legislation to make that but that hasn't been passed and it's an issue that's going through substantial debate because of the power constraints and who ' knows if it's ever going to be passed. Those laws have been passed in Europe and again that's a standard that's trying—in Europe. Mancino: How did you draw any conclusions from your reading? Conrad: Well, I guess I would err on, well. I think there's something to it and I would feel ' badly by, you've got a safety problem in terms of traffic and if some kid gets hurt, we're going to feel badly. Yet on the other hand, if you put 50 to 100 kids closer to some electrical, you don't know what that damage is. It's not necessarily seen real quickly. I ' couldn't do that. I couldn't expose them simply knowing that there probably is some impact. Even though it's not proven. Even though maybe there aren't the definite standards. I think if there's a debate, I guess you can't do it so the risk is we still have a mediocre traffic situation at best. But I think it's been improved. Your solution was just perfect, and I think the parking lot in the rear is exactly where it should be Nancy. But we can't put the kids out close to the wires. ' Mancino: What do we do about single family developments then. They are going to go very close to, you know and I see it in Eden Prairie. Down Highway 5. There are single family houses that are right underneath them. I mean they're not, maybe they're 20 feet away. What do we do at that point? Do we say as a city that you can't build closer than a certain footage from you know the power lines? And is that a taking? I mean you know. I'm 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 taking what you're saying and. I Mark Senn: If I could offer, you don't have to say that. Okay. Right now there isn't a , mortgage company I'm aware of that would lend on a house that way. Now that doesn't go back to say that when houses you're referencing in Eden Prairie were built some 20 -30 years ago, that wasn't the case. ' Mancino: No, new ones. Just the new ones that are on Highway 5 on the north side between , that shopping center and Dell Road. I mean there are new houses right there. Mark Senn: Between the shopping center and Dell Road? , Mancino: Yeah. What. I Conrad: County 4 going west. Mark Senn: The housing all along Highway 5 on the north side there is not new housing. , It's far from it. Mancino: But it's not 23 years old. I mean it's in the last. ' Mark Senn: Well it may be 15 years, yeah. Maybe 15 at best. ' Mancino: That was just last year. Scott: I know Diane's house is probably 5 years old and she's got a power line running down her east property line. Conrad: We wanted these power lines buried as I recall. ' Mancino: Does that help? ' Scott: No. What about taking your idea where the traffic goes down into the Press and there's no ingress and egress onto Dell Road but the ingress and egress is from the west side ' of the parking lot? Mancino: Sure. Take the same idea and just cut the egress and ingress off of Dell Road. a Keep the parking lot where it is and then you just, you know. I mean that would work too. 33 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 i Scott: Because it seems like, in listening to Dave, I mean it seems that that's going to be kind of a traffic pattern that you're not going to want to have more. They're talking about 800 trips a day or something like that? Hempel: That's correct. And then all of those would be doing the U turns. Some of those. Some would be normal southbound traffic on Dell Road. Another consideration too, if you eliminate that U turn would be to restrict this access onto Dell Road as a right out only... 1 Mancino: Yeah, no entry. Hempel: That would force your traffic to enter the site from the Press driveway. Mancino: But that still doesn't eliminate any sort of a cut through. I mean what the developer has done has helped negate that. I understand that. I just wanted to respond to your circulation and parking lot. Conrad: The cut thru is a big deal. And informing the Press employees not to do it is not, that's not forever. That's 2 weeks. A month and then it's gone. It's just got to, you know I'm looking for an absolute way. I think you've got to have a right in, right out. I'd rather not be moving people up and down that long road. There's going to be some development up there and I don't know. I guess I'd rather not do that if I don't have to so getting people out is probably the right thing to do but I really haven't found the solution to keep the cut through down. I can't come up with that. Scott: What do you think Dave? Hempel: I just thought of something and I'll throw it out on the table at this time. The access issue onto Dell Road, it would be nice to have an access onto Dell Road, especially if you have another development occur north of this site. What happens if that access street divides these two parcels? Or if we cut off the access to the Kindercare off of Dell Road but later on when the parcels to the north develop, we have a thru street there. That would serve as a. Mancino: Show me where that would be. Hempel: Midway point in this fashion in here. Mancino: Okay. So it services both the north and the south lot. Hempel: Right. Or either short cut if you will out of the site through here. It divides the 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 two points off the parking lot. What would happen though if this drive aisle would ideally have to be shifted back to provide this, have a 4 way intersection if you will. You'd have to provide enough buffering though between the playground area and their access. That would , give you access either to the site through there or through at this site here. It still wouldn't eliminate your U turn potential though at 77th Street if somebody wanted to come in through that and turn. , Mancino: But that would eliminate any cut through that we're concerned about through the ' parking lot? Hempel: That's correct. ' Scott: To the Kindercare center. I Mancino: Any other comments on that? That's pretty good. Conrad: Something to think about. Then you've got some traffic conflicts. Internal ' conflicts. Dave, would that cut out the road, no you'd still have the road going to the north. So you've got cross traffic. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any other comments other than the traffic issue. Scott: Okay. Any other comments? Matt. I Ledvina: Well, I'm not going to add anything more to the traffic discussion other than the memo from SRF. That first comment. I don't know, it seems to leave everything up in the ' air, and what weight do we place on that? It says the tight turning radiuses and the turning restrictions associated with the site are a concern, especially for emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire rescue vehicles. Is this to the point where we, is this such a concern that you know it's unacceptable? Do you have thoughts on that Dave? I don't know. I mean if we have to have that access, are we cutting ourselves short by approving this site plan? Hempel: I don't want to speak for public safety but I would like to point out there is two ' access points to this site for emergency vehicles. The quickest response route, I couldn't give you that answer at this time. I would suspect the turning radius onto Dell Road would ' accommodate a paramedic type unit vehicle or ambulance and definitely would not accommodate a full fledged fire truck. Ledvina: In the event that we had a fire emergency, a couple extra thousand feet or whatever to go through the Press access, right? 35 s Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: Actually it may be a shorter route if they use West 78th Street as a frontage road to get to the Press access. It might actually be quicker than going out onto Highway 5, down Dell Road and trying to make a turn there. Ledvina: That's right. Hempel: The other issue, if a fire truck pulls up, they may just stay on Dell Road to address any kind of a fire. Ledvina: Okay. So the magnitude of that comment is somewhat unknown but it's, it may not necessarily be. Conrad: I don't think it's stops it. Ledvina: A deal killer, okay. Alright. I guess I would like to see if we do take the recommendation by SRF. I notice that they have a parking plan that utilizes 33 parking stalls and I don't know what the proposal with the new plan is. It's probably still at 45 but I think one of the things that we've talked about is softening the, you know the parking lot impact on that side of the building and I think that would help if we start reducing those spots to what's a more reasonable number and what's, you know what can be laid out to accommodate the site based on ordinance and what's been discussed in the past. So I would like to see that. I don't know about the cut through issue. I think if you have a speed bump there, I think that's going to slow the traffic down and you're going to reduce your conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. They're going to be there but at least at slower speeds you're going to increase the safety factor so. Conrad: Matt, I think the new design that got brought in is going to help that. But pay attention to the fact that as you're coming from the north down to the south, you miss the first entry point and then you've got to loop around so we got double traffic in there. So you come in to the south. You loop around to drop your kid off to the north and then you loop around again so we're. Ledvina: Well, I don't know. Farmakes: You interpret SRF as a glowing recommendation? Is that what I heard? Ledvina: I don't know. I think that, I know that there's a lot of looping going on here. ' There's kind of one way type of traffic in here but I don't know. I think that it can work. That's the extent of my comments at this time. 36 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 Farmakes: They are not dependent on signage from a major highway, although I'm sure it ' would be beneficial or desirable. Again, I have to ask myself what's an appropriate use there. It almost seems like we're sticking a use there that would be inappropriate. I would expect in looking at that, that would be an industrial use. And remain so. The problem if the daycare were shifted to the north, I think it would lessen the environmental concerns, but also lessen the traffic problem. Again, that does not address the problem of the developer and marketability of the south lot. But I think that those are criteria that back up farther than just ' discussing the traffic issue. I don't think this is a glowing recommendation on the part of the engineer. At least that's my interpretation of it. It says yeah, you can do it but it's probably ' 37 Scott: Okay, thanks. Jeff. Farmakes: I'm going to back up just a little bit and rather than—traffic. I'm going to discuss , the use of what we have here. It's becoming apparent to me that this is not an appropriate use at this particular area. I think environmentally there are potential hazards. We're not sure what they are. It's constricting where the building goes or where the outlot development , goes in that building... There is virtually nothing that can be done for the Highway 5 issues that we talked about. That's another issue that we're not discussing here right now tonight. But it is a pertinent issue for this area. I think that this is typical of the type of the ' development that you're going to see on the remainder of Highway 5. More often than not we'll see parking lots extended as far and as close to Highway 5 as you can get them. The barrier I think is minimal between TH 5 and the highway, although I'm not sure it's an , endangerment but even, it's a buffer of some sort. Essentially you've got enough room for a row of trees and that's nothing different than what Eden Prairie's done. A lot of things in the traffic pattern are telling us that this is a make work situation. It's not an optimal situation. ' Potential options as I see it would be to run the road higher on the border line. I'm not sure how much that would reduce the additional lot sizes. , Mancino: What does that mean? Farmakes: The recommendation that the city engineer just made. To replace the Kindercare i on the north lot. Again, the marketability of the south lot comes into question I think because of it's access. I don't think that on this scale that this is an appropriate use for a daycare center. The issues have been brought up that financially it has to go there. It has to be seen ' from the highway. There are several daycares, both commercial and not commercial. I'll use the example of the Sunshine or Sunrise and non - commercial would be the Lutheran Church up here that we just looked at. They've got about 100 kids there. It's an old daycare. It's been there for years. ' Scott: Or the New Horizon that's on Lake Drive and faces south. Farmakes: They are not dependent on signage from a major highway, although I'm sure it ' would be beneficial or desirable. Again, I have to ask myself what's an appropriate use there. It almost seems like we're sticking a use there that would be inappropriate. I would expect in looking at that, that would be an industrial use. And remain so. The problem if the daycare were shifted to the north, I think it would lessen the environmental concerns, but also lessen the traffic problem. Again, that does not address the problem of the developer and marketability of the south lot. But I think that those are criteria that back up farther than just ' discussing the traffic issue. I don't think this is a glowing recommendation on the part of the engineer. At least that's my interpretation of it. It says yeah, you can do it but it's probably ' 37 t I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 not a good idea. I have concern about the U turn issues and I think any of those would be enough to deny this usage and I see several still yet remaining as compelling issues to me to discuss it. That's where I'm at. Mancino: Another thing I think you would add. I think we're trying to work something in there that just doesn't, isn't working. Circulation wise. Highway 5 wise. Even architecturally wise in this IOP area. I think that the Kindercare architectural style does not fit in here. So I have still some big concerns with trying to put it here on this lot. Scott: Well we have 3, we need 3 motions. One for the site plan review. One for the preliminary plat and one for the conditional use permit. So, would any of you like to take a ' stab at any one of those? Mancino: Didn't hear your comments. Scott: I would have just been, I don't have any new issues so. So I'd like to call the question or have a motion please. Jeff, do you want to take the conditional use permit. Mancino: Kate, a question for you and Sharmin. Conditional use permit. This is a conditional use permitted in this area, correct? Al -Jaff: For use of a daycare center. Mancino: Daycare center in an IOP. Mancino: Okay. So that's a done deal, Kate is it? Al -Jaff: ...permitted under conditional use permits in an IOP. Aanenson: No, you have to go through the criteria to see whether or not it meets the criteria of a conditional use. That's what Sharmin has outlined in the report. And we have to have findings to support your recommendation. That's what Sharmin put in her report... Conrad: Before somebody makes a motion. Nancy, Jeff. If the parking lot were flip flopped, then what? Mark says it's a dead deal but if it was flip flopped, have we solved. Farmakes: The only way that that would work if you flip flopped it is you have to back up the building a little bit farther to the north so that the playground area was beyond the recommendation. I'm still uncomfortable with the recommendation. 150 feet. That's what the Europeans are doing. I've never seen so many, well I guess I don't look at government f Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 reports that often from the EPA but it kind of reminds me of the water quality thing from where we had this various government agencies giving you reports that really were 300 pages to say very little. I got nothing out of those reports. Conrad: So how do you read that? Then if you got nothing out of them, then are you concerned? Farmakes: If there is a problem, I hate to put kids within 50 feet of them... Mancino: Yeah, exactly. I'm still concerned. I feel like it's a catch 22 either way. I mean yes, I would like to flip flop this as I first brought up and I thought that that probably solved the circulation problems but I'm not going to put children at risk. Farmakes: If the city looks at acquiring some additional property along TH 5 for some tree massing or something. Total feet or enough property to get us something other than a row of trees, will there be a viable lot to the north if you move everything up 50 feet? A second lot. It seems to me that you have to ask the question first as to whether or not that particular use there, even as a conditional use, is viable for that area and then does it fit into the site. I'm still very worried about this issue of are we taking considerations for the outlot, the totlot issue. We're going to move it 150 feet here but again, the criteria that we're using is being supplied by the applicant. And I was surprised that the government really has to press this issue at all. Mancino: Well if you move this to the north and you put a building in for people to work in, I mean you move this to the north and then you have this southern lot. What goes in there? Do you want those people susceptible to the same problem? Whether it's children or whether it's adults. Inside a building. Conrad: You're really talking about quantities. The power line is there. The power line is running along Highway 5. It was approved to go there. There are, to my knowledge there aren't really grade restrictions. There aren't restrictions so we're making them up or we're just.. (There was a tape change at this point and the remainder of the discussion pertaining to this item did not get recorded. The following is a summary of the action taken.) Matt Ledvina made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #94 -1 as shown on the site plan received April 13, 1994 and as updated on June 1, 1994 by the applicant pertaining to the access from the north, subject to the following conditions: 39 LLI C � n J 1 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1. That the applicant must revise plans to include trash screening of the Press site and show the type of materials used to screen the trash enclosures on the Press site. Plans ' must be submitted for staff review prior to City Council meeting. 2. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signage on site. The monument sign on the Kindercare site shall utilize brick as a base for the sign rather than metal poles. 3. The applicant shall provide a meandering berm with landscaping along the south portion of the site, between the parking lot and Highway 5. The height of the berm ' shall be between 3 and 4 feet. The applicant shall also provide staff with a detailed cost estimate of landscaping to be used in calculating the required financial guarantees. These guarantees must be posted prior to building permit issuance. There shall be added landscaping to the perimeter of the Press expansion of coniferous trees as suggested by Nancy Mancino. ' 4. The applicant shall enter into a site plan development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. ' 5. Meet all conditions outlined in the Fire Marshal memo dated March 10, 1994. 6. The Press addition shall contain some architectural detailing (with relief) to break up ' the long wall masses 7. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards ' shall be submitted. 8. The grading/utility plan shall be revised to incorporate storm sewers in the parking lot's ' drive aisles for the Press. Detailed drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. ' 9. The applicant shall apply and comply with the necessary permits from the appropriate agencies (MPCA, Watershed District, and City Building Department). ' 10. Silt fence shall be placed along the northern property line where the parking lot for the Press is being relocated. ' 11. A rock construction entrance shall also be placed at the driveway entrance to the Kindercare site off of Dell Road. ' 40 r Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 12. The applicant shall utilize the existing water service from Dell Road. Open cutting of Dell Road will be prohibited. 13. The main thoroughfare (drive aisle) located on the Press site north of the main parking lot area should be a minimum width of 26 feet with turning radiuses at 77th Street West of 30 feet and two way traffic. In addition, the main thoroughfare (drive aisle) shall be posted with no parking signs. 14. The driveway access point shall be constructed in accordance to the City's typical industrial driveway apron detail. 15. The applicant shall provide the City with a security deposit (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee boulevard restoration. All boulevards disturbed as a result of the site improvements shall be restored with sod. 16. Conditions of the Building Official's memo dated March 25, 1994. I 17. An island or a speed bump shall be placed between the Press and Kindercare site to slow down and discourage traffic from cutting through the Kindercare site. 18. No roof top equipment shall be visible from Highway 5, Dell Road or 77th Street West. 19. Brick shall be used on the Kindercare facade to resemble the building shown in the submitted photographs. 20. The traffic circulation and parking lot layout shall be revised as shown on the revised plan prepared by Strgar- Roscoe - Fausch, Inc. Access to Dell Road shall be revised to a right -out only to eliminate short cuts. The maximum number of parking stalls will be limited to 33. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all fees associated with the traffic study prepared by SRF. 22. There shall be a landscaping easement of 30 feet running parallel to Highway 5 and then north parallel to Dell Road a distance of 75 feet. A significant number of trees shall be placed on the southeast corner for an entryway. Plantings around the building as well as interior parking shall be provided. 23. Staff shall review an east /west connection. 41 u I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' 24. Proportion of the roof size to the building wall height is incompatible. Architectural plans must be revised to reflect compatibility. The applicant shall ' bring in architectural drawings of the Kindercare building making it compatible with buildings in the surrounding area. Ledvina and Conrad voted in favor of this motion and Mancino, Scott and Farmakes voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. ' Farmakes moved and Mancino seconded to deny Site Plan Review #94 -1 for the Kindercare Daycare facility based on traffic circulation and inconclusive information relating to the harmful effects of Electro Magnetic Field from power lines. Scott, Mancino and Farmakes ' voted in favor of denial and Conrad and Ledvina voted in opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. ' The Conditional Use Permit #94 -1 was also denied by the Planning Commission. ' PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY ZONED RSF TO PUD (46.56 ACRES), PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 74 LOTS OF MIXED HIGH ' DENSITY (186 DWELLING UNITS), 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN OUTLOT WHICH WILL CONTAIN FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE(S), SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MIXED HIGH DENSITY DWELLING UNITS AND ' VACATION OF A PORTION OF 86TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF HWY. 101 AT 86TH STREET, MISSION HILLS, TANDEM PROPERTIES. I Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. I (Taping of the meeting began again at this point in the discussion.) Don Jensen: ...window shapes create budding problems for signing and other ways to make ' ceiling of those designs. They're a little bit more difficult and they add cost to the building. So if we can keep within those particular parameters that we've looked at and that we've proposed, we would appreciate the Planning Commission working with us on that particular 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 issue. If there's any questions about that particular building style, that really is our focus. We've also passed around the light fixture that we'll be working with NSP. It's a high pressure sodium light fixture for the internal street. For the street lighting system. It is a regular residential style light. It is not a downcast shielded light. There is glare with it and that's part of what you get for the increased security and the extra light tax. They do have shields on the tops so that they are focusing the light more down on the roadway surfaces. Mancino: Are they decorative? Don Jensen: Correct. Mancino: I didn't see any pictures. Farmakes: They're over there. Don Jensen: There's still one in there so I can start one from the left side if you'd like. They're the same fixture there. NSP, in an effort to respond to development goals of having decorative fixtures over the last 2 or 3 years has come out with a series of light fixtures that they own and maintain under lease to associations for a period of time of about 25 years and so the benefit there is an association does not have to go to a distributor for some different design that goes out of vogue in 5 or 10 years and becomes very difficult to maintain and operate. This way you get the better buying power from a major utility company. They're going to maintain it if it goes out. The photo cell goes out. You call NSP or the electrical company that's in that district. They take them out and they replace it. They fix it. It's part of your ongoing monthly service charge. On the buildings themselves, you're going to have lights that may or may not be on photo cells to highlight the entry ways and those are going to be your typical residential lights. Those are normally in more of a decorative fixture with smaller incandescent light bulbs. Not high pressure sodium and those can either be controlled with a switch or they're on a photo cell. When they're on photo cells continuously, which is the theme for our villa area here, they do not tend to emit more than about a half a foot candle which is what staff is talking about. Much more than the center of that particular private roadway that you have there. So they're encompassing the whole driveway apron. The garage apron out to the roadway. You add streetlights, then you're able to increase your foot candles up a little bit more so that you've got more hot spots on the roadway surface. So you can put some high lights on an intersection areas where you're going to have traffic coming out and in particular that's important for the winter months. If there's any questions about the architectural style of the garden home. The villa everybody seems to be pretty comfortable with. I'd be happy to address them. The square footage is a little bit over the 1,200 -1,225 square feet on that particular product. Again, that's designed more for empty nesters who are looking for a handicap adaptable and handicap accessible type dwelling unit. 43 i I r Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 All on one floor. All the living area and the difference between the two buildings is that the interior units, 1 car garage on our 8 unit buildings can allow people who are widows, widowers, single people, never married who really don't need that 2 car garage. It also has 1 less bathroom in it so it's a slightly smaller floorplan. When you add all of those buildings up on the ... part of the road, you have a total of 12 different buildings. 56 units. A width real similar to single family structure when you encompass both units. We think that there's an adequate amount of diversity there which accomplishes the city's goals to have a diversity of housing type and that it is an interesting building and an exciting building to look at in real, up close and that's why we have the photographs that we brought along that we just shot out in the field about a week ago. Scott: Comments or questions? Conrad: Not yet. Scott: Okay. Do you want to talk about the buildings to the south? Don Jensen: Sure. We don't want to spend a great deal of time with them. But what we have are the two different building types. The villa, which I have on the larger lots in the back configuration. Just hold up the floor plan right here. We have square footages of about 1,125 square feet on the center with the 1 car garage. It has a living area upstairs and downstairs. Floor plan here. Upstairs. Downstairs. Direct entry into the kitchen. The living area with the patio area in front. The end units have a patio area off the side. They're approximately 1,200 square feet. 2 car garage. Again, direct access into the kitchen as well as the front door in bold design. 2 bedrooms upstairs in both particular instances and we have the bathroom upstairs in both cases has the master. We do have the opportunity in some cases, because of the plumbing, to have an optional bath on some of these dwelling units downstairs. When we go to the non back to back building, represented by this elevation and also which we passed around in a neighborhood that we're getting under way in Inver Grove Heights of what that looks like from the rear to match the elevation in a real photograph as well as the front. What we have in that particular case has increased the square footage and gone to a, not mandatory but it's going to have 2 bathrooms. 1 down, 1 up. More for guests on the downstairs for your half bath. It's labeling an upstairs square footage is increased up to 1,258 square feet on the outside and it's a little bit more square footage, about 1,180 square feet on the interior dwelling unit which again has a 1 car garage. The target market there is the first time home buyers, which have been increasingly locked out of the western suburbs. It is predominantly 50% women purchasing as the only person on the mortgage. That doesn't mean that there's a lot of children. It just means that there are single women that are applying on the mortgage and it is an opportunity for those people to get started in home ownership options, especially in light of all the employment opportunities I f Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that exist in the Chaska, the Jonathan, Chanhassen, Eden Prairie market. That's been real consistent. We'll see another 20% that will be single men. We'll see 20% that are couples and about 10% that have been older buyers, which we believe are now served more by the garden home product because it's approximately the same square footage that we can offer to all on one floor versus the two floors and the stairs that are the inherent problem. We believe that a lot of the older buyer, and I'll categorize that as people above 55 -60 that show up on the mortgage, were interested in buying something that was within their price range and that was in a number of our neighborhoods, something between $65,000.00 and $85,000.00, depending on an end unit or interior unit in whatever neighborhood that happened to be at. And we believe that there's an awful lot of people who would like to, at least in the older market, not spend all that money that they've happened to accumulated, or not accumulate, on new housing that better meets their mobility concerns or their long term concerns. Both of these are in associations, which means that the maintenance of these areas are consistent. We have one association in the north. It's a townhouse platting, which means each individual dwelling unit has it's own lot and block number. The villa neighborhood to the south is condominium platting meaning that it's one lot for the whole building and it's added in a sequential fashion so that people own ... in the dwelling unit. Both of these are governed by the State of Minnesota with new laws that have changed as of yesterday regarding new structure for adequate maintenance. Regarding a whole series of items that were meant to level the playing field, in the legislature's eyes, as to what goes into an association. Something we've been doing for a number of years which is change the language. Mancino: Where's all the metering? Applicant; Metering of? Mancino: Electrical. Whatever. Don Jensen: Okay. If you notice on some of the photographs, and we have those probably the best way to see it, right through here. Mancino: Many of them are stuck by the front door. Don Jensen: That's the case in all of our dwelling units. The way that we lay it out. Mancino: I can't see it. Don Jensen: You can't see it? Mancino: No. 45 G i I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' Don Jensen: Well, I'll just point it out on the elevations then. ' Mancino: Is it here somewhere? Where you have your electrical meter and the. Don Jensen: Sure. You have to look closely because it's in a lot of the shadows through here. Where it is, it's in the wrap around right by the front door so right on the opposite side of this wall right through here, that's where the meter would be in this location. Now what Rottlund has done, which is different from some other builders, is we've got one gas meter for each dwelling unit. We've got one electrical unit for each dwelling unit and we have purposely not ganged them up so that we're not ganging them up on any one individual home ' unit. The gas meters on the end elevations occur on the end elevation so the only thing that's going to happen near the front door, which will occur on the 4 unit buildings, is the electrical meter which is now occurring also with the telephone and the cable box. So you've got an ' area of approximately this size for electrical meter, telephone and for cable, all near the front door area of each dwelling. ' Mancino: And is it attached to the wall? Don Jensen: Yes. And they're. I Mancino: How high up is it? I Don Jensen: They're screwed to the wall. By code they have to be about 5 feet high. Mancino: Can you camouflage them? Don Jensen: No, because they need to be read by the people. ' Mancino: Oh no, but I have a box around mine so, and it's inside so that you can't, you know it's camouflaged architecturally. Don Jensen: In this case, no. We understand Minnegasco's looking at a different supplier, as is their goal to be more service oriented to customers, which includes builders and the residents. They're have a smaller meter other than the one that they've been using for years and years and years, which is approximately the size of the television. Small television. 19 inch television. So in the case of an 8 unit building for example, right through here you have ' your gas meter and your electrical meter in and around the front door. In this zone through here. The end units. You have the gas on the outside and have the electrical, telephone around the front door in this area. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Any questions or comments on these two designs? Good. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add? Don Jensen: Not at this time. Scott: Great. Is there another member of the development team that would like to talk about some aspect of the development? Dick Putnam: Mr. Chairman, maybe we could I guess just try to wrap up by quickly going through the recommendations and where we have questions, maybe we can just ask that question and highlight them for you. On pages 25 and 26 of the report, at the bottom of page 25 it talks about dedication of right -of -way for one lot. I think Mr. Hempel and planning staff remember this last item we discussed previously about dedication to the right -of -way. I guess Mr. Klingelhutz and ourselves objected to it before. We don't believe it's fair, equitable and legal. I think the staff is ... little different configuration, if I'm not mistaken. They've taken the tact that we should approach it like you would approach any other enlarging of an existing city street or county road, is that correct? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yeah. That's essentially correct. We felt, the original concept review I think was that staff felt at that time the entire strip should be dedicated. 230 or 270 foot wide strip. After consulting with the city attorney's office on that, that would have been excessive and probably... legal but there was some talk of we do have some rights to some future right -of -way out there within reason. Most likely this will be turned back to the city for more upgrading, which will deal with assessments and financing mechanisms to upgrading this section of TH 101. Therefore we felt that it is fair to require dedication of a normal one- half of the normal right -of -way which would be required on a collector type of street, which is 100 feet or one -half of that would be 50 feet of right -of -way. But the remaining balance of that platted as an outlot for the future intent for acquisition through condemnation or outright purchase of the applicant. Dick Putnam: I guess Dave, clarify it for us. In other words, the policy would be for us to dedicate one -half of the right -of -way necessary for a 100 foot street, is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. Dick Putnam: Okay. What we would propose then, since there's a 66 foot right -of -way on TH 101 today, or 33 feet on each side of center line, we would dedicate an additional 17 feet. Not 50 feet. Is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. That was the intent is to gain a total of 50, one -half of the right -of- 47 I F1 L� 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 way, 50 feet. So if they've dedicated already 33 feet or half of the right -of -way out there, an additional 17 feet would equal the 50 foot of right -of -way. Scott: Well how's that impacted with, I know that the alignment #3 was chosen as the proposed and that alignment does not run right over existing TH 101 but you have somehow determined how to, are you talking about. It sounds like we're talking about existing TH 101 but there's this proposed alignment #3. How do you reconcile those two? Hempel: Alternative #3 also blankets the existing TH 101 alignment. Therefore, we would be essentially able to acquire part of that dedication. Dick Putnam: Okay, then our understanding is correct. Then we don't have any problem with that 17 foot additional right -of -way. The next sentence however is one that's fairly scary. If you can put yourself in a position of the IRS asking you to create a blank check for them in case there are future taxes needed and you wouldn't mind agreeing to it, that's exactly what this says to us. The applicant should be required to provide the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit for future upgrading of Highway 101. The amount of the escrow will have to be determined after the preliminary design and feasibility study for upgrading TH 101 north of Trunk Highway 212. I guess if we knew what it was, we'd certainly look at it but it's very difficult for us or anyone to agree to something that's that unclear. I notice that that recommendation is not in the recommendation section but it is referred to here and I thought I'd inform you that we make I guess our concern fairly straight forward. Until such time that someone can tell us what it is and that everyone is being assessed equitably and fairly, we can't agree to something without knowing what it is and I think you can understand our reasoning for that. If you go back to the recommendation section, the first part of it of dedicating to a 50 foot width is there but not the escrow portion and we prefer your recommendation at the end of the report rather than the sentence I just read. At the bottom of page 26 it talks, just to clarify. It talks about the wetlands and it says the property appears to contain 3 wetlands and 1 of the wetlands will be filled as a consequence of the project. We don't know of a wetland we're filling. If you read on through Basin A and B, the last sentence in that section says, it appears that there will be no fill or excavation on existing wetlands. We agree with that sentence. We are not filling any wetland up. We aren't getting any permits to do that and just so you understand, we aren't filling in any. Scott: Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to further investigate that clarification with our Water Resource Coordinator. Dick Putnam: We really aren't doing any. That's the important thing and hopefully that's .• Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 clear. If we could go to the page 29 and in going through the recommendations. Item 1 talks about construction of streets, particular 86th Street where it goes through. We're, in talking with the staff, 86th Street where it goes through the new TH 101 right -of -way would be built as a temporary section and not as a permanent section because it would be ripped up when TH 101 comes through. Just so that's understood. Scott: Have members of staff heard these? I mean is this a dialogue that you've already had with the applicant that is being repeated for our benefit or should this be something that they should be talking to you about and then you bring it to us? Aanenson: That's what we'd like to do. Hempel: Most of this dialogue has not been brought to our attention. Scott: Okay, because let's, why don't, I think that discussion needs to be had with the staff prior to bringing that here. Because there's a lot of these things that we're not going to be able to react to such as. Mancino: Until you work with staff. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure how many more he's got. Maybe there's. Dick Putnam: All I'm trying to do is clarify so in everybody's case you know, when it says all of the streets will be built to the design section. We spoke with the engineering department and the planning staff before and obviously the section in the old, or the new TH 101 right -of -way will be a paved road section but it won't be curb and gutter and build a permanent road because it's going to get ripped up in, I think Karen said 1997. All I'm trying to do is clarify for everyone's benefit. That's my only purpose for it. I'm not trying to be argumentative but just. Conrad: Do you have a lot of clarifications like number 1? Dick Putnam: No, I really don't. Conrad: Okay. Dick Putnam: Item number 3 I think that deals with the storm water. Ed mentioned the fact that it would be very difficult to go to 3. We believe we can go to 4 ponds plus the pond that's there for the commercial section and we'd like to be able to work with the staff on defining which one of those are. I think we have a couple things that we can do to do that. .. I � F L �i J I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Item number 10, which is what we discussed with the street. We'd be looking at, and that's on page 30. The westerly 50 feet really is an additional 17 feet bringing it to a 50 foot total, and we don't have a problem with that. We did have a problem with the escrow for... On page 31, item 17 where the staff is asking that they be able to discuss housing districts with the builder, in this case Rottlund, for moderate cost. For working families. Rottlund has no problem with that. These are ... units so whatever program the city would like to work with us on, I'm sure they'd be happy to do that. They aren't rental units. They're for sale units. Other than that I think by and large most of the items are pretty clear. A question Don just mentioned on 15(a) which is the totlot. This lists a number of different things that could be included in it. I think what we're looking at for the scope of the project, the people living there and the size of the space, and it's location next to the pond. The picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus for small children would be the extent of the development. Not tennis courts, basketball hoop maybe but not tennis courts. That sort of thing. So with that, I guess Mr. Chairman, those were the only items that we could see other than the commercial area. If you have any questions. Scott: The reason for the comment was there's another development group that goes through the litany of, and unfortunately I may have painted you with the same brush but we have another gentleman that we dearly love who kind of goes through each and every item and it's not. Dick Putnam: I didn't give my name first each time I did it. Scott: So anyway, that's the explanation. Scott: Well that's when we got it right? Dick Putnam: You should understand, we just received the staff report Friday? No Monday. Dick Putnam: The reason we haven't had a chance to talk very much to the staff clarifying is that we just got it. Scott: Good, Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted one more clarification. Apparently there's a duplication in conditions 7 and 18. Worded somewhat differently but they essentially mean the same. I would propose to delete condition 7 and rephrase condition 18 to read, ' preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon and the remaining sentence as stated in the staff report. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Preliminary. Hempel: And final plat approval shall be contingent and the remaining sentence as is. Scott: And we're hearing the preliminary plat right now so basically what you're saying is that we're not going to be able to approve, as this condition, we can't approve the preliminary plat for this development because that's what's on our. Hempel: That's a good point. We should rephrase it to delete the preliminary portion of it. Scott: Final plat. Hempel: Final. Scott: Okay, I got it. Would anybody else from the development team like to speak? Yes sir. Please state your name for the viewers at home and your address. Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I own the property that we're talking about here pertaining to the proposed commercial portion of the property. One of the reasons that the plat was laid out on that property is I think I explained this at the last meeting before the Council is, when you haven't got a highway for a road, who's going to build a commercial property. How can you really lay out a plat until you know what the map is going to be? I guess I'm not too anxious about leaving it out of the plat but if I would have to come in and say, well this is moving to here and this is going to be here and this is going to be here at the present time, I think personally I think it'd be an effort in futility because of the fact that who knows what that neighborhood is going to want and who wants to come in there as a business. The other thing I had quite a shock on when I looked at 50 foot setback on 4 sides of a 8 acre tract as an open space area. Now on one side on 86th Street can be changed to 30 feet. But if you take 50 feet around an 8 acre tract, and you're cutting out about 3 1/2 acres of that 8 acres ... and as far as I'm concerned, that's a taking. It isn't a giving, it's a taking and I think the courts would say something on that. The 30 feet I could see, I can see 50 feet using part of that 50 feet for the driveway and your parking lot but to expect to give 50 feet clean around an 8 acre tract of land I think is very excessive. What if Highway 212 never comes? What happens? What happens to the proposed right -of -way which hasn't been acquired? Probably never will be acquired. What happens to the property of that right -of- way and how can it be accessed without some other plan? Are we sure Highway 212 is going to become a viable thing within the next 50 years? It's been going on for almost 50 years at the present time and I've been on the Highway 212 committee for 42 years. And we're looking at something that's not very tangible. No money available. Whenever Carlson vetoes the 5% tax increase, it makes it less apt to happen. And I'm a Republican and I think 51 I' C 1 �I f u E Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 that's one thing that really turns me against Governor Carlson... something pretty essential for the State of Minnesota to keep our roads in shape. And you're talking about the new Highway 101 north of 212. And you're looking at a 200 foot right -of -way. Is that going to be built with Highway 212 or what are you talking about at the present time? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, at the present time we don't have a set date of upgrading this segment of road. Development certainly will help dictate a time line or bringing it up to speed here a little bit faster. We've projected a date of sometime after 1997. Al Klingelhutz: Highway 101's a state highway and if the road is built prior to the time of 212 coming in, you're planning on assessing the abutting property owners for part of that, for putting in that road. You're going to put in a 4 lane collector highway. Major highway from Highway 212 north and you expect the landowners to pay for part of that highway? Hempel: Just one clarification. We're looking at the upgrade of TH 101 north of 86th Street. That portion up to where Market Boulevard is. That segment the city and /or county will be the funding source for that upgrade. Of course there are funding mechanisms out there such as the TIF district. County Aid. State Aid dollars. And assessments are not out of the question. ' Al Klingelhutz: Up to the new 86th Street? ' Hempel: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: Okay. At the present time you aren't thinking of going beyond it? I Hempel: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: Well then it doesn't affect my property so it doesn't ... but when you're looking at going across a large tract of land which the State, if 212 ever intends to be built, has said they would redo Highway 101... Scott: I think the last time we saw this project I think the comment was that MnDot was going to be participating very heavily in that stretch from the proposed 212 to 86th. Maybe ' we need to push that 86th Street a little bit further north. Push it to the creek. Al Klingelhutz: Well I know that's been in the plan all the time that they were going to take care of everything from 212 to 86th Street. Proposed 86th Street. Hempel: That's correct. That's our understanding as well. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: We'll see how that goes. Good, any other comments sir? Al Klingelhutz: Well you know, looking at the commercial zoning. The signage in there. One monument sign and if you're going to throw the commercial out it doesn't mean a thing at this part of it right now. But one monument sign for the whole lot and then the next sentence says wall signs are permitted on no more than two street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed 24 square feet. Now do I read this wrong? That I can have all the wall mounted signs of only 24 square feet. That's on 6 x 4. If I have 5 businesses in there, I'll have a 1 x 1 sign on each building. Al -Jaff: Well the intention is 24 square feet per sign. Not for all signage. Not all wall mounted signage. Al Klingelhutz: monument be? or? 'J Well then clarify the one monument to me too. Where would the one ' On the one entrance or should I have one on both entrances to the property Al -Jaff: One sign for the entire. Al Klingelhutz: I don't think, you know like the City of Chanhassen is going to put up ... City of Chanhassen on 2 or 3 different places. When you go into a subdivision from 2 different directions, you almost should be allowed to have 2 monument signs when you enter the place. I don't see anything elaborate or anything but just some nice entrance signage. Scott: Which condition would this be? Al Klingelhutz: That'd be number 1 on page 38. Aanenson: Put it this way. We're all recommending that the commercial be left as an outlot at this time. It's more of a conceptual. We're not going to be zoning. We don't know when it's going to come back and as Mr. Klingelhutz indicated. Mancino: It could be changed. Al Klingelhutz: One problem I've got though is with storm water drainage... taking commercial into consideration at the present time. Where is that water going to go sometime in the future? Scott: Where were you guys saying? 53 i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al Klingelhutz: Where it was proposed on the original plat, a good share of that storm water drainage was already designated to go into one of the holding ponds. Scott: I guess it was said that some of it's going to be draining kind of to north, northeast into a retention pond that's going to serve both the southern portion of the development and then also part of the commercial and then when 212 is built, into some sort of a ditch of some sort like that so I mean. ' Al Klingelhutz: Something that could come up in the future if it isn't thought about now. If they put a holding pond in the residential portion of the property and if by coming at some future date with commercial zoning on that, and they say well you've got to have a holding ' pond and there's already a holding pond's been put in that should be sized big enough for the commercial site outside of what goes along 212 and things like that. And some future Planning Commissions and future Councils says hey, you've got to put in the holding pond ' and there's already a holding pond been put in to take care of that portion of the water that flows from the commercial property into residential property. Scott: Well I would assume some calculations have been made based upon a pretty flat pad to convey water in both directions, I would guess. ' Hempel: As part of our comprehensive surface water management plan, we designated regional ponding areas for both water quality and quantity. To be quite honest I get confused ' a commercial site. What was designated, if anything, on this site. We'll look into that for him. ' Scott: Good, thanks. Al Klingelhutz: Okay now, about berming along 86th Street. I notice you're saying that the ' residential part is going to have to berm their's and you're saying that commercial. Well then there's going to have to be a berm between the residential. Are we going to have two berms there? Scott: I don't think so. Al -Jaff: No. Al Klingelhutz: 86th Street and then that portion that goes up south of 86th Street up to the southerly boundary of the residential property. Scott: Sharmin. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Al -Jaff: There will be a berm that the residential developers will be providing to separate the residential district from the commercial district, which is consistent with what the conceptual approval stated and then most probably there will be a meandering berm that we would require around the perimeters of the commercial parcel as well. It's something that we're requiring with the residential district. Al Klingelhutz: What's the use of having a berm between the highway and a commercial property? I can see it between the residential but between the highway and commercial property. When you allow buildings on main street to build right up to the sidewalk. Then you come out here and you've got 50 feet of open space along 4 sides of a piece of property, it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me. Scott: Well I think the precedent I think is set with the berming requirements for the Highway 5. My guess is there's going to be a Highway 212 task force that's going to be putting together the same sort of a study so I think that's consistent with the treatment that we're giving to the requirements for construction along Highway 5. Al Klingelhutz: I know I haven't... Highway 212. This states you're going to berm Highway 212. They're taking a 400 foot right -of -way there. What are you going to do with it all? Scott: I would think though, if there's a 30 to 50 foot, whatever that setback is, that is where the berm would be going. Al -Jaff: That's correct. Al Klingelhutz: I don't know where all the ground is going to come from that you're going to not let anybody change the contours of the land. Scott: I don't have that. That's another thing I don't have an answer for. Thank you very much. Anybody else like to, from the applicant, like to speak about the development. Okay. A public hearing is scheduled and I see a few residents. Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak? Yes ma'am. Please state your name and your address. Martha Klein: My name is Martha Klein at 8412 Great Plains Blvd. My main concern I guess being up here is to ... and I live on the existing TH 101 but everything that's being 55 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 shown is on the proposed. I guess my position is that, then this should not be started until the proposed highway is available because we exit onto that highway through our driveway. As do many of my neighbors. My children have to catch the bus on that highway. And this is just going to be an incredible amount of traffic increase. Scott: I'm sorry, which side of the highway do you live on? Martha Klein: I would be, right there. Scott: Okay. Martha Klein: So everything that's being shown says proposed Highway 101. It is not there yet. As Dave stated, it might not be there until '97 or after. And just 2 months ago we came to a meeting. You know got-.alternative for TH 101 and it was stressed how the traffic has already reached it's capacity. I'm not against change but I feel we already are up to our capacity. The noise, the pollution and my children's safety as well as my neighbors. There's so many neighbors along there that have no facility to turn around. They're all elderly. They cannot turn their vehicles around. They have to back out onto that highway. And the traffic's already incredible. I don't know where these are, if this plan is based on a proposed highway, I think it should wait until that highway is available for use. Scott: Dave with, I guess in this particular area. Typically how would that work when the ' highway is widened? I mean obviously the ingress and egress to their property needs to be maintained. If you could maybe go through a real quick scenario of how that would work. I know that this is, maybe take a step back. Is this a chicken and the egg situation? Let's say ' this development gets through to final, let's say it's completely approved. Ground breaking starts. This development will be coming on line. Applicant: August. Scott: Yeah August of. Applicant: August of '94. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, yes. This project, as we mentioned earlier, is contingent upon the city authorizing the Lake Riley trunk utility improvements which would extend trunk sewer service to this area. This area is able to be serviced through city sewer. Sanitary sewer. And it's been one of the issues that we had all along. What's going to trip upgrading TH 101. And obviously without development pressure like this, is there really a need or a warrant to upgrade TH 101. So you kind of need this to spearhead development for 56 f Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 upgrading Safety concerns radin of TH 101. Safe along H 101 are certainly valid. We hope to, with , g this project, where the new intersection of 86th and TH 101, incorporate some safety improvements such as turn lanes, by -pass lane and improve the sight distance on the hill , there ... one side or the other. All that will be addressed with this temporary connection to TH 101 with 86th Street. There is also a sharp curve or narrow bridge further out to the north. ' Those issues will not be addressed with this development. Those will be addressed later on after 1997 with the future upgrade of TH 101. Fred Hoisington, who's been the city's consultant for probably over the last 4 years in designing different alternatives felt that, I've , got traffic counts too for TH 101 but they felt that this development here would not exceed the traffic capacity of TH 101 on this site but it'd be pushing it to a limit. Scott: As it exists today? Hempel: As it exists today. Right now Trunk Highway 101, based on the 1991 traffic , counts, carries about 4,400 cars a day in the vicinity of 86th StreeVTH 101 intersection. To give you an example of the traffic north of Trunk Highway 5 up TH 101, it's 10,000 cars. Now you have a similar road design although we probably don't have the wide ditch sections ' and curvy roads that you have south of TH 5. Martha Klein: Excuse me, do you have driveways exiting onto that highway? Hempel: There are a few, yes. Scott: Yeah, on the Eden Prairie side. , Hempel: On the Eden Prairie side and also in Chanhassen. I Scott: And also in Chanhassen. Yeah, as a matter of fact they're kind of, they're lake. It's very, very similar. There are lake homes on Lotus Lake who have very narrow driveways but ' I guess what I'm trying to do here is to kind of, to give you a bit of an idea of how this is all fitting together and the impact and I know that when the development does come on line, and you live north. It looks like you live north of where the new 86th is going to be coming out. ' So correct me. There won't be any construction activity by their driveway because they're north of where the construction's going to be going? 11 h acceleration or deceleration or for the - Hempel: There may be some, what we ca the ac by-pass light at TH 101. But no 4 lane improvements. No driveway corrections in that area. That ' would be upon the homeowner if a safety concern arises, which is a normal responsibility of the homeowner to put in a turn around. 57 , 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: Question. When will these be inhabited? If you start construction August '94. Jim Ostenson: I would think that if we were able to start this fall, we would certainly be at least 6 months before there'd be any inhabitants at all. Don Jensen: Yeah, you need at least 4 months to get one of these buildings done. That'd be about a month longer than a single family structure. Mancino: So next winter. Don Jensen: Right. Into the winter. Jim Ostenson: And then beyond that we would probably look at a 30 to a 36 month build out for the entire site. So the building's all got built and up. Don Jensen: Spring '97 is really when the whole thing is probably going to be completed. Mancino: Because I was going to ask you about letting time. You know can you...time because the thing that's triggering developments like this or triggering would be the realignment of TH 101 and making it wider, etc, can't we compress that letting time between when the development happens and when the infrastructure is needed? Hempel: Funding is a major role in the upgrade of TH 101. Obviously we don't have the construction dollars to do it. But I was going to point out that with regards to the city's ... the improvement project, extending utilities to this area, that won't happen until sometime late this fall so as long as the project gets approved however but the City Council, we could grandfather plat approval and notes to proceed with this development to occur concurrently with the city's development. So it could start this fall as well. Martha Klein: So what you're telling me then is. Mancino: You mean a 2 or 3 year leg time? Martha Klein: But we have the effect after the cause. It's like we have to wait for this development to come in to increase our traffic and then get the okay on the highway. That seems backwards. I mean... backwards. The road is already very busy. Now you're saying that the levels are safe. Okay at that meeting just 2 months ago where they were saying they were unsafe and it had to be plotted and it needs to be changed. It's just, it seems like you're turning things to meet the needs of the city. Right now I don't see a big housing need. I mean there's houses, there's development everywhere. I don't see we're doing it for a need 6T.] Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 and there's houses everywhere. You said people can create a turn around. I can give you 3 or 4 houses right there on the lake, they do not have the facility to create a turn around and they are all elderly people. I can't imagine there is no facility for them. There's no room. They pull right in off the road into their driveway. They have to back out onto the highway, which is already unsafe. My children have to catch the bus. They have to cross that highway. I just don't see where the need is justifying it. If there was a substantial need for housing in Chanhassen, I could see it but right now it doesn't justify jeopardizing my family or the families around it I just don't feel that's the situation at this time. Scott: Okay. Do you have any other comments that you'd like to make? Martha Klein: No, that would be all. Scott: Okay. Well thank you very much and please follow this issue along. We make recommendations. Would anybody else like to speak? Yes sir. Dave Nickolay: I've never been at a meeting this late. Scott: I have. Dave Nickolay: My name's Dave Nickolay. I've been here before you at the previous hearings. I live at 8500 Tigua Circle. I'm on the northeast corner of the proposed development. Approximately 2 to 2 1/2 of these single family houses will adjoin my property and in the future, as further development occurs to the north, there will be whatever other number of homes also bordering my property. I submitted a letter, or letters to you on September 12, 1993 and on October 17, 1993 and to make this very brief and to preserve your time and my time also, I'm not going to go back through all those issues but I would like you to review the comments that I submitted to you back then and I did testify at the previous hearings so all of that is on record so I'm going to save us all that time at this point. I would like to just be on record by saying that I think that this type of density as it relates to the development that I purchased land in a number of years ago, 13 years ago, is not consistent. This is just way too high a density. There was a compromise made by the developer here to change the single family. They did reduce it by 2. It had no impact on my lots or the number of lots that adjoin my property. I just don't believe that the transition is adequate here to accommodate. What we've got are 3 properties that are affected in Rice Lake Manor. One of those properties ... 3 homes and you're looking at 7 homes back up to us. The other issue that I'd like to point out. I also noted this ... but I'd like to make sure that it's on the record for the purpose of tonight. The horse farm operations over the years have changed the drainage plan in that area. I talked about that previously. The water drains differently today than it did back then. Some of that water drains across my property and I 59 w 0 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 would like to see whatever is decided and resolved here, that there be no drainage as a result of this development coming across my property. Again, right now that is happening but it's a result of the farming operation and they're dumping their materials on that site. The last point that I'll make deals with the park issues occurring on the property owners that are in Rice Lake Manor. I don't know what the estimated number of people are that are going to be in this development but 3/10 of an acre of park. I disagree with the Park Commission's recommendation that there's adequate parks in the area. There is not. The street that's going to go down that row of single family housing, the developer's proposed to put in I believe a chainlink fence to cut down the traffic that might come across out of the development into Rice Lake Manor. That that does not provide for the securing of the north end of the development. You can have a dead end street that's going to open itself up to a marsh. There is a trail down below right now. It's not a public use trail. It's the right -of -way for the sewer. There's going to have to be some provisions made to protecting people or preventing people from just having access to that. So what's going to happen is they're going to come down this street. They're going to spill around and they're going to come across the corner of my property and then they're going to end up going through the properties that are in Rice Lake Manor. So there's going to have to be some provisions made to protect that. I said I'd be brief. Thank you. I'll wait to hear what your recommendations are. Scott: Okay, thank you. Yes ma'am. Jo Larson: My name's Jo Larson. I live at 8590 Tigua Circle and a couple things that, as per the design of the development, I really like it. Everything that the developer and staff have put into it except that I don't feel this is the right place at this time to put it. I feel that the only reason that multi - family or high density got put on the comprehensive plan in the first place was because proposed 212 was not a proposed plan. Along with, and right now we don't even know if 212 is going to go through. And a lot of the comprehensive plan, in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act which states that you have to pay particular attention to the suitability of an area for certain development. And I just don't feel this is right without, if the highway was, if we knew the highway was going to go there, fine. But without the highway, I don't think this would have ever been put on the comprehensive plan you know. And I think you still have to take in effect. I hear the Planning Commission with other things coming up, well it's guided for that. It's guided for that but you have to remember that in addition to the comprehensive plan is the Standard State Enabling Act. And what I'm really concerned about is the value of my home. I don't think the transition is right from the big lots. The market value of the existing homes there and I just want you to know that I'm concerned about the value of my home and I think it's your job to help protect mine. That's all I have to say. Scott: Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak? Can I have a motion to .1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 close the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Were you going to say something? Mancino: No. I just have a couple questions for Sharmin. Scott: Go ahead. Mancino: Not comments yet but just some questions about some other people's concerns. On the staff report on page 6, under issue number 2 which has to do with hard surface coverage that was requested. I go back to the City Council meeting for November 22nd, 1993 which is on the last page of the whole report. Here you say that the planned unit development ordinance allows a maximum hard surface coverage of 50% and you're over in Block 4 so you would ask them to come back down to 50 %. Yet when I turn to the City Council meeting Minutes it says that the City Council would like the multi - family portion of the site exceeds 30 %. Can you explain that to me? And they address it in number 23 too. Al -Jaff: The first time I wrote the report I worked the standards under 30% hard surface coverage, which was a mistake on my part. It should have been a 50% hard surface coverage. And I corrected that at the meeting. Mancino: Okay. And that is the standard PUD impervious surface? Al -Jaff: Correct. For multi - family. Mancino: Okay, thanks. But we do have a little bit of overage on Block 4 so we've had to reduce that. Scott: Can you transfer density? Is that what you're. Dennis Marhula: If I could address that please? I sent a memo to you Sharmin. She had asked that we calculate the hard surface coverages within the various areas so that she can include it in the ... and the numbers that I gave to her at that time, and that's preliminary numbers off of the plans were Block 1 had a total of 37 %. Block 4 had a total of 49 %. So the average of those two is actually 41 %. I guess I'm not exactly sure where the 55% came from. Perhaps maybe she can explain that to us. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: You mean she believed your numbers? Dennis Marhula: Pardon me? Mancino: She believed your numbers at 49 %? Dennis Marhula: Yeah. I guess they're also reiterated on page 34 in the staff report. Mancino: On page 34? Oh okay. So there's a discrepancy here. Al -Jaff: This was an issue at the time when the plans originally appeared before the Planning Commission. Mancino: Years ago. Al -Jaff: Yes. At a conceptual stage. That was addressed and the situation has been corrected. So the section entitled, Background. It's basically the issues that were raised at the time of the conceptual approval and since then all those issues have been addressed. So no, it's not a discrepancy. Mancino: The other question has to do on page 15 and again, has this been addressed... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Al -Jaff: ...They are providing some variation of the topography. They are creating a berm. They preserved the existing rolling terrain. Mancino: Desirable site characteristics. They preserve those. And they are preserving those? Al -Jaff: There is quite a bit of grading on this. I know they are grading additional. Mancino: But are they not creating for preserving anything? Are they preserving any site characteristics? Not creating new ones but preserving any? Al -Jaff: They're not touching the wetlands. And that is a site characteristic ... grading. Mancino: Rolling hills? Al -Jaff: Rolling hills. There will be grading taking place on the site, yes. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: So then you cannot, should not be under the summary of rezoning PUD. It should not be something that we're receiving because we're not receiving on page 15 it says that—of flexibility. Al -Jaff: The preservation of wetland. Mancino: Okay. So we're not going to retain any rolling hills. They are going to go in and create man made, well I don't know if they're man made, rolling hills or whatever. Okay. Matt, do you have any ques,ons about the grading and do you have any remarks on that? Because we're doing so much of it. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: And I know that that has always been a concern since we've seen this. Ledvina: Yeah. I walked the site and I've been concerned with that and I can picture the size of the gullies that they're dealing with and I know that there will have to be some grading that's required on the site to put the building's in there. That's a given. But I do feel that there's still opportunity, especially in the northeast. I'm sorry, northwest part of the site for stepping some buildings and providing for somewhat of preservation of the general topography. I'm not naive to think that you can just go in and start stepping buildings all over the place and have steps in the buildings and not reach havoc with your budgets and all that kind of thing. But yeah, I would agree with you that that's a question and in my opinion I think that there's possibly some more things that the developer can do in that area. But I think it's a thing that should be worked out with staff. Mancino: And would you like to put that in the recommendation now? Ledvina: Yes. I think that's appropriate. Mancino: Okay. The totlot, again. One of the things we brought up and Sharmin would you refresh my memory. We approved the totlot as a third of an acre for this much density? Or did we have, did we know it was going to be a third of an acre? That just seems, I don't think we had... Scott: Or was this a situation where the Park and Rec department determined that this was not park deficient? Is that kind of how? Farmakes: No. That's not what happened. What happened was that the park, as I recall, the park ... didn't need anything and we thought they did. We asked to take that area and at least make it a commons, if not a park of some sort of green space. 63 1 7 1 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I Mancino: I don't remember a third of an acre. Farmakes: No, they didn't have a specific. Scott: Because that's kind of what I was thinking. Is that the Park and Rec Department, ' probably because of Lake Susan Park, determined that this was not park deficient but we said hey. This is so dense, you need something. So this is something that we put in. Farmakes: Originally I jostled for having something in the south and something in the north g Y J g g and it didn't work out that way. It seems to have something in the south and not the north. ' They have that area that has the berm allotted for... ' Mancino: Well from the City Council meeting on November 22nd, I mean it says on number 16. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission. The applicant shall provide a recreational amenity in the vicinity of Lot 6, Block 1. This facility to include ' typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, and park benches, play apparatus, tennis and basketball courts. That says to me that it's bigger than a third of an acre for this size and this density of development. I mean it doesn't take, you can put picnic ' tables and park benches and play apparatus on a third of an acre but you can't put a basketball court so I think that they were thinking of something and I know I was, bigger amenity common area for this development. ' Farmakes: What I was arguing for was to ... based on their recommendations and the rest of the parks in the area to service them. I didn't see... Mancino: Is that correct? Al -Jaff: Well one recommendation that I was going to make is, the Park and Rec Commission will be reviewing this application within the next 3 weeks so you might want to make a recommendation that they make sure that they use amenities that the applicant is providing meets the needs. Mancino: ...development in this area. You might want to see what they say first. Because I think it is deficient in that area. Scott: And we normally don't, after the public hearing is closed, we normally don't entertain ' additional comments. My thought here is that this is perhaps not a significant issue. I'm just trying to be fair because I, except in extreme circumstances do not allow additional comments so I'll have to respectfully request that perhaps that you take it to the Council after we get 64 1 d Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 through with this. Do you have some other comments? Mancino: No. I think that those are my two biggest issues. One is the density and how many... especially for being a PUD. I thought that we were getting more common area. Amenities from allowing this kind of density. And number two, the grading. I'd like to see more ... and I don't have any more comments right now but I may later. Scott: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: ...the commons issue is one that I talked about before when we were looking at this. I think that, particularly when you have higher density, you have less of a sense of community and neighborhood and I don't necessarily think that there should be ballfields or basketball hoops there. Just even a gathering greenery area or something. I wanted to see something north up by 19 -18 area ... that wasn't in the cards. The area down below, the third of an acre, the common area between 15 and 16. I'd like to see more of what they have... not putting in the landscaping plan. Again, I think... should be referred to the clustering. And considering that as a passive use rather than a recreational use. If they don't determine that there's a need for such a thing... They're showing 1 tree per lot on the recreational homes. Or not the recreational homes, the single family homes. Is that. Mancino: ...the new tree preservation. Farmakes: Is that the old or new rules? Aanenson: That's the old. Mancino: You know it's a PUD. I would like to see the new tree preservation ordinance apply to this. Scott: Well wouldn't it apply after final approval? Whatever ordinances are in place after final approval or at the time of final approval. Al -Jaff: Yes. Mancino: To figure out canopy coverage and a map. Ledvina: Did you have a recommendation for another condition on that or do you think it's addressed within the report? Do you think we need that? Al -Jaff: Right now there aren't any trees on the site and they're not removing any. 65 r— Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Aanenson: ...2 trees per lot. Ledvina: 2 trees per lot. Okay. Is there a specific condition or where we need a modification? Mancino: Well 2 trees per lot is not using the tree preservation ordinance. Which means that because there are no trees on it, they have to go in and do a reforestation and do a management plan and put in trees. I mean it has to be at least 15 %. With the new tree preservation ordinance there's nothing. Ledvina: Well they have an extensive landscaping plan for it. Mancino: And it may cover it. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: I don't know. But somebody has to figure that out. Al -Jaff: So do we take the single family portion as part of the entire landscaping plan for the PUD or? Ledvina: I don't think so. Scott: Or is it all PUD? Ledvina: The whole thing's a PUD. Scott: Everything's PUD so. Farmakes: But the criteria would be, unless you've granted them less than standard for the... Mancino: Pardon? Farmakes: We don't have a criteria for PUD to grant less than typically what we would ask for, assuming the requirements for forestation, do we? I mean we can say 2 or 1 or 3. Mancino: No but at least, I mean PUD's are taken into account in our tree preservation ordinance. Farmakes: Yeah. So currently they're showing 1. Tot Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Mancino: And that would ... because you would have to look at canopy coverage. I mean the bushes don't count. Farmakes: But do you specify a number or do you say, incorporate that into the new regulations. Mancino: Incorporate them in the new regulations. Ledvina: Okay so, what. Would we just add on a condition then? Aanenson: Yeah, we just need to go back to the landscaping plan and verify the percentages and the canopy coverage. That they meet the... Mancino: If they have 1 tree per, I doubt it but we can see. Farmakes: To finish up my comments. They deal with Outlot A as a separate issue. It seems to me that the logical way of, the concern about the safety issue or the people living on Highway 101. It's always frustrating to listen to comments, not statistical evidence when you're looking for a reason to go ahead and put something somewhere. They use the safety issues. I remember that you have to have an accident before you have a reason to put up a stop sign ... but anyway, the sad part about highway systems is that highways follow the votes. That's where, if you get votes, you get highways and it requires population to get highways. That's a sad fact but that's how politics work in this state and politics are very much tied into highway construction on this. They don't always spend money where it makes sense. All you have to do is go to certain towns and you see an enormous over capacity of highways there. You come to other areas and you see areas that are sadly deficient in highways, i.e. the southwest suburbs. So it's a problem I don't have the—to solve but if there's any way we can modify currently what we're doing and address that problem, I would recommend that the City Council... I think first and foremost we owe that to the residents. That they're safe and that this is not going to be a, add to already an existing. Just in that, I guess that's it then. The extent of my comments. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Conrad: I don't talk after midnight Joe. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I'm just going to go right through this. First of all I'd like to say that I think the staff did an excellent job on this report. It's a very complicated project and they seem to 67 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 have worked out all the issues on many of the very difficult issues with this so they did a nice job. Let's see, Dave. On condition number 1. The developer is asking to get an ' exception to the standard specification for the street for that portion of the roadway which will be ripped up. Is that, with TH 101. Is that acceptable to you? Hempel: That's something I guess I'd like to look into further. It does make some sense. However, if TH 101 doesn't get upgraded after '97...3 years, 5 years, it might be 10 years. It's something I'd like to investigate further. ' Ledvina: Okay. Can you help me on number, Dave again. Could you help me on number 10? How do we want, do you want to change that at all? The remaining 230+ feet shall be ' platted as an outlot. How do I change that? Hempel: On condition number 10? ' Ledvina: Yes. Page 30. r I Hempel: Right now we're requesting the applicant dedicate in the final plat the westerly 50 feet of the site adjacent to TH 101 right -of -way. If we said ad additional 17 feet of right -of- way lying east of the existing TH 101 right -of -way. Ledvina: An additional 17 feet of right -of -way? Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Lying. Hempel: Easterly of the existing Trunk Highway 101. Ledvina: Shall be dedicated? Hempel: Correct. With the final plat. Ledvina: Okay. Then eliminate the remaining 200 feet. 230 feet, etc. That sentence is eliminated? The last sentence or leave that in there? Hempel: Well just say the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road. Ledvina: The remaining property? M. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Hempel: Right. Ledvina: Okay. I think I got it. Here's a question regarding the residential area. Now as part of the design in terms of reducing the impacts to the existing family, existing lots there. We talked about bringing, providing those extra deep lots. Those larger lots above the city standards. Quite a bit above the city standards and then setting those buildings off of the back line but there's really nothing here that I see as it relates to like a modification of the rear setback. And I'll point to page 34. In the table, the last table it talks about the ordinance. 30 feet front. 30 feet rear. 10 feet sides. As the home setback. Do we want to modify that to insure that the houses are built away from that back line? I mean can we modify that, let's say like 80 feet? Al -Jaff: ...you bet. Ledvina: Okay. Because I was looking at it and essentially there's about, from what they've indicated here for the house pad, there's 100 to 125 feet in terms of what they setback so allowing for a little bit of fudge factor, maybe an 80 foot rear setback would be reasonable and would insure that that impact be reduced as much as possible. So I know that's our intent but I want to make sure that we get that in there. Aanenson: We'll ... lots that are adjacent... Ledvina: Yes, exactly. Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7. Just on those specific lots. Okay. And I'll work that in somehow. Any thoughts on that from the other commissioners here? Conrad: I think it's a good idea. Mancino: Yeah, I do too. Scott: Say, reducing the number of lots. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see here. And let's see. I guess for the purposes of a motion then I would be in favor of adding a condition that staff work with the applicant to—the grading in the northwest portion of the site. Adding another condition that the Park and Rec Commission review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Mancino: Can I ask you a question about that Matt? Do you feel comfortable letting the Park and Recreation just kind of decide how much common area and not coming back to us after we've made a suggestion? I mean let's say that they say that this is fine. Do you feel comfortable with that as the entire common area for this density housing? That's my .• 1 I Ll I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I question. Ledvina: Well, that's a tough question. I guess maybe we can add the, well. They're going to be look at ... and I also feel that it may be appropriate for some areas to be provided in the northern part of the development, as Jeff has indicated. I think that has a valid point. I don't know if .3 acres is right for just an open space. You know I don't think there should be ballfields here and I don't think that's necessary. 1 Conrad: Passive. Ledvina: You know like a passive type of gathering area. Maybe a third of an acre is ' adequate. I don't know but I would defer that to them. Considering our discussion here and what our thoughts are in the process. Mancino: Would you like to see the developer come back on the parks to show something in the common area? P Ledvina: I'm comfortable with moving it along. I think the developer's done a real good job and I trust that he would work with the staff and the Park and Rec people on doing something nice there so I'm fairly comfortable with that and that's kind of a seat of the pants type of thing but that's how I feel about it. And then the last thing I would do would be to suggest or to have a condition that the applicant verify that the landscaping meets the city ordinances regarding reforestation. Mancino: The tree preservation ordinance. Ledvina: The tree preservation, okay. I'm sorry. Mancino: Tree preservation ordinance as it relates to canopy coverage. Ledvina: I think that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Would you like to continue right along and make a motion? Ledvina: Well, do you... Scott: I would say you covered, the other commissioners covered anything that I hoped to talk about so if you'd like to continue along and make a motion. It'd be appreciated. Conrad: Before you do Matt. It is, I like the development. I think some of the neighbors 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 brought up some concerns and they're real valid. On the other hand, I think this is a good location for this kind of density, even if 212 doesn't go in. I'm still comfortable with it. I think Dave's taken notes in terms of some concerns we have on traffic and concerns we have on drainage. Drainage going off site to the northeast so I think there's going to be some things that staff will look into. But as a high density development, you know the park issue is real significant. Here we have the highest density thing we've got and I don't know where people go. And that's not, I'm not trying to reduce density at all. I just don't know where people go and that's sort of I guess a naive thought because we don't deal with these here and I haven't over the years but it's just an issue. I like the trail around the wetlands. I think people can walk around a wetlands but I don't think there's really a place to go. I have a feeling that Park and Rec looks at ballfields more than they do internal sites like this. So on the one hand that's their job. I don't take over anybody else's job. That's what they should be doing. But I, I don't know. I'd like somebody to say well yeah, everything's fine. They've got places to recreate in here and they can get in their car and go a mile and find a park, or wherever. Aanenson: That's what their recommendation is taking revenue from this project and putting ...into parks. Conrad: But I just, here we have a high density, 200 units or whatever it is and I don't know where people go. But that's just an issue, not necessarily with this one. It's just like, what do we think when we put in high density? Mancino: It is one with this one though. Scott: Well we're going to be seeing, when we take a look at how the land has been guided up and down Highway 5, multi - family residential big. Mancino: We're going to have a lot of this. Scott: And I think it's important to do that Oh I'm sorry. Conrad: Well no, that's okay Joe. Scott: I was just going to say. In deference to our temporarily fallen comrade, I'm thinking of the types of people who are going to be living in a lot of these. I said comrade, not Conrad. But public transit. When you think about the people, if these properties do sell for $69,000.00 up to $95,000.00, we're looking at about a $650.00 a month payment. Two people working in a not too high paying job could actually afford something like that. I think public transit then becomes an issue and just I think for your information, I don't know what 71 r J I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I Diane's title is but. ' Ledvina: Director. Mancino: Well there's the plan. She's done the planning for 212 ... the transit hub when 212 1 goes in. What happens if we develop this and we need a transit hub there sooner than when, or 212 never goes in. I n 1 r Scott: I'm thinking about transit access for this particular. You know are the buses going to be able to get in here so I mean, just to let you know that when this comes back for final plat approval, the lady who occupies that chair there is going to be looking at that very closely. Al -Jaff: It won't come before you. Scott: It doesn't come before us for final plat approval. It doesn't? Even though we're approving a preliminary plat. Why doesn't it come back here for final plat? Al -Jaff: Planning Commission only reviews preliminary. City Council reviews preliminary and final. Conrad: Just a couple other things. Dave, you're going to look at the commercial drainage issue going to this site? You have or you're going to. You have to do that. The buffering of the units that back up to the commercial. I just trust that once this goes in and then commercial goes in, that the owners won't be in here saying we didn't buffer. Seriously. Here's a case where there's just no excuse, whether some kind of disclosure statement that they know that there's commercial going back in here. But they just shouldn't be here. They have to know that commercial's going in there. Jeff, you brought up a point. And the only issue that I really have. I think Rottlund's a good builder. Good reputation. I like them. Every unit's the same color. You know of all the things that we talked about tonight... affordable units. It's a real great objective. It looks like a quality, affordable product. Yet on the other hand they all look the same, you know. And that bothers me. And I'm not a marketing genius in terms of what colors people like but to have all units the same color is just like ... now this is a PUD and again, I'm not trying to drive up the cost. I just wish you had a creative solution to that. Seriously. Without changing the cost and that's probably a contradiction. Can't be creative without driving up the cost. But to have all the units the same color. Look the same. That bothers me. I'm not real happy with that. It is a PUD. I think we're moving some things around. The developers have done some things to, I think they listened the first time in. I'm pleased with that. I'm just not pleased with, Matt you're talking about elevations or in terms of rolling and you know, are we leveling and are we putting in the same thing? That bothers me. That's all I have to say. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Scott: Okay. A motion. Ledvina: Well what would be the consensus then in terms of what we do here? Conrad: I think we should challenge Rottlund to show City Council what they can do to add a little bit of diversity without driving up the cost $10,000.00 a unit. I guess I don't really want to see it. We could bring it back. I don't know that I do. But I really think we should challenge them and say hey, give us the economics of allowing some diversity in there. What does it cost? What does it, maybe we have to negotiate. Maybe we add some density. I don't know what we do but again, seriously that seems simple. I'm not in that business but I want to challenge the Rottlund to come back to City Council and tell them why. Why you can't do it or what it's going to cost. And I'm not sure that little cuts that the staff has recommended, although I like them and I thank you for doing that, I'm not sure that that separates one unit from the other, to tell you the truth. Tree preservation has to be dealt with and met the ordinance and then I think you covered everything else. Ledvina: I'll give it a shot. I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of preliminary Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan #94 -5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994 subject to the staff conditions in the report with the following modifications. Number 1. Add, staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary road section for the future TH 101 right -of -way. Or for the TH 101 right -of -way. Number 3, The first sentence to read, the number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and applicant. And the rest as indicated in the condition. Eliminate number 7. Number 10. The first sentence as it reads in the condition. The second sentence, the remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. Number 15(a). To strike the word tennis in that condition. Number 18 shall read, final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. Adding condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. Number 32. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities within the development. Number 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. Number 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. That's it. Oh wait, hold it. Okay, yeah. That's for that motion. And then the other changes go with the PUD development plan. Scott: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? Or any additions? Can I have a second? Conrad: I second. 73 u 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' Mancino: Discussion. So you're telling me Matt that you're fine that if the Park and Recreation comes back and say we don't need any more park facility in this development, as ' in active park. They come back and say no. That we're fine with not seeing any more common area. Any more inactive, what do I call that. Scott: Passive park. Mancino: Passive, thank you. It's getting late. So we're fine with not seeing any more passive area in this high density development? That we're going to let it go just the way it is with a third of an acre. Because the Park and Recreation's going to come back to us and say ' and they're going to think about it as active park. I don't feel comfortable with that. ' Ledvina: Well they have their job to do. That's their focus. I mean I realize that we're trying to incorporate all these things but. P, L� Mancino: But is a part of the intent of a PUD to allow transfer of density so you do have some common area for that higher density areas? Farmakes: To achieve that you're going to have to ... I don't disagree with what you're saying. Mancino: Because you guys talked about, both you and Jeff talked about some areas on the north part. North of 86th Street. Farmakes: Will the Park Commission start eliminating buildings? Mancino: I think that's up to us. Farmakes: But I'd like to get their recommendation as to what that should be because I don't know if it should be a half acre or what it is. Mancino: Alright. Farmakes: The targeted amount for that. Mancino: Do you want to see it back after that or do you want to just go with whatever the recommendation they make, is what I'm asking. Scott: Or do we want to go to the Council meeting and just say, oh by the way this is our thought and bring that up. 74 1 t Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Farmakes: Well I'd like to get some professional recommendations to what that should be to accommodate that many people and we rely upon the commission for that. The Park Commission. I will agree that I think their focus is more on recreational development than in passive use, which in this case I think is appropriate. Scott: Well I think the condition was pretty specific when it said, their recommendations for space within the development. Mancino: And maybe we should say, passive space. Ledvina: That's fine. Mancino: But I just want to make sure. Ledvina: I know it's a touchy issue. I understand that. Mancino: This is an important part of this whole development. Ledvina: I understand there's a lot of big issues here. Scott: And we're going to be getting, I can think right now of about maybe 5 more PUD's of this size. Maybe smaller. Maybe larger. That we're going to see and what I think we need to do is to, this is something that's a little bit different but it's the type of development that we're going to see more of and I think we really need to set the tone with it. There needs to be some sort of passive gathering space within these developments and I think. Ledvina: Besides from the specific park and rec formula. Scott: Yeah. Mancino: Get their input and then see it back just on that one issue? But then when ... change. Ledvina: I can't change this. Scott: Or do you want to not see this again and. Conrad: City Council can handle it. They're big people. They know how to do this stuff. Scott: Yeah, just as long as we can let them know what we're thinking in person. Up close 75 I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I and personal. Conrad: I won't vote for that but you can bring it back. I think it should be clear though. I think Nancy brought up the fact, at the first go around City Council asked for some things and I don't think it came back the way they asked for it. So whether I agree with City Council or not doesn't make any difference. I think it should be noted what they asked for and that should be brought to the Park and Rec's attention. Scott: Okay. Is there any other discussion? Farmakes: Are you going to add that as an amendment? Recommendation. Ledvina: I would accept that. If you want to specifically state that there should be whatever passive open area provided in the northern part of the site, or whatever you want to do that's. Mancino: Yeah I would like to add some. I would like to get the Park and Recreation committee's suggestion as to what that might be and then I think some should be added definitely. I don't know how much. Ledvina: Okay. I would accept that. Scott: Okay. Any other discussion? Ledvina: You were the second. Do you accept that? Conrad: Sure. Scott: Any other discussion? Any other friendly amendments? Or amendments, friendly or ' otherwise. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation with conditions. Mancino: Does this also, excuse me. I have one question. We are putting the Outlot A and it's just got Lot A. It is not part of the PUD. ' Scott: No. It's just Outlot A. Ledvina: Then we deal with that on this next motion, right? We have two motions that we have to make. Aanenson: ...dealing with the preliminary subdivision... The next one is just a PUD plan. 1 76 J Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 Submittal plan. Ledvina: So what are you suggesting? Aanenson: ...Outlot A is the commercial area. Shown as a commercial area and given concept approval... Mancino: Not preliminary plat approval. Aanenson: Right. Not approved as preliminary plat. Ledvina: I would accept that. Yes, thank you Kate. Scott: Is there any more discussion? It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff recommendation. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary Subdivision #94 -5 and Site Plan #94 -5 as shown on the plans dated April 15, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All utility and street improvements (public and private) shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to supply detailed construction plans for all utility and street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. Street grades throughout the subdivision should be between 0.75% and 7.0 %. Staff shall evaluate the potential for temporary road section for TH 101 right -of -way. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits such as the DNR, MWCC, Health Department, Watershed Districts, PCA and MnDot. 3. The number of water quality ponds shall be reviewed by staff and the applicant. All water quality treatment ponds shall include outlet control structures to control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards. The City will be maintaining the retention ponds and, therefore, the applicant shall dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. Maintenance access to the retention ponds should be at a minimum 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements and should be dedicated on the final plat. Erosion control and turf restoration on the site shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 77 J 1 I f Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 4. If the applicant installs the oversized (12 inch) watermain, the City shall credit the applicant by means of reduction in their assessments for the oversizing costs. The oversizing costs shall be the difference between an 8 inch watermain and a 12 inch watermain. Placement of all fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 5. The homeowners association declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as it pertains to site maintenance prior to final plat approval. 6. The applicant's engineer shall submit design calculations for the storm sewers and retention ponds prior to final plat approval. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 year storm event and retention ponds shall retain the difference between the predeveloped and developed runoff rate for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event. The outlet of the retention pond shall be designed to restrict the discharge to the predeveloped runoff rate. The pond shall also be constructed to NURP standards to improve water quality. Should the City's storm water management plan provide alternative regional ponding on -site, the applicant shall work with the City in implementing the best location for said ponding. ' 7. Deleted. ' 8. The applicant should provide a buffer area between the development and proposed Trunk Highway 212 as well as Trunk Highway 101. The buffer area should consist of both landscaping materials and berming. 9. The applicant shall include a drain tile system in all public streets where the adjacent dwellings have no other acceptable means of discharging such a pond, wetland or storm sewer. 10. The applicant shall dedicate to the city with final platting, the westerly 50 feet of the ' site adjacent to TH 101 for right -of -way. The remaining property shall be platted as an outlot for future road right -of -way acquisition. An additional 17 feet of right -of -way lying easterly of the existing highway shall be dedicated with the final plat. ' 11. Durin g construction of utilities and street improvements along 86th Street, the applicant shall provide provisions for maintaining ingress and egress for the existing homes on Tigua Lane as well as emergency vehicles. ' 12. Allowed uses in commercial site to be restricted as described in the staff report. 78 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 13. The applicant shall provide density/hard surface coverage calculations for each lot within Blocks 1 and 4. These figures shall exclude the right -of -way and wetland areas. 14. The landscaping plan shall be revised to add more trees along West 86th Street, along Highway 212 and Highway 101 right -of -ways and between the area separating commercial and residential lots. 15. Meet the following conditions of the Park and Recreation Commission: A. The tot park facility shall include typical park amenities such as landscaped grassy areas, picnic tables, park benches, play apparatus and basketball courts, etc. B. Six foot wide concrete sidewalks be constructed on the south side of West 86th Street from Highway 101 east to the project's terminus and a 5 foot wide core sidewalk on "A" Street from West 86th Street north to the street's terminus. C. A bituminous trail be constructed encircling wetland No. 15 connecting the sidewalk system to the "park site. In consideration for the construction of said trail, the applicant shall receive trail fee credit equal to the cost of construction. Said cost to be determined by the applicant for presentation to the city with documentation for verification. D. Full park fees shall be collected at the time of building permit applications at the rate then in force. 16. Plans outlining general layouts (with alternatives) building massings, square footage limitations, grading, building materials, architectural designs, pedestrian access, and development intent need to be developed for the commercial area. We realize that the developer, Tandem Properties, will not be owning or developing this area. Ownership is being retained by Al Klingelhutz. Still, both parcels are located within the PUD and we believe that the city would be remiss if we did not exercise our ability to insure that the ultimate development of the parcel is compatible with the best interests of the community. We had suggested what we believe to be acceptable in this report and would appreciate the Planning Commission's input. 17. While not mandatory, we would like to hold discussions with the applicant regarding the potential establishment of a housing district over a portion of the site. The city has been actively seeking a means to provide more moderate cost housing for working families and this may be a good site. 79 P , L I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 ' 23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). ' 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' 25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. ' 26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. ' 27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). ' 28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When 80 IJ 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon the city authorizing and awarding the bid for the Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvement Project No. 93 -32. 19. An additional trail easement may have to be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk construction. This will be determined during construction plan review and approval process. ' 20. The commercial portion of the PUD shall be consistent with the Highway 5 Corridor Study design standards. 21. Submit street names for both public and private streets to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. 22. Chanhassen Fire Department's policy on Premise Identification must be followed. Additional monument signs for address location will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements and details. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Fire Prevention Policy #29 -1992. Policy enclosed. ' 23. There will be no parking allowed on private streets or the south side of 86th Street. Signage must be installed in compliance to Fire Prevention Policy #06 -1991. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.207(a). ' 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, Cable TV, transform boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' 25. Developer must contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of fire hydrants. The hydrants shown on plan are unacceptable and additional ones are required. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.403. ' 26. Fire Marshal approved access must be provided to within one hundred fifty (150) feet of structures to be built. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.302. ' 27. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Fire Code Sec. 10.204(c). ' 28. Dead Ends: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. When 80 IJ Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 are com completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler s , buildings P Y P PP stem, P Y the provisions of this section may be modified by the Chief. Pursuant to 1991 Chanhassen Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(d) and 10.203 exc. #1. , 29. Street lights shall be provided along West 86th Street and "A" Street/Court. The city I shall determine type and placement 30. The City Council shall consider approving a resolution prohibiting parking along the ' south side of West 86th Street. 31. The applicant shall work with staff in reconsidering the mass grading in the ' northwest portion of the site by potential stepping of building elevations. 32. The Park and Recreation Commission shall review the extent of the park facilities ' within the development and look at adding additional passive park area in the northern part of the site. ' 33. The applicant shall verify that the landscaping plan meets the city tree preservation ordinance for canopy coverage. , 34. The applicant shall provide diversity in the color schemes used in the buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' Ledvina: We have one more thing to do and I guess I can do that one too. Do we label this ' as the same development plan, #94 -3? Aanenson: Yes. ' Ledvina: Okay. I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of PUD development plan #94 -3 subject to the staff's conditions with the following , modifications. On page 34. The top or first table. For the commercial parking setback for West 86th Street shall be 30 feet. Again on page 34. On the bottom as it relates to. , Aanenson: Excuse me a second. We were going to strike any reference to commercial at this point because we didn't want to give ... so I think we just leave the motion the way it is... ' reference to the commercial development. The only change I would have is when you talk about the 80 foot ... but we need to make sure that the 80 foot works and I'd like to see some changes before it goes to Council... ' 81 ' 1 t I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I Ledvina: Okay. Subject to staff review for feasibility. ' Aanenson: We still want the compliance for the residential so basically I think if you strike any reference to the commercial development... ' Ledvina: Okay. So as part of the motion we strike the reference to commercial developments associated with Outlot A. On page 34, the ordinance, or I should say the setback requirements for the, the home setback requirements for the rear lot for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, identify that rear setback as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. I think that's it. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: Second. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to recommend approval of the preliminary PUD development plan as outlined by staff in the staff report striking out any reference to commercial development and adding a provision that rear yard setback requirements for Block 2, Lots 1 thru 7, be identified as 80 feet subject to review by staff for feasibility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Scott: Let me just ask a question. We have 3 items here. The rezoning, site approval and preliminary plat for the subdivision. Did we do all of them? Okay, good. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE SECTION 18 -57, STREETS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS (N) AND (0) TO INCLUDE STANDARDS FOR PRIVATE STREETS SERVING R4, R8, R12 AND R16 AND NON - RESIDENTIAL USES. Scott: Is anybody going to cry if we leave this for next time? Okay. We're going to continue item number 6 to the next time. Can I have a motion to approve the Minutes? I'm sorry, yes. Al -Jaff: There is someone here that has been waiting for 5 hours. Scott: Then we need to do it then. I apologize sir. I didn't realize you were there. Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 Scott: Any questions or comments for staff? Anybody else? I don't happen to have any. This is a public hearing and I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and , the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Sir. Please identify yourself and give us your address. , Stuart Horn: I'm Stuart Hoarn with Burnet Realty at 19400 Highway 7 in Minnetonka. Actually Excelsior. I'm appearing on behalf of Robert and Paul Garrish who have property on Great Plains Boulevard. There was a situation that there were 4 lots that were created long before the subdivision ordinance required the 7 ton road. I think that was, Sharmin was , that I believe in '87? When did that. This was approved in '86 or '87, I can't remember which. And the ordinance came along in 1991. , Al -Jaff: So. Stuart Hoarn: These are grandfathered in. There were 4 lots. Two of them had houses on , and there's 2 in the middle that don't have houses on them. These 2 lots in the middle were recently sold. It's too late to reprice them. It's too late for the people who bought them to , do anything about ... The issue then becomes that the paving, the paving bill is close to $40,000.00 that would be retroactively applied to these lots. If they come in for a building permit. If they come in tomorrow, they wouldn't but if they come in after this is passed, they , would. That's the issue. That the lots are sold. It's too late to do anything about what they paid. It's too late to ... to reprice them because they had already sold. And there could be other situations, I don't know. We know about it. We inquired about it. It's happening in , this timeframe. But there could be other situations out there where people don't know it's going to hit them so our request is that the ordinance not take affect for building permits issued prior to the end of the year so there's a chance for people to sell their lots or reprice , them. If they have their lots priced at something now and they haven't got that $20,000.00 built in, they have time to change the price and remarket them or whatever they're going to do. I don't know how many other situations there are in the city ... but there's this one for sure. That's really all... Scott: Okay. Any questions or comments? I'm just kind of looking at this correspondence ' here. We'll have to take a moment here to go through this. Let's see here. So basically the new home has to be constructed for it not to require paving. Stuart Hoarn: That's correct. If the ordinance amendment is P assed as it is. 83 i I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I Scott: Oh I see. ' Stuart Hoam: When these 2 lots were added in, where there were 2 and now there's 4. When these 2 lots were added in there, there were 2 houses and 1 large piece which was then divided in half. We had 3 lots. Two with houses on them and the 1 in the middle didn't have a house on it. That was divided in half so now there's 2 in the middle and these still don't have houses on them. This subdivide took place in I believe it was '86 or '87. If the subdividing had taken place after 1992, the developer would have had that as part of the conditions for the development of that and provide for this paving. That as a new ordinance or change in the ordinance. That was the subdivision ordinance, not the zoning ordinance. Now this is going to be under this amendment that's before you now, it would be... ' subdividing into the zoning ordinance which means when people apply for building permits, they have to have this paving done. And the other issue in particular instances is there's a new subdivision to the north of this one that has already received preliminary plat approval by the Planning Commission in which there could be a new street added and that's also from, there is a new street there. But just by moving the cul -de -sac slighting would eliminate the ' need for a shared driveway entirely. Scott: This is almost like a variance application for an ordinance that isn't on the books yet, which we don't do. Conrad: You dust hope we don't do that. You don't know Joe. Scott: Well I'm kind of looking at it. We have, the issue in front of us is whether we want to recommend to the City Council that this happen. I mean that's what we're doing. ' Stuart Hoarn: Well also when it takes affect. ' Conrad: Is it worded so it's retroactive? Aanenson: Well that's a definite option. It could be. There could be exemptions existing off ' the record. Normally when a subdivision comes through now ... we're going to tell you right up front. This is what's going to happen... Stuart Hoarn: When they're applying for a mortgage. I mean they don't know this. I mean $20,000.00, one way or the other, when they say to the mortgage officer, well how much do we loan. Give or take $20,000.00. Maybe it will fly, maybe it won't. This is a very ' difficult thing for some people who are living through this right now. Time is of the essence for them. 84 f Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1 Scott: I'm just thinking what's the risk if it's a lot of record versus somebody who now J g wants to subdivide. I mean somebody who wants to subdivide, there's a process and it goes on forever, especially once they get to the Planning Commission but, I guess my thought, and , you guys are going to have to maybe, like what are we missing? I mean I'm thinking if there's a lot already of record, to me I don't see the loss on the residents of the city, the grand whole here we're talking about. I don't see a problem with just saying hey, this does ' not apply. But I could see, such as the case with the property, the subdivision that we saw this by Timberwood, that's serviced by a private drive. They're subdividing and they have to ' pave it and upgrade and all that good stuff so, it kind of looks like the intent is for things that subdivide, we want to upgrade the streets. But something where it's a lot of record that's maybe served by a public. We're probably talking about smaller number of lots and it maybe , doesn't make sense for us to apply this particular proposed ordinance to that situation. I don't know, what do you guys think? I thought it made sense. I don't know. Conrad: Joe, I think you're right. We've got to get out of here. ' Scott: I guess well, I could repeat that. I Conrad: I think it's wise if staff could show us the implications of what that meant though and I don't know if we want it back but. 1 Scott: No, I don't want to see it again. Conrad: But on the first cut at it, at the quarter to 1:00, it sort of seems like it shouldn't be , retroactive unless staff really says we're going to miss some things or there's going to be some real harm. , Aanenson: ...identify those. Get a map and identify—and get an idea of how many we're talking about. Conrad: Right. I think we should do that but otherwise. Scott: Well I think our direction is to exempt lots of record. ' Aanenson: Or to research it. Scott: Our feeling is right now, exempt lots of record and then go from there... anyway, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and , 85 l � I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 I the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Can I have a motion please? Mancino: I move that we adjourn. Scott: Yeah, we need a motion on this particular item. ' Conrad: I like how Nancy tracks. Scott: Even though I'm not supposed to be doing this. ' Ledvina: You can't do it. Scott: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as stated in this here document but that the staff research ' exempting existing lots of record from this proposed ordinance. Conrad: I think that's very good. I would have made the motion just like that. Scott: Thank you sir. Is there a second please? I Mancino: I would have changed it. Scott: Can somebody else second this motion I shouldn't have made? Mancino: I second. ' Scott: Okay, good. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Scott moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18 -57, Streets, by amending sections (n) and (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R -4, R -8, R -12, R -16 and Non - Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV, Off Street Parking and Loading with direction to staff to research exempting existing lots of record. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ledvina: I would move that we approve the Minutes with the correction as indicated on the 86 Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 first agenda item. I don't know where that is. I've been trying to scan it. Scott: Relative to preservation versus destruction of natural resources or something like that. Ledvina: Yes, please do that. Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 18, 1994 as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Okay, and the City Council update, we read that. On going items, there are none. There will be no open discussion. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 a.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING MAY 12, 1994 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Bernhjelm, Brian Beniek, Greg Weber, Dave Dummer, Eldon Berkland COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Don Chmiel, Dave Johnson Bob Zydowsky, Public Safety Officer Steve Kirchman, Building Official Captain Ron Holt, CCSO Deputy Tim Koehler, CCSO Commissioner Beniek opened the meeting at 7 PM. Commissioner Bernhjelm motioned, Commissioner Weber seconded, to approve the April 14, 1994 minutes as written. All voted in favor and the motion passed. Carver County Sheriff's Department Captain Ron Holt introduced the Police Bicycle Patrol Program to the Commission. Holt explained the benefits of such a program and reported that two bicycles have been set up for this program. Deputy Tim Koehler was present to demonstrate the bicycle equipement. Deputy Koehler explained the benefits of having a police officer on bike patrol: provides better access in the parks; can move through a crowd more easily; and, good for public relations. Commissioner Beniek requested that the Sheriff's Department provide extra patrol for the ' Chanhassen Elementary playground area after curfew hours. Several juveniles are there after curfew and sound of breaking bottles can be heard. ' Building Department ' Steve Kirchman reported that 1100 inspections were conducted in April. Two part- time /temporary inspectors will begin on May 23. Kirchman also reported that many new commercial permits were in the workings: Byerly's, Wendy's, Elementary School, Weather Station, etc. ' Public Safety Public Safety Officer Bob Zydowsky advised the Commission that the Open House is on schedule and will be in place of the regularly scheduled Public Safety Commission meeting. Public Safety Commission Meeting May 12, 1994 Page 2 Officer Zydowsky reported to the Commission the status of the weather alert radio promotion. In addition to flyers and an article written for The Villager, a notice was placed in The Villager offering a special price for the radios through the Communications Center. Discussion was had on whether an ordinance should be implemented requiring weather alert radios according to occupancy load (such as daycares, churches, schools). The Commission came up with the following suggestions to promote weather alert radios: Direct Fire Marshal Mark Littfin to include it as part of his checklist when on inspections at daycares and other businesses; include an informational flyer for each "welcome" packet sent out by the Inspections Division; and, advised Beth Koenig to include flyers and information at each Neighborhood /Crime Watch presentation. Discussion was had on displaying vehicles for sale on public property. The Commission would like to view a revised ordinance. Officer Zydowsky briefed the Commission on the program Fire Marshal Mark Littfin is working on for a spill containment response trailer. Discussion was had on the need for a crime prevention /educational program position, which would include coordinating crime prevention, public safety, fire safety programs. Commissioner Bernhjelm motioned to direct Public Safety Director Scott Harr to explore the feasibility of creating a Community Safety Education position. Commissioner Dummer seconded, and the motion passed. Officer Zydowsky reported to the Commission that the traffic patrol program contiunes with two shifts per day on patrol. Activities are documented. Officer Zydowsky reported that the Public Safety Department is currently receiving applications for the vacant CSO position. Discussion was had on advertsing for the Public Safety Commission opening. It was discussed as to whether or not to advertise in the Villager. Commissioner Beniek motioned that Greg Weber be appointed as the new Alternate, Commissioner Dummer seconded, all voted in favor and the motion passed. Commissioner Beniek motioned, Commissioner Dummer seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion passed.