2 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 5, 2000
Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind and Ladd Conrad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Matt Saam, Project Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR LOT SIZE, LOT COVERAGE AND BUILDING SETBACKS TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOTS 998-1000, CARVER
BEACH, 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD, ANITA BENSON, TWIN CITIES HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nancy Hall
Dennis Schilling
Matt Jacobs
Wallace R. Christensen
Robert B. Nelson
Kermit Austad
Keith Peterson
Wally & Cheri Schwab
941 Western Drive
941 Western Drive
921 Western Drive
1001 Western Drive
970 Carver Beach Road
980 Carver Beach Road
921 Hiawatha Drive
950 Carver Beach Road
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for staff?.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair. Bob, can you talk to us a little bit about the front setbacks for the two
neighboring properties, both on the east and on the west.
Generous: I tried to look in the building permit data. The houses are too old so we don'thave a
Certificate of Survey so I had to base my calculations off of an aerial topo. And the one to the east is
approximately 30 feet and the one to the west would, is significantly more than that. It's 50 or 60 feet
back.
Blackowiak: Okay.
Generous: And then from the side lot line the property to the east is about, approximately 10 feet. It's
hard to tell because I don't have the exaCt lot line configuration and the property to the west is
approximately 30 feet off the side lot line.
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Okay. And then a second question. Were any other styles of homes explored for this small
a lot or are we just looking at the standard Habitat home at this point?
Generous: It was specific to this request for the Habitat home. I.imagine that you could go with a two
story and have a smaller pad.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Mr. Chair. You state there have been many problems with non standard lot size developed
there. And you state there have been several that were 10,000 or below. I'm actually curious, was there
any significant number of that small a size? I mean 6,000 is more or less half of 10,000 and you make a
statement, many properties that do not comply with the current city code have been developed in Carver
Beach area. My question is well, how many were as severe, because we're looking at a very severe
variance request here.
Generous: I tried to look at some of that but I tried to also limit my search. I did go to GIS training today
and learned to ~nake some maps up and I did a query to determine lots that are less than 10,000 square
feet in the general area. I don't know if it shows up very well. I just did this quickly before staff meeting
but they show up as the highlighted spaces on the map and that is, the property in question is right in the
middle of that. It's where the road is.
Sacchet: So in other words there is a significant number?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: So that would lead to a second question :then. How many of those little ones have been
developed recently?
Generous: The one just katty corner was developed within the last 4 years? 3 years?
Audience: '94.
Sacchet: So like 6 years, okay. Yeah, I have more questions but for now I think will suffice.
Burton: Any other questions for staf~
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob? If the applicant had a 1,000 foot footprint, would it fit on the lot without
setback variances?
Generous: I was trying to figure out if a 960 square foot...
Kind: Well 960. I was just rounding up but yeah, 960.
Generous: It'd be tough with the garage addition. Because that's what kicks it over on the one, at least
the one side.
Kind: So it's your opinion that a variance is required for this?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Generous: Yeah. There's a variance necessary, well minimum for the lot area, lot width and impervious
surface.
Kind: But the house size.
Generous: It could be, possibly it could be shrunk down. But then the living area gets smaller, then you
need a separate variance for that.
Kind: But a two story with a smaller footprint would get you enough square footage for a living area.
Generous: That sounds very feasible, yeah.
Kind: Okay. That's all.
Burton: Any other questions for stafP.
Conrad: Yeah, the code dictates the size of a house. How do we do that? There's a code that does say
that huh?
Generous: In the supplemental regulations.
Conrad: No kidding. And what's the point of that? I've never heard that before.
Aanenson: We haven't had too many problems with that. Actually housing in Chanhassen tends to run
xvell in excess of that. But we do have a minimum that was put in a number of years ago with the original
ordinance and that's to protect, and we do require two car garages.
Conrad: Yeah, I know that.
Aanenson: Right, and that xvas the same, part of that.
Conrad: Code is dictating the size of the house? -
Aanenson: Yes. Depending on style. There's a different square footage for rambler, two story.
Conrad: Second question. How does this fit into the neighborhood, regardless of setbacks and whatever.
How does this fit into the neighborhood? Does it look right?
Generous: I think so. It's oriented differently from the neighbors homes. They have ramble styles that
are long, lengthwise in their lots. This one is diagonal within it's lot. They've tried to, I call it a split
entry but really it's not. It's a ramble with a basement because they have, they don't have the entry
where it splits in at the foyer. The sizing's about right. Unfortunately again there's not a lot of data for
the older Carver Beach neighborhood to look at.
Conrad: Does it look odd or does it fit?
Generous: Well I believe it fits in.
3
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Burton: Other questions? Okay, does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission. Could you please state your name and address please?
Ryan Carras: Yes, I'm Ryan Carras. The land development manager for Twin Cities Habitat for
Humanity and I can speak very briefly to a couple of the concerns. We're co-applicant with Ms. Benson,
the current owner of the property. The need for the variance occurs having only 40 feet of buildable area
and the requirement for a two car garage. Minimum size for a two car garage would be 20 to 22 feet
xvide, and on the width then you're left with only 20 feet of a buildable area. Minimum, even on the two
story would be about 24 foot wide house, therefore we would still have side yard variance necessary,
even if we were to manipulate some of the other dimensions of the proposed structure. We did propose
in this case a house that has been built by Habitat in several Twin Cities suburban communities again to
meet the requirement of the minimum square foot of living space and the two car garage requirement and
virtually any configuration will require a variance, side or front, back setback. As has been stated in the
staff report we feel that this proposed style of house and structure that we are planning to build will fit in
the neighborhood, which is predominantly rambler and split entry style houses. Again looking at
achieving the finished square foot space, you could go to a twvo story that is not the dominant style in the
neighborhood. We would prefer to stay with what's in the neighborhood and go with the split entry.
And because of that we feel that this is a reasonable use and consistent with the style of housing in the
neighborhood.
Burton: Any questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah. Do you have houses with smaller footprint that you build?
Ryan Carras: The house that we are proposing, the living space is 26 wide by 44 long. We do have one
model that's 24 feet wide, but again added to the required garage that is not limited, it does not change
the need fora side yard variance in that particular configuration.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you.
Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter may approach the microphone.
Go ahead. Can you please state your name and address?
Wally Schwab: Good evening. My name is Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road~ directly
east of this proposed anomaly. Needless to say I'm the one probably most directly impacted by this
proposal. We would like to state that when the property went for sale I inquired in the Chanhassen
Planning Commission whether or not it was a buildable lot. After doing a little bit of background work I
reported back to the Planning Commission, the person who's name I can't remember. I was told by this
person that it was not a buildable lot. In conversation with the seller, Floyd D. Osmundson, the previous
owner, he was also told by the Chanhassen Planning Commission that it was not a buildable lot. I
referred to the proposal earlier as an anomaly. That is what I feel it is. A deviation from the normal. If
you look into the plot size of the upper end of Carver Beach Road, the planning people initially set out
there to make spacious lots with reasonable setbacks. The entire area is laid out that way. This proposal
would be a disruption to the continuity of the neighborhood. The one version of the layout that I saw
shows my garage being 25 feet by scale from my property line. In actuality it is 10 feet. That means I
4
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
will have this property 17 feet from my garage. To put a house, of any size for that matter, in such a
small lot smacks of stuffing them in wherever we can, ala Minneapolis. Have we in Chanhassen come to
that point? Thank you.
Burton: Thank you. Anybody else like to address the commission?
Keith Peterson: Hi. My name is Keith Peterson and I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive, Chanhassen. I'm just
kind of kitty corner to this lot. Basically what I was going to approach tonight is variances are approved
because of undue hardship, if I'm not mistaken. That's what Bob told me yesterday. And basically that
means a property cannot be put into reasonable use because of it's size. I was reading through city code
on another one that was denied back in '96 and city code, Section 20 through 58 provides that a variance
may not be granted if all of the following criteria are met. And number 4 that was listed there is that the
alleged difficulty or hardship is not self, a self created hardship. And Anita Benson, I've never met her
but she knew before she bought this lot. She was a City Engineer from what I understand. She knew
before she bought this lot that this lot was too small. So I would presume that would be a self inflicted,
or a self created hardship. The way I look at it. And then number 3 in that same thing is, that the
purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the land.
She bought this property for $4,200 in Chanhassen. The person that sold it is a realtor. If he thought it
was buildable, do you think he would have sold it for $4,200 in Chanhassen? And I understand that right
now she has an offer from them for $27,200. So to me that looks like an income and she's not living
there herself so to me that looks like potential for income. So I would think number 3 and number 4 are
not met. And I didn't have time to get detailed any others and I know on Western, which is, or I could
throw a rock from this lot to the lot where it was denied because of income. The variance and that was a
14,000 square foot lot that was denied because it was 1,000 feet too small so. And then another thing.
You know the profit here, it's over a 2 year period and the city employee never once mowed that lawn.
The neighbors had to take care of that property so we should have just let it go and let the city come in
and do it but so. And then another question on this map that you had here. What was the qualifications
for those lots? Was it under 10,0007
Generous: Equal to or less than 10,000.
Keith Peterson: Equal to or less to, okay. So anyway, that's what I have to say.
Burton: Thank you. Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Please state
your name and address.
Bob Nelson: My name is Bob Nelson. I live at 970 Carver Beach Road. I have the property that is
directly west and directly north of this property. My property line to the west is 124 by 200. I also own
the property directly behind this which is 60 by 100, exactly the same size lot. My question is with
integrity. Two parts. Integrity of the neighborhood with the size of lots that we have. Wally's lot and
Keith's lot are both at least 10,000. Actually they're both 12,000 now. All the lots behind me are in the
15 to 20,000 square foot. I have about 26. So the integrity of that area, and all the lots to my west also
are at least 100 by 200 foot so I disagree with Mr. Generous' assumption that this fits right into the
neighborhood. It does not fit into the neighborhood. It's a small, small lot. 6,000 square feet when
everybody else is at 12 to 20,000. And the second part of my integrity question is with the information
that we received by inquiring with the City of Chanhassen. In a chronological timeline, Wally had
questioned the buildable, or buildability on this lot and we were told no, it's not buildable. The lot went
up for sale, we questioned it and the realtor who owned the property bought it evidently for some
speculation or whatever, decided to sell it at much less than what the current offer is on the property. So
5
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
my question is, we have somebody that's employed by the City purchasing this lot. We were told it's not
buildable. Now after this person has purchased it, it goes up for sale and now we find out it's a buildable
lot. So I do question integrity, both of the neighborhood. The continuity of the neighborhood and I also
question the integrity ofwhoever's giving these answers. I was told it was a commission. I don't know
if it was people before me here, but somebody is telling the wrong thing at the right time so to speak. So
I'd like to take that into consideration. I know this is just a preliminary action here but I can promise that
we are going to continue our discussion on this. I'd like to get a show of hands of all the neighbors that
are here that disagree with this proposal. Any neighbors on this side? No? That's a different story there.
Well there is a considerable number of people here that disagree with what the City is finding or what the
Planning Commission so we are asking that this is denied, not only the variances. We do not want
anything period built there. I don't know if anything can be done about that but that is our quest. Not
just to deny variances. We want nothing built there at all. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Wally Schwab: May I re-address tile commission?
Burton: Very briefly. We've got a lot.
Wally Schwab: Very briefly. May I ask if any of you or some of you have actually seen the site in
question? Okay. For those who haven't, may I submit some pictures that ! took of my lot, Bob's lot, the
lot that is in question and the general area in regards to the setbacks, the existing setbacks.
Burton: Why don't you just give them up here and we'll pass them around and then we'll move on.
Wally Schxvab: Then also may I inquire, have you all need tile absentee letter from one, Mr. Dick Roe?
Burton: It was in our packet.
Wally Schwab: Alright. Then I would just submit my pictures and be done with that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody else like to address the commission on this matter?
Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Commissioners comments on this? Want me to pick someone?
Sacchet: I can start.
Burton: Okay.
Sacchet: Bob, I have a question for staff. I mean there is this letter in the packet that states that the City
has at one point declared that this lot is unbuildable and we have heard it from somebody different now
that it was actually known at the time this was purchased that this was unbuildable. Do we have any
information about that from the City side?
Generous: I don't.
Aanenson: No.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Sacchet: We don't? Okay. In all respect to Habitat for Humanity, I do have a problem with this
variance and I think it's important for me to separate it into two types of variances. One is the variance
for some setback variances, which is one thing. But the big thing to deal with is the variance for the lot
size and the frontage. And I'm well aware that there have been lots of variances in the Carver Beach
area, but the examples that are given in the report at least are for lots that are 10,000 feet. I mean there's
no example that is that severe as we are looking at here. And to me it looks like we're trying to shoe
horn something in there and I personally am opposed to that. That's my comment.
Burton: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: I didn't raise my hand. Two quick questions. They may have a right to build, but I guess I
would have, I'll start at a different place. Variances are severe and it doesn't look like it really fits. And
the neighbors, and a variance you listen to neighbors. I think if the neighbors said that this is
co~nfortable, then I'd pay attention. In this particular case they're obviously not thrilled with this. The
owner ~nay have a legal right to do this but I guess I'd force them to exercise that proof, whatever legal
matter, methods they have. Right now, so that may go with the property and probably does but at this
point in time, I think the variances are too severe for the lot. I would turn it down.
Burton: Alison.
Blackowiak: I had a discussion with Kate yesterday I believe about lots of record or was it today? I'm
not' even sure. And according to what Kate said, any lot of record is a buildable lot, and that kind of
surprised me a little bit. So regardless of how small a lot it is, I guess legally you have a right to build
something on it as long as the zoning is consistent with what you want to build. Having said that, I do
not like the variances on this lot. I think that there might be a possibility if it were a different style house.
If it were tuck under garage or something so.the variances wouldn't be quite so severe, but it does look
like it's.shoe horned in. That was part of my reason for asking the question in regards to the setbacks for
the two neighboring homes because I was wondering if we could do something in terms of splitting the
difference on the setbacks of the homes or something and that doesn't even seem possible. So based on a
lot of things, I just don't think it really fits as presented to us. And like Ladd Said, whether or not they
have a right to build 'is really not my questions right now. Theplan before me I don't think fits and I
think that something different may change my mind in the future but I'm not convinced that the plan we
have tonight is appropriate for this lot.
Burton: Thank you. Deb.
Kind: I don't really have anything to add. I agree with my fellow commissioners.
Burton: Okay. And I agree also. I like going through the variance analysis and looking at the different
elements. I question whether there's an undue hardship and I don't know what other reasonable uses
there could be to this property but perhaps there are other reasonable uses and I don't think that's been
fully explored. I question whether this is a project designed to increase the income value of the property,
and I also question whether this was a self created hardship and I think that also this may be injurious to
the other land in the neighborhood, so for those reasons I agree with the comments of my fellow
commissioners. So with that can I have a motion?
Sacchet: Yeah, I can make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission denies-Variance #2000-14
for a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size and so on.
7
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #2000-14 for
a 9,000 square foot variance from the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size to permit development
on an existing 6,000 square foot lot, a 30 foot variance from the 90 foot lot frontage requirement, a
15 percent variance from the 25 percent site coverage to permit site coverage up to 40 percent, a
seven (7) foot variance from the 30 foot rear yard setback and a three (3) foot variance from the 10
foot side yard setbacks for the construction of a single family home at 960 Carver Beach Road. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: This matter does not pass and the aggrieved party may appeal the decision to the City Council
by filing an appeal, my notes say with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the
Board's, our decision, and it will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Which may be
when?
Aanenson: Probably January.
Burton: Probably in January. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO BE LOCATED IN
AN OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT 8170-8190 MALLORY COURT,
ANDREAS DEVELOPMENT.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Any questions for stafF?.
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I have two quick questions..Bob, parking. Are you happy with file day to day
traffic parking requirements? I realize they're taking almost half the building so I'm assuming what's
there will suffice, but.
Generous: ...their peak hour usage is complimentary to the other uses...
Blackowiak: For the worship services but for the other uses, they sound like they're fairly 9:00 to 5:00.
mean I could be wrong but.
Generous: Yeah. It's a minimal part of their actual occupancy.
Blackowiak: Okay. It just, there was a fairly long list. I just wanted to make sure you're okay with that.
And secondly, the applicant is, I'm assuming okay with the limit to worship services evenings and
weekends?
Michelle Underdahl: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, those are my questions.
8
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Burton: Any other questions? Go ahead.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. For staff. One thing that I kind of found interesting is
that in the administrative area, which by my account accommodates something in the neighborhood of 20
people, if they're all there. There's only one men's room and one women's room. One stall each. I
mean there's a lot of bathrooms with the sanctuary which is way on the other side so I wonder, does that
fulfill the requirements to have one for each sex? I mean that sounds like a little small for 20 people
office. I don't know. I really don't know. It's a question.
Aanenson: It has to go through plan check so I'll leave it up to the inspector.
Sacchet: Okay. And then the other question is, in the condition you stated that their worships would be
restricted to evenings and weekend mornings. Is there a reason why we wouldn't want to let them have
worship service on a Sunday afternoon, if that's what they want to do?
Generous: No.
Sacchet: Okay. So anytime weekends or.
Generous: The only prohibition we'd want is not during the weekday mornings.
Sacchet: Weekday during the day, okay. That's my questions.
Burton: Okay, any other questions? Would the applicant or their designee like to address the Planning
Commission?
Michelle Underdahl: No. Our goal is to...
Burton: If you're going to talk, you've got to go to the podium. And please state your name and address.
Michelle Underdahl: My name is Michelle Underdahl and I'm with Andreas Development Company.
Our office address is 7525 Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie. Suite 110. And there's really nothing for me
to say other than we feel this is a good use for us. Our building pad's been vacant for a couple of months
now and we think this would be appropriate for the area and the parking is just, is enough to
accommodate them and as I said before, the hours are complimentary to that neighborhood so we don't
feel we'll be causing additional traffic issues.
Burton: Okay. Go ahead. Have you got a question?
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question for the applicant. I'm kind of curious. I mean this is a request for an
Interim Use Permit for 5 years. You're saying they have a 5 year lease. What's going to happen after 5
years?
Michelle Underdahl: We hope to find another tenant. The church group is looking for a permanent
home. A home where they can build their church facility. More of a campus setting. So our goal would
be as a developer, of course to build them that church. Keep them as long as we can, which would be the
5 years, and in the meantime find another tenant.
Sacchet: Thank you.
9
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Motion for a public hearing.
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? If so, please approach the
podium. Going once. Motion to close.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Comments? Deb do you want to?
Kind: I think the proposal seems very reasonable. I agree with the staff report. I like Uli's idea of
clarifying the worship times by just saying, shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Something like that but I think it's a good use and a good interim use.
Burton: Okay. Any other comments? Then if somebody would like to make a motion?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use
Permit 00-3 to alloxv a church in an IOP District for the "The Life" to be located on Lot 1, Block 1,
Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on the plans dated
Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions 1 through 8, with number 4 being re-
worded to say worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
Conrad: Second.
Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim
Use Permit #00-3 to alloxv a church in an lOP District for "The Life", to be located on Lot 1, Block
1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 8th Addition, and occupy 20,700 square feet as shown on plans
dated Received November 1, 2000, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into an interim use permit agreement with the City.
2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval.
.
There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the church or the auxiliary
uses associated with the church.
4. Worship services shall be limited to evenings during the week and weekends.
5. The Interim Use Permit shall expire in 5 years from the date approved by the City Council.
6. Plans must be submitted to the Inspections Division for review and building permit approval.
7. Meet with Fire Prevention Division for Fire Code requirements.
At any time if issues of parking arise, e.g. parking in public right-of-way, conflicts with other site
users, the City will re-evaluate this application.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Burton: Okay, it passes and goes to City Council for their next meeting I assume?
Aanenson: Yes. It's going December 11th.
Generous: Quick turn around.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A REZONING REQUEST FROM A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW
DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OFFICE TO
MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO COMMERCIAL, AND PRELIMINARY
PLAT SUBDIVISION OF 120.93 ACRES, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WORKSHEET FOR A MIXED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (393 UNITS) CONSISTING OF
CLUB HOMES, MANOR HOMES, COACH HOMES, VILLAGE HOMES AND RENTAL
TOWNHOMES ON 89.5 ACRES AND 2.9 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES AND ON
PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF HWY 5 AND HWY 41, ARBORETUM VILLAGE, PULTE HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address
Brian Evans
Leah Hawke
Shelly Christy
Laura Papas
Steve Hanousek
Susan Cohoon
Anne & Mike Ryan
Mike Zumwinkle
Michelle & Kurt Oddsen
Allan Vargas
Kathy & Tony Larson
Scott C. Rile
Bill Naegele
Peter Prosen
Bruce Buxton
Ton Green
Dave Sellengren
Dan Cook
Susan McAllister
Dennis R. Griswold
Tom Standke
Kevin Farrell
2585 Southern Court
7444 Moccasin Trail
7377 Moccasin Trail
7434 Moccasin Trail
7501 Bent Bow Trail
7525 Bent Bow Trail
2595 Southern Court
7250 Hillsdale Court
7325 Moccasin Trail
2596 Southern Court
2631 Longacres Drive
2665 Longacres Drive
3301 Shore Drive
2701 Longacres Drive
Brainerd, Minnesota
Mills Property
Minneapolis
Eden Prairie
7461 Hazeltine Blvd.
Pulte Homes
Pulte Homes
7336 Fawn Hill Road
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Burton: Questions for staff. Deb.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Let me find my place here. The primary benefit for doing
a PUD is this concept of density transfer and preserving these large stands of trees in that Bluff Creek
primary zone. Our city code does not allow clear cutting of trees so if they develop this as a standard
subdivision, they would not be allowed to cut down all the trees. So are we really saving that many more
trees by doing this a PUD?
Aanenson: That's a good question. We've walked, there's a couple of subdivisions that were heavily
wooded. One is the Woods at Longacres. Another one would be Stone Creek. Heavily wooded. When
Stone Creek came in we recommended doing large lot in the treed area and clustering outside. The
Planning Commission and the Council at that time had recommended no. There was a lot of trees lost in
both those subdivisions. It happens when you grade. Even when you custom grade. There's just, the
clear cutting says you can't go in and cut down all the trees and then come back and alter the terrain. The
purpose of saving the trees is it forces the maintenance of some of the natural topography, which is one
of the other goals we're trying to achieve, but yes you will get a lot of tree loss if you did a straight
subdivision.
Kind: I know-I have other questions. Oh, on page 9 of the staff report it talks about that it appears it will
be 41% owner occupied units. I was at the City Council meeting. I was the designated Planning
Commission person at the meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved unanimously by
our City Council, and it was 30%. I'm assuming that the reason this is 41% is that we, this is the only
type of area where xve are going to get affordable homes so we need to have a higher percentage here.
Because the 30% is for all new units built in Chanhassen. Is that how it works?
Sacchet: May I jump in here? Because the 41% is not accurate anymore. It's actually between 20 and
25% now because the price of the coach homes went out of the range of affordable so only the village
homes are considered affordable and there are 82 and 82 out of 383 is about between 20 and 25%.
Kind: So we're not even making up anything with this?
Sacchet: So yes.
Aanenson: I don't think that's a right number. The village homes is the predominant use and that's the
most modestly priced ones.
Sacchet: Oh excuse me, there are 160 village homes.
Aanenson: Col7'ect.
Kind: Yep. So it's 41% about.
Aanenson: It's 41%.
Kind: But the reason for the higher percentage is because it's for all, well go ahead.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: It'd be nice to accomplish it, you know our goal would be to try to accomplish it in any
subdivision. Economically it's impossible to do a single family detached home, in a traditional
subdivision, and make it work because the economics are such that when you have a three car garage,
two story home, you're not going to get one under 134. We haven't built one under 134 for a number of
years. So the only way to accomplish some of the affordable owner occupied is to do some other type of
product, and that tends to be townhome or condominium type product. The only product that we've done
as single family detached, that's affordable, is the North Bay one that the City participated in. That's
been the only one that we participated owner occupied in a number of years. And that's off of Lake
Riley, Lyman Boulevard and that's a detached type home. And the City participated in that.
Kind: So with the 41% for this project, does that put us on track for meeting our overall 30% goal?
Aanenson: It moves us towards it but we're still quite a ways from it.
Kind: Okay. On page 10 of the staff report it talks about setbacks and I'm curious, I think elsewhere in
the staff report, I couldn't quite put my finger on it, it talks about the distance across the wetland to the
neighboring homes. What is that distance?
Aanenson: 700 to 1,000 feet.
Kind: And then how about across the smaller wetland to the new proposed.
Aanenson: That's also approximately about 600-700 feet. Let me just, as long as we're on that topic.
That was another one we looked at this, doing the density transfer because this neighborhood is isolated.
You're not connected, as ! showed on Walnut Grove, you had two neighborhoods that are connected,
which is much more sensitive to the traffic patterns. This neighborhood is not connected to another
neighborhood in that way. They won't be able to get, except for the West 78th Street extension, to
connect to another neighborhood. And they're at the end of a line. Looking at access onto collectors.
Kind: On that same page, under the commercial development standards it talks about under point
number 2 that curtail walls would be allowed on office components. Standing seam curtain walls. Do
we really want to say that?
Aanenson: No, we want it as a support material. I think if you're talking about a long, where we don't
want it as a long unadorned wall. If it is standing seam siding, it could be monotonous so, I mean if
that's a concern I would recommend that you strike that language out.
Kind: It's a concern so I agree. Next staff question. Oh, on page 12 where preliminary plat subdivision,
where we're talking about conservation easements and the common spaces and the outlots and that sort
of thing. It brings to mind that these conservation easements are, are they, who owns them when they're
dedicated? Is it the City?
Aanenson: Well it's staff's recommendation that we put, that we put them in a conservation easement
but if they're left with the homeowners association, there's only so much density. This has come up in
other PUD's, with this project. If they wanted to put additional units, they'd have to come back and ask
for a rezoning because a fixed number of units goes with the project and that's the beauty of the PUD.
They can't make alterations without coming back and asking for amendments. As far as the Wetland
Conservation Act, I mean they're bound by law as far as what they can do to that, and those also have
utility and drainage easements over them. That they cannot alter those either. That's based on the
13
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Wetland Conservation Act. If you wanted another level of assurance, you can speak to the applicant
about if they wanted to put the conservation easement in the name of the City or something so they make
sure that the homeowners association didn't decide to put a gazebo in that area or something like that.
Kind: I think that might be a good idea. So that dovetails into my wetland question which is, are they
being dedicated to the City as well?
Haak: Yeah, I knew you were going to... Yes, what the proposal is and what typically happens with
~vetland issues is that the existing wetlands are dedicated to the City in drainage and utility easements.
Any replacement wetlands are under separate drainage and utility easements and there are some other
restrictions and covenants that go along with those replacement wetlands. They will be replacing it 2 to 1
as is required by law.
Kind: Okay. And the large wetland, what if it becomes not so wet anymore and basically dries up and
all of a sudden could they build on that?
Haak: Well that wetland has existed fox' quite some time. I wouldn't anticipate something like that. if
that were to happen, there's a number of exemptions that could be applied, if the Wetland Conservation
Act stays the way it is right now. But like I said, with a historic wetland like that, it's part of the Bluff
Creek Watershed. ! wouldn't anticipate anything like that happening.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that question? It's a good question. Again, that's the density question so
any alteration of that, they would still have to come back and ask for one, any exemptions of the wetland
act if they use them. Then they'd also have to ask for additional density because you've given so many
units. So it would take an amendment to the PUD.
Kind: Brings to mind another question which is, I know in Longacres some of those home's properties
actually go into the wetland so that's counted as their square footage, their 15,000 average or whatever.
In this development, are we giving the applicant any credit for any of that wetland?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: Anything that density transfer...
Aanenson: ...taken out of the net density.
Kind: Okay, so the net density is just upland?
Aanenson: Correct.
Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have another question. Oh! On page 19, there's a park and trail section and this
is an area I don't think we should get into. I'm just wondering if it makes sense to direct planning staff to
take a look at what we've done with other multi-family home projects as far as totlots and prepared some
sort of document for City Council. Just not even get into that discussion.
Aanenson: Well yeah, the Park Commission's recommendation goes directly to the City Council. In the
past the Planning Commission and Park Commission may not always have been in agreement where the
Park Commission may have wanted something more active. Maybe the Planning Commission wanted
something more passive. The Planning Commission has asked to see what the Park Commission's
14
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
looking at. You don't have to be in concurrence. You don't have to review what they're doing. Their
commission, their recommendation similar to your recommendation, goes up to the council and they'll
consider both of those in the evaluation of the project. So you don't have to be in concurrence or review
what they're doing. It's just really for your edification.
Kind: What do you think about preparing something relative to what we've done in other multi family
housing developments?
Aanenson: Sure. That seems like a reasonable request.
Kind: Okay. Page 22. Street. The traffic analysis and the EAW, on page 19, shows a C and D level of
service as acceptable. Do we agree?
Saam: Yes. Yeah, I agree with that.
Kind: I just had never thought ofa C and D as being a good grade, but for streets it is huh? For traffic it
is?
Saam: Well acceptable, yeah. I guess it's better than what was it the Gateway EAW. Kate and I had
discussed this before the meeting. I wasn't around when the Gateway EAW came about so.
Aanenson: The C or D means it's adequate. It's not performing but Highway 5 is functioning at C or D
and it will with the upgrade so.
Kind: How about if this parcel is developed as commercial or as a standard subdivision, how would that
affect the traffic?
Aanenson: We had put that in the other packet. Matt's new here. We had put that in the concept, the
different scenarios under based on what we estimated for trip generation. We kind of review our math,
what we had put in there. It's one of the attachments.
Kind: It's one of these attachments?
Aanenson: One of the attachments at the very end. Under the original concept you wanted to look at
population projection for students, tax capacity and population for...
Kind: Excuse me Kate, but what page are you looking at?
Aanenson: The last page. The estimated students on the top, that was the name of our thing but it's
actually trip generation rates. The top heading's going to say estimated student projections. Right under
trip generations.
Kind: Yeah okay.
Aanenson: I can go through those with you but I think if you look at what the EA projected and if it was
industrial and commercial, you're over by 1,000, a little over a 1,000 trips a day from what, so our
estimate was pretty close.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Saam: Yeah, the EAW had predicted 4730. What Kate modeled for what Pulte's actually petitioning or
applying as is 6176 so that's about 1,400 more. If it was all commercial it'd be even higher. 7,700 so.
The traffic would definitely increase if it was all commercial.
Kind: Let's see ifI have another one. Oh, speaking of streets. There's one dead end street in the
proposal that abuts up to the McAllister property. Will that road be posted as possibly being extended in
the future or something like that for clear communication purposes?
Saam: Yes. That's something we typically do. Put up a barricade and say this street will be extended in
the future.
Kind: Do we know that it will be? Should the language say maybe or?
Saam: Yeah there's no, we don't know for sure. It's not set in stone but that's what we're planning for.
Aanenson: Right. There's txvo anticipated access to the McAllister property. One would be directly off
of West 78th. The other would come through that street. She is requesting sewer and then possibly for
sewer and water, way may come through that way too so.
Saam: Both we'd want through.
Aanenson: Right. So it gives you two options so it's probably, that may be a good idea to post it.
Saam: Yeah, it's dependent upon development of course. If she never wants to develop.
Kind: Then it won't happen. Well and there's a few streets like that that the roads never did go through
and I can think of one in Stone Creek where it abuts Timberwood ~vhere the street never did go through,
even though it could.
Aanenson: The staff recommended approval. The neighbors didn't want it tied in.
Kind: Right, and so it didn't happen. And then there's another one in Chan Estates abutting the
Brookhill development too, yeah. Where that road never went through either so a couple examples.
They don't necessarily go through, but the possibility I think should be told.
Aanenson: I think for the Stone Creek one, staff had recommended approval. It's still posted there. If
for some reason some future council changes their mind, so the bus can go through.
Kind: We won't get into that tonight. And speaking of Miss Rosie's, I'm wondering if it makes sense
again under the heading of clear communication, that if this proposal goes through, that the future buyers
all sign some sort of disclosure statement saying that they're aware of Miss Rosie's petting farm and also
we're not sure what's going to happen with the Gateway. You mentioned that they are selling but maybe
disclose that there's a Gateway group home there and then the possibility that that road could be
extended in the future. The next thing on that page talks about the EAW. I'm still on page 24 guys. I
think they're trying to keep track. It talks about the EAW and the plans that are shown in the EAW are
different than the cun'ent proposal. Is there any problem with that?
Aanenson: It's less intense so we scope for the maximum. This actually has less units and it's been
modified so. And we'll comment on that when we send it.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: Okay. And in the EAW it also talked about noise abatement and it recommended that air
conditioning, it recommended that there be year round climate control which.
Aanenson: I believe all the units are air conditioned. So that issue has been resolved.
Kind: Sorry guys, I got a lot of questions. Oh, on page 26. Under the fifth finding it talks about, staff
report talks about the code does allow for a density bonus for affordable. Are we, does this proposal
include a density bonus?
Aanenson: No.
Kind: No. And then there's also a couple numbers in there that that are different.
Aanenson: Those are the older densities.
Kind: The older. It should be 8.3 units on the, let's see. On the south side of West 78~ Street and then
5.6 overall.
Aanenson: Right.
Kind: And that's it for now.
Burton: Other questions for staff'?.
Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a lot of questions but I feel a little torn. I mean we have a lot of people
here that want to give input to that and I have at least as many questions as Deb had so I would want to
ask whether it's acceptable that we can ask more questions as we move along because we have people
with small kids. I think it'd be fair to them if we moved this thing along.
Burton: I think we've typically asked questions as we go anyway so I don't have a problem with that.
Anybody else want to ask questions?
Conrad: A couple. Questions before you open the public hearing?
Burton: Or the applicant.
Aanenson: I think the developer would like to finish his presentation.
Conrad: Kate, would youjust...developer, give me a history of this. We saw it in concept form. Tell
me what's happened since that concept.
Aanenson: Sure, I'll go through those changes again.
Conrad: And then, so that's one thing I need to know. And then two. In the staffreport it appeared that
there were two issues that City Council brought up. That were of concern to them so I'd like to know the
history, public involvement and then I'd like to know the major City Council issues. If you could
smnmarize them based on your memory.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Sure. The council had an issue regarding the density on the north side. At a minimum all,
my understanding is a minimum of all twin homes along the perimeter. And that wasn't able to be
accomplished on the eastern side of the property where the rental homes was. They had Pulte didn't have
control of that. The applicant...Mr. Deannovic xvanted to do the rental.
Audience: Could you speak up please.
Aanenson: Mr. Deannovic wanted to do the rental. To date it appears that Mr. Deannovic won't be
doing the rental. That has been dropped from the project and Pulte is trying to acquire that piece and it's
their desire to put the manor homes, which is this product, along that perimeter property. So it will be all
owner occupied. So that was one of the concerns that council also wanted to see the twin homes along
the entire perimeter was one of the issues. Also the open space and some of the density transfer, how
that worked. I'm not sure that was clear so we tried to show that in the staff report. How that worked.
Again we treated it like Walnut Grove where we gave them again Pulte is dedicating West 78th. If this
project does not go through, it's a separate letting project. West 78th would terminate at Century
Boulevard, which is this street right now. That's where the project right now contemplates. The water is
running along West 78th Street, which goes over to 41 which would service the future Westwood.
Sewer's running along the edge of that wetland so this project provides the mechanism for the next
project to go. So that's the history. Neighborhood meetings. A neighborhood meeting was held last
week. I'm sorry.
Conrad: Go back further. When did we see this?
Aanenson: Ovel' a year ago. Over a year ago.
Conrad: And we've seen'it once?
Aanenson: Yes,
Conrad: And then it went to council for their concept so they saw it and they gave those
recommendations, they gave them two or three recommendations. And then since then.
Aanenson: Right. And they also'said it didn't have any legal standing. It does take, it does a rezoning
does take, you have a lot of discretion as far as changing the comprehensive plan. And I think it was
clear that the concept didn't have standing but they wanted to give them some direction on which way to
go.
Conrad: And then the neighbors were brought in at what point in time?
Aanenson: Well we've been in dialogue on the, I'm not sure there's been always a lot of concurrence on
some of the issues but they did meet last week, been a bit of dialogue.
Conrad: So you've got City Council input a long time ago and now we're back.
Aanenson: Yes.
Conrad: Okay.
Burton: Alison, do you have any questions?
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Blackowiak: No, not at this point.
Burton: Alright, we'll move on then, unless there are other questions. Would the applicant or their
designee and if they'd like to address the commission, please approach the podium and state your name
and address.
To~n Standke: My name is Tom Standke. I'm with Pulte Homes, 1355 Mendota Heights Road in
Mendota Heights.
Dennis Griswold: Dennis Griswold, the Director of Land for Pulte Homes. If you'd like I'd like to just
make a few comments about the site and then we'll go through the product in more detail and show the
elevations and then answer any questions you might have.
Burton: That's fine.
Dennis Griswold: Just to start. We are very proud of this proposal that we have before you tonight. We
feel it's a planned unit development that is a perfect use for a site that has many things happening in it
and around it. And the aerial photo that we took earlier this year indicates the different areas as they
exist now, and I'd like to just point out so you can see in photo form how it does relate. Kate did have an
aerial map but this is a little bit at an angle and I think shows the vicinity. The Longacres property is to
the north. We have the generous wetland immediately adjacent to that in this area. The area that will be
the primary development area is the tan colored open field area through here, and the dashed line that you
see through here is the northerly extent of where our buildings will occur. So you can see we are backing
up to the wetland. We're not violating that wetland. We're backing up to the wetland on the north and
the east, but we're respecting that buffer and we're not violating it. The two little white rectangles that
show up, these are the locations are actually the dimensions that we are from the, where the back of our
buildings will be and the path that is along the back side of the homes in Longacres. You can see On the
map, the path kind of coming into the right. That continues through the trees. We're 658 feet at the
closest point diagonally across here and we're about 1,317 feet through the balance of that buffer area.-
The property west of 41 is about 11 acres and you can see that, where it's, the tree mass through here and
the open area on the north. The other tree masses on the main part of the site are down along Highway 5
and then up north of the McAllister exception up along the wetland. And part of the proposal here of
using the PUD concept again is to save those natural areas as much as possible and to make sure they are-
saved from here on. In doing that we have proposed the site plan that you have seen tonight and as part
of that, thanks. Part of that site plan and the platting is that the wetlands and the property west of 41 will
be saved within outlots. And I know it's been stated either in a conservation easement or whatever to
convey that so there's an assurance that those will not be developed in the future. Those will be
dedicated as outlots and they'll be dedicated to the city. So it will be under city ownership defined
within an outlot and therefore it will be your responsibility and great effort to maintain those as is. That
is a common practice in many cities so the city does have the right to go in and do any small maintenance
or whatever on the boundaries of the wetlands and do what you need to do there. The development then,
the proposal again is planned unit development. That allows us to work with the natural features. It
allows us to put our density in the right areas of the site. It allows us to work with also the other features
such as the .78th Street, Highway 5 to work with how we will have access to those and how our buffering
would work. And again we have worked extensively with staff and I don't mean to go through each
detail of the site but we are providing an ample interacting open space or green space throughout all of
the different products. Most of them with a path system so you do have good circulation through. Just
for scale, the open space down in the southwest comer, right in this location is 1 ½ sizes of a football
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
field. So you can get the sense of scale that that is a large open space that we are providing. We actually
have about twice that much up in the open space up in the manor home area of the site. A little bit
different character because it has trees and wetlands and a little more undulating. All of the open spaces
have the play features that we are proposing. Totlots, half court basketball, volleyball courts, horseshoes,
shuffle board, all of those types of things. Again we're trying to provide a plan that integrates the life
cycle community aspect of homeowners in different stages of their housing needs. To work together not
only with the natural corridors but also the transportation corridors and we feel that this particular site
plan is an excellent site plan for this particular site. It's a very intense site with 41 and 5 and 78th Street.
Those are all very major streets. We are integrating the density out in the area where the density should
be according to comp guide plan. And we're transitioning for the more intense density on the south to
less intense on the north. And that's a transition that works well with the man made and the natural
features. So with that just a couple quick things that the planned development gives you that a straight
zoning would not. First of all MnDot would not have to pay for 78th Street right-of-way. We're
dedicating that. We are dedicating the 11 acres west of 41 that will be part of your natural corridor
through there. We're providing the tree buffering along 5 and 41. We're not only saving the tree mass in
this area, but we're also planting about 1,200 or so trees on the site that are primarily along 5, 41 and 78th
Street. From the City's standpoint also, with the association owned green space that we're providing
these recreational amenities and path system, those are not park dedication. Park dedication will be
approximately $275,000 cash dedication per your per unit dedication requirement. So the City is getting
a definite advantage from that standpoint. I think that the bottom line from our standpoint is the site and
the uses fit with the area that we're dealing with. With that I'd like to, with Mr. Standke, do a quick run
through on the units themselves so you can see what they'll look like and what they will cost and so
forth.
Burton: Okay.
Tom Standke: Thank you. I believe we'll start with just leaving the plat map up there. Talking a little
bit about the prices, the sizes and the basic demographics of the specific products. As Denny had
mentioned on the south side of the property is the village homes. These are the 160 units that was
mentioned before as far as the affordable housing. Down in the, again in the south and the western
portion of the site. This is the fourth community that we will be building village homes in. We
redesigned this particular product. You may have recalled, it was in an L shaped building before. It is
now in a different characteristic. Our estimations are, and again based on our history with this product,
of approximately 21% children. That's 33.6 or 34 children. They are two story homes with tuck under
garages. The finished square footage range is from 930 to 1,000 square feet. And the approximate
selling prices go from $110,000 to $120,000. The piece that you see covered up is the L shaped portion
of the building, which is why we put that there. Obviously you will now have just a straight run as we
have shown on the plat map. This is the front door on the garage for the homes. We do have a rendering
of the rear of the home that is a black and ~vhite. Here you see a typical four unit building. 'The entrance
to the homes on the side comes in through the side of the home over in this area. Each of the home has
it's own patio onto a green space as was indicated on the original plat. Here you see the side elevation of
the drawing of the building where you have the side entry for the home that would be on the end of the
building itself in it's totality. The next product is the coach home which is in this area. IfI don't take all
of our things down. And again that is a coach home. It is a product that we developed for here. It is an
off shoot of something that we called a court home. We have been building this product probably 15
different communities in the Twin Cities area. This particular product has all two car garages. These are
back to back buildings meaning that there's a mirror image of the product that you see there. The coach
homes, there will be 82 of them that are planned, again with approximately 21% children which comes
out to 17.2 or 18 children. Finished square footages are between 1,200 and 1,350 square feet.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Approximate sales price range, $135 to $150,000. And again the other side is a mirror image. The next
product is the manor home which is in the center portion of the plat. These particular homes are a front
to back townhome. They're all two car garages. As a matter of fact, they're all oversized two car
garages. With the inclusion we're looking at as far as the rental homes going away, and this particular
product being added to the east side of the property, we would go to 105 manor homes. Here we're
looking at approximately 18% children, which is 18.9 or 19 children. These are split level townhomes
with basements. Finished square footages range from 1,200 to 1,600 square feet and the approximate
sales price from $150 to $180,000. The architectural drawing that you see on the bottom is the end units
and then the rear elevation of a typical building. And then the last product that we have is on the north
end of the property. These are club homes. Club home is a product that we have built in the Twin Cities
for the 10 years that our company has been here. These are all two unit buildings, front and side loaded
garages. They are all one level homes. They do have basements and the next drawing you see there is a
walkout basement. The rear elevation of a walkout basement of a two unit building. That is a, as I say, a
one level townhome. Active adult are the typical buyers. Finished square footage goes from 1,400 to
2,200 square feet. The approximate sales price from $185 to $220,000 and again for the last 10 years
we're finding approximately 12% children in that. In the 36 homes would be 4.32 or a total of 5
children. So what we're really looking at in the 383 homes would be a total of 76 children, which is
about 1 child every 5 homes. There were some questions at the neighborhood meeting about the impact
on schools. Obviously if it was a straight single family community you'd probably have approximately 2
children per home. Here you have 1 every 5 homes. So this is a basic of the plans, what they look like
and the price ranges. We do have some exhibits here for the exterior color packages and we can
certainly send those around. I'm not sure how good that shows up but what we have here is on the top
left is the siding color. The middle is a vinyl shake. Then the roofing material. On the bottom right we
have either stone or brick and then the accent color would be for shutters and front door. We do have,
and that will be passed around. This one shows the brick and Denny will pick up the cultured stone and I
don't think ~ve'll pass that around because it's a bit heavy.
Aanenson: We'll pass them. Do you want to seethem all? All the colors?
Burton: Why don't you just quickly hold them up. Why don'--t you go through and show them to the
audience too so people can see them.
..
Tom Standke: All of the homes are maintenance free exteriors'with vinyl siding and vinyl shakes. As
was mentioned before, there's a homeowners association that handles the lawn care, the snow removal,
sprinkler systems, trash pick-up so it's a combination of things that we have done in the past quite a few
times and if I've missed anything please let me know. Otherwise I'd be more than willing to take any
questions.
Burton: Questions for the applicant? Uli?
Sacchet: Yeah, I would like to ask you a few questions. I don't have too many issues with you. Most of
my issues are more staff issues but ifI can just clarify a few things. The one thing, I want to clarify, in
the staff report it says if Pulte Homes is to offer it, then the rental units will be manor homes. So is that a
done deal or is that iP. Are at this point, is that a done deal that instead of rental units you are proposing
to have manor homes there and they will be owner occupied or what' s the meaning of the if in there? Or
is that just a remnant from previous times?
Dennis Griswold: If I may address that. That has changed primarily because of the input last week from
the neighborhood meeting and we found that there was a lot of concern on the rental component and so it
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Tom Standke: Well I think it's difficult for you to see the true effect of the rear elevation because the
homes are staggered. Okay, so and again, yeah. Denny's pointing it out. You can see it more on a side
elevation how you've got the roof lines moving and so I think again, a fiat perspective does not really do
it justice, just as our colored elevation of the front.
Kind: How dramatic is the stagger? How many feet are we talking?
Dennis Griswold: There's 4 foot horizontal at these two points. And then you have the decks projecting
out. So there are quite a fexv things happening.
Kind: On the back side of that.
Dennis Griswold: The other point if I may add is, typically those are oriented within...
Kind: Which leads to my next question, which is the back elevation of the village homes, which is
exposed to that intent intersection that you talked about of Highway 5 and 41. That back elevation
appears to me to be one continuous roof line as well.
Dennis Griswold: Our intent from the site, and point ifI may just talk a little bit about that first. Is first
of all some of the things that we're doing from the site here, we're preserving the tree stand which is a
buffer for these units. Both for people looking in and people here looking out. Through here is probably
at least half of this 1,200 trees around. Those are primarily evergreens and ornamental trees such as crab
apple.
Kind: Will there be a buffer that they're on top of?. Or a bermI mean.
Dennis Grisxvold: On a berm that undulates 4 to 8 feet.
Kind: So it will hide the garages perhaps or?
Dennis Griswold: Well the garages are basically internal. The garages are facing each other in these
cases and that back elevation you were talking about is out toward this patio court in most cases. SO it's,
when you're looking at it from different directions, typically you're oriented more toward the end of
those buildings and that was the concept in doing that. You don't have in any of these village units
paralleling the street so you get the xvidth of the building if you will.
Kind: And the end unit has entrs~vay for the end unit and is there an overhang for that door? I went and
looked at the village homes that were built in Apple Valley and I'm assuming these are very similar to
those and I did not see any sort of protection from the elements, that sort of thing. On the sides.
Dennis Griswold: The horizontal shift is at this point where this total area is shifted out. There's not a
roof over the actual entry itself.
Kind: Is that something you'd consider adding?
Dennis Griswold: I guess one reason we haven't in most of the areas is because that also deals with
setback issues so you're, in addition to the building you're tacking that onto the building envelope for
setbacks.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: To me, and also in the front elevation those entryways, they're all just kind of flush. There's no
overhang or pillars. Nothing like the charm of the manor homes which I think are quite nice. I'd like to
see some of those kind of details on the village home. It seems to me it seems quite easy but I'm not the
one doing it so.
Dennis Griswold: We do have on those, and again the elevation here is flat but we do have the base
jutting out. We have the horizontal shift at these areas. Whether it's 4 unit building or 6 or an 8. And
each of the entry areas juts out and has a roof, either this style or a gable or a shed type roof so there are
three different styles of that roof over the entry.
Kind: In Apple Valley none of them offer any protection though if it's raining. It's got the roof but the
doors are flush with the, they're on the same plane. I know a shadow is drawn but it doesn't cast much of
a shadow. There's not much of an overhang there. It's just an idea for how I think it could be made a
little nice. I also have a concern with the product of shingles. In Eden Prairie the club homes have much
nicer looking shingles than the village homes. I can't tell from that flat little piece there. Is that the
higher quality shingle that's on the club homes in Eden Prairie that will be used throughout this
development or what is the roof material like?
Dennis Griswold: This is an upgraded shingle from what you saw in Eden Prairie. So just the overall
aspects of the village buildings. I think about everything you would look at in the Eden Prairie village
home has been upgraded.
Kind: Good.
Dennis Griswold: ...doing it there and learning from what the buyers would like and what we want to
provide.
Kind: The Apple Valley one looked much better. I was relieved when I saw that. I had some concerns
about the shingle quality. ! know in the summer time the flat shingle tends to kind of buckle and
so~nething that's a little bit more textured like on the club homes is something I'd like to see in all of the
units. Are you proposing using the same shingle products on all of the units?- . - .
Tom Standke: Frankly I don't know that. We also have to remember something that, first of all the
shingles that we use are a national manufacturer. They're warrantied for a minimum of 25 years. You
know it's a typical building shingle. As far as is it the same shingle that we would use on a club home?
Club home might receive a totally different shingle because you're selling a product that's up to
$220,000. Here we're looking at affordability. It's not an inferior product. It's a product that is again,
25 plus year warranty and.
Kind: I just want to make sure it looks good. That's my, that's where I'm going.
Tom Standke: Okay.
Kind: Oh. Also, on the.., it's difficult to tell. The original coach homes, let me see. Could you put the
coach home visual up? I don't know what they were called a year-ago. They weren't called coach
hmnes.
Tom Standke: Court homes.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: Court homes, thank you. The court homes in Eden Prairie have a ship lap siding, and just so you
'know where I'm going. I hate that stuff. So I'm hoping that none of this siding is going to be ship lap.
Dennis Griswold: No it's not.
Kind: Good answer. Tip my hand a little bit here. Oh, the side entries of those village homes have an
awful lot of foundation showing. Are you proposing to put some sort of brick fagade or some sort of
stone to cover up that foundation?
Dennis Griswold: We do have retaining that works around the conner of that building that brings the
grade up.
Tom Standke: And there's also landscaping that goes in that area. As you go up the grade.
Kind: It'd be nice to have rules to only so much of the foundation can show. Just quickly checking to
see if ! have any more questions. Oh, the air conditioning. You said that that was included in the base
price?
Dennis Griswold: Yes.
Kind: Because out in Apple Valley it's not. It's an option.
Tom Standke: It's standard here.
Kind: I think that's it for the applicant. Thank you.
Burton: Any other questions for the applicant? No? Ladd?
Conrad: Diversity of color choices in the project is within a housing type, the product. The colors are
the same? Exterior colors.
Dennis Griswold: There is a range of colors. Kind of the range we've seen herel They're not drastically
different but they are different.
Tom Standke: I believe we have 10 color packages.
Dennis Griswold: And you do get the differences in color on the buildings too. You know from the
siding to the shade area and so forth.
Conrad: But the buildings won't look alike and they're sitting next to each other in terms of coloration
on the outside?
Tom Standke: No. We choose the different color packages and we do not put them next to each other.
Conrad: A year ago I had one point and you probably remember what it was. I have more than one
point. I was concerned with sort of the entry feel to Chanhassen on the intersection of 41 and 5. And
was curious what you were, we were talking some gazebo look or some fountain look or something at
that intersection to kind of signify that the site, that it fits in the project here. Right now I'm not sure
what that is. What are you planning?
26
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Dennis Griswold: What we have planned is basically the berming and the landscaping for screening and
really continuing this plant mass around the perimeter for that we're providing screening. In terms of,
and then there is also a wetland down in the comer. We explored that potential of a pond and we also
were trying to explore other elements and I think it was talked about what could that be and quite frankly
I didn't get enough of an answer to put it into the plan. I really just went with the berming and the
screening and felt that that in itself and making the different housing units that we do have here, blend
into that comer and have the screening not only for the people living in the units, but for the people
driving by. And I think that's fairly comparable to what you see in a lot of different developments or
communities around.
Conrad: So that comer you're under highway grade, right? So what's the berming going to do? Is that
just, does that bring it up to highway grade? What is it doing?
Dennis Griswold: No. It won't be that high. It will give you undulation and eventually when the plant
materials get up to a bigger size, you will get screening that way. But I think you know, that is a very
intense highway there and I don't want to try to say that we're going to have total separation because we
won't. We will have I think probably better separation from that standpoint than if we created a pond
which we would want to develop relatively on elevation and a view across the pond obviously would be
open to the highway.
Conrad: So right now it will be a wetland at that comer? It will be a pond? What will it be?
Dennis Griswold: We're leaving the wetland that is in the comer. If it gets disturbed it would be by the
Highway Department and I don't know where they're at in the details of that part. The major feature I
think is going to be the larger pond here ~vith the tree mass. I think that's really where you're going to
get the most impression from the highway.
Conrad: Okay. Into the different recreation areas within the site. The common areas. It looks like you
have one trail coming through it. Are there other access points? Is it really intended to be a community
park or, it looks like on the plan that I'm looking at, which is old, it looks like there's one trail going in.
Dennis Griswold: Into that area?
Conrad: Yeah, into that area. Yeah.
Dennis Griswold: Well there's a perimeter walkway that connects to the 78th Street pathway. It comes
along this public street out to 78th Street walkway again and then from that walkway we connect through
to where the half court and the volleyball and benches and so forth are. And there's also plans for a
totlot in this area. And that connects out to this point which would give access to these units.
Conrad: So what is that space? It's green space and it's got some recreation value. What's it's intent?
Dennis Griswold: The intent is that it is association owned green space that is at a size that it's useable
for various recreational needs for that neighborhood. It's not meant to be a community park. There's a
community park in this particular case...And we do have this same path connection concept going
through this area of the site, and that also crosses the road here to the public path along that wetland that
goes this total length along the wetland. So that's where the public would be.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Conrad: Have you done other sites with this type of common area? Other projects?
Dennis Griswold: We've had common areas with paths but quite frankly not to this extent. This is quite
a bit more than we proposed in many communities. One of the, ifI may just add to that. One of the
major recreational needs in a mixed use community like this is a path system for jogging and for walking.
And for the active adults up on the north, they like to be able to make a loop walking and same with the
younger people. They go out for a jog and not have to be in the street. So that is making a big loop
there.
Conrad: Okay. Just a footnote for staff. I think it'd be, and it's obvious you went to Park and Rec and I
read their notes and their notes talked more about totlots than they talked about some of these other
things in the public comments so. I wish we would have had their comments for this meeting because it
does affect our recommendation. How we move to the City Council but that's going to take place next
xveek or sometime so i guess that will be an independent process. That's all I have Mr. Chairman.
Burton: Any other questions? I just have one quick question. On the site plan, there's the totlot in the
east corner kind of it by itself. Is that still in the plans?
Dennis Griswold: This is still on the plan. At the time we talked to the parks commission, they were
concerned about whether that was the appropriate kids and size and so forth for rental housing because
their estimation was that's where you have more kids. Now that that's owner occupied, it's really down
to about 10 kids instead of the estimate of about 60 or 70 in there so we would still be proposing that but
there would be more of a connectedness over to these other features here through the path system. And
there's also the ~valkway along this whole road up and connecting to the public path to the north.
Burton: Okay. That's the only question I had for now.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more question. You mentioned that there were 10 color pallets. There are 6
here. Do you have 4 more in there that I could take a peak at? I'm reluctant to approve color pallets I
haven't seen.
Burton: Do you want to do more than look at them?
Kind: That's it.
Burton: Okay. Question? No? Let's move to public hearing. Okay, any other questions for the
applicant?
Blackowiak: Not right nov,,.
Burton: Okay, we can ask them if we have them as we go somewhat. Thank you. Open this to public
hearing.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Burton: Okay, anybody wishing to address the commission maybe after these guys clear out a bit.
Approach the podium. State your name and address and we've got a lot of people that want to comment
so try to, I ask that we try not to be repetitive and keep things moving here.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kathy Larson: My name is Kathy Larson and I live at 2631 Longacres Drive. And I'm relatively new to
this area. My husband and I chose where we live after checking with zoning here in Chanhassen as to
what would be built behind our home. I feel like this is becoming more like Brooklyn Park and with
some association in the northern suburbs. I know the properties at the Edinborough Golf Course have
been in a drastic slump for years and Brooklyn Park is just digging out now from their crime rates and
their property values that have been slightly depressed due to all this high density housing and I'm just
wondering why it has to be at that location. ! also have somewhat of an issue with the whole affordable
housing piece. I sometimes think by neighbors feel that it's maybe the affluent versus those that don't
have wealth and I'm an individual that lived in affordable housing. Was a single mom that was never,
ever zoned by the government and I really take issue with the fact that people who worked hard and are
paying the taxes that Chanhassen provides in this location are now being asked to pay taxes for some
agenda that the constituents haven't necessarily approved. And that's all I've got to say.
Burton: Okay, thank you. Anybody approach. State your name and address please.
Allan Vargas: Yes, my name is Allan Vargas. I live at 2596 Southern Court. And I'm here really for
two reasons. One of them is because my house is right on the buffer and it's my understanding that was
to be low density housing behind that. I'm obviously in favor of low density versus... I think one of the
concerns I also have is as a citizen here of Chanhassen is that I'm really concerned about the, it's one of
the things you have in Chanhassen. One is problems with the water. We were on water rationing most of
the fall and...and you know if you don't have a sprinkler system,, you know what's going to happen to
your lawn if you don't get up at 3-4 in the morning to go and water. And apparently that's going to be
happening again this year and the question that you have is why is that in a groWing community. What's
going to happen to our services? The other thing that I have to ask too is about our taxes. I also
understand we're probably one of the highest property taxed communities in the State. And the other
thing, I don't know whether a lot of people saw your bills yet or not or if I'm the only one, but my taxes
or my city taxes are proposed to be increased 15% and I'd like a show of hands here, how many here got
a raise of 15% in their salaries this year. There's another little item there that it just Says, actual...goes
up 25%...as far as the growth and everything we're going to have. The other thing that we talk about is
what's going to happen. You know we're saying about what is our community going to look like and
we're supposed to be having an impression as people are coming in, as they're going out. If you take a
look at it on 5 and Dell Road, what is the first things that we see. We see the townhomes and then the
next thing that we see is industrial. Going out you see the four corners of 5 and where 41 is, you'll find
you see a lot oftownhomes, Galpin Boulevard and also in the proposed area and the question you've got
to have is what... Is there going to be one anywhere else? Let's see, I've got some notes here. The other
part that also speaking about the taxes and one of the things that I really don't understand is on, it hasn't
been explained to me, is on the affordable housing. How does that really work? Okay. And apparently
the rental units have been taken out. Things like that. One question that I have is, if the market value of
property, say it' s $1,000. Okay? And with a life style home you can now rent that property for $700,
okay. Who makes up the $300? The value of the property. Does that come in in taxes, either directly or
indirectly that we're being taxed? Now I think these are the things that we've got to ask as a city
government. You know if our taxes are going to be going up 15% per year in city taxes and are being
just under 6 years, they'll be doubled. I thought one of the things that city government is supposed to be
doing for us is really kind of protect us and protect our lifestyle. And I guess that's all I've got to say.
My recommendation is no on the medium-medium.
Burton: Thank you.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Mike Ryan: Hi, my name is Mike Ryan. I live at 2595 Southern Court. I've got a lot to share and
express with you with respect to this project and I'll try to be fast. I'm not sure I can be brief but I'll do
my best so please bear with me. I'd like to thank the Planning Commission my first time before all of
you and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of many of the residents adjoining this, project. First we
want to, many of us want to immediately address the impression that may be out there that we are against
affordable housing, and I can say that that is not the case. What we've got here is what we need to do is
talk about the facts. And there is a perception and I think a valid reality here that there is an
unacceptably high percentage of affordable housing that is being located at our western gateway. And
until a couple of the neighbors commented that's not really being addressed I think properly. Secondly,
we genuinely want the best product for our western gateway. What we'd like to review tonight are some
of the ordinance and issues that affect this product at our main entrance. I have spent a great deal of time
with my neighbors trying to understand our ordinances and our comp plan and the housing guidelines.
It's not an easily digestible subject and frankly at times appears to be a house of mirrors, and I know you
guys live this all the time. We, many of us, we moved in over 5 years ago and we did our due diligence
and we did do that Pulte. We looked at the property. We discussed this with Lundgren about that
property at length and understood fairly clearly what that property was guided for. North of the frontage
road, low density, single family detached, residential PUD. Minimum lot size 11,000 to 15. South was
the medium density, multi-family cluster with up to 8 units per acre. We moved to Chanhassen
understanding the comp plan and the plans for that property. We believe that the zoning guidelines are a
covenant with the residents and we honestly planned and purchased based on the comp plan. What city
staff and Putte are proposing is in conflict with that covenant and the neighbors and all that enjoy the
western gateway potential. Excuse me. I'd like to address some of those ordinance and issues that need
to be addressed productively. First, the current guide and zoning which I just listed. Pulte and city staff
would like to imply that the net densities are in line with the guide, but the building structure and the land
square footage allocation is out of alignment. The building structure does not allow cluster homes north
of the frontage and does not allow high density of these 9.5 units per acre. And there is some need for
clarity as to what in fact really is the amount of units on the south side of the frontage. It is important to
note the PUD is allowable for that property as is guided. I have the application of Pulte where they
specifically acknowledge the current land designation, and I'd like to share this. And on July 30th you'll
see here, if I can use this fancy... Not once but twice, okay can you zero in on that? The present land use
designation, loxv, medium and density residential requested. Low, medium density. First time. Second
time. Same thing. Low and medium requested land use designation. Low and medium. All this change
though it was never demonstrated right from the beginning fi'om the original concept plan. Again, we did
our due diligence and I'm confused and it appears Pulte has not done their due diligence and with the aid
of the city staff has made convenient changes, I think at the expense of the neighborhood and of the city.
Also, there's been discussion tonight about the somewhat magnanimous offerings that Pulte is making
about this land that's up north. This 11 acres. If you look here, again Pulte knows however, this request
does not require, Putte's request does not require any density transfer from the property west of Highway
41 for their tabulation. The other aspect to that is that that's in the Bluff Creek watershed. They can't
build on it. So they should have done their due diligence with respect to that property. So it's baffling
that the city staff seems to accommodate and enables the developer at every turn then respecting the
current comp plan. I realize there has been a need to make changes with the staff report but there are
many discrepancies in the staff reports that I'll do my best to outline that this has been a moving target.
What was noted tonight with respect to the affordable housing guidelines, that the city has just
ac ~knowledged the importance for all new construction to be at a maximum of 30% for affordable
housing. Two, I think it was 2 or 3 weeks ago Pulte was supposed to be before you and I got a call the
day, I think the day before they were to be before you saying that there's been all these changes. There's
been a change with respect to the densities and as I tried to peel the onions, the layers of the onion to find
out that they raised, they just simply, it's the same product, they just raised the prices. And this was I
30
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
believe from my side, and this could need to be clarified but about 48 hours to 72 hours that they were
supposed to be before you. That's why staff says tonight that it appears now to be 41% simply with this
price raise. Well, so I called the Met Council to find out when is the next time that they're going to be
raising the threshold for affordable housing. In February they're going to raise it again so what they say
is that now it's been dropped down to 40%. Come February it'd be 70%. Right back up to where it was
3 weeks ago. So when we talk about affordable housing, not so long ago I guess it was 1999, November,
Maple Grove was acknowledged for their winning strategy using your fan dangled thing here and what
they're receiving awards for and accolades from the Star and Tribune is working with properties that are
in the 5 to 20% affordable housing range. Not this 51%. This 59%. This 40 to 70 percent that is being
offered to our community. So what we have here is the third affordable housing project in Chan. I
thought this was almost in as many years, and they all exist within 5/10 of a mile on, all on the Highway
5 corridor and as Mr. Vargas pointed out, now we're book ended by this look of row housing and
affordable housing look. It's all in one concentration and if you go to page 31 of the Chanhassen guide
lines, it clearly says the City will promote the integration of life cycle housing opportunities throughout
the community. That's throughout. Affordable and subsidized housing shall not be overly concentrated
in one area of the city. I think this is overly concentrated with the last two and now we have three
projects and it's basically bang, bang, bang. All within a half mile. We have to ask ourselves, if this is
the western gateway, is this the best Chanhassen can do. It's the main entrance. It's our first and last
impression of Chan. This is built for conception, this is a very poor view scape of Chan. Now I could go
in great detail, I'm happy to, to list all the ordinances here. I don't know, that I see are in challenge here.
Do you want me to?
Kind: Go for it.
Mike Ryan: Okay. In our current PUD in the intent. Number 1, preservation of desirable site
characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, blah, blah, blah,
mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. High quality of desi~on. Higher quality of design.
than is found elsewhere in the community. Sensitive development along significant corridors within the
city. Development which is consistent with our comp plan. Consistent with our comp plan. Such park
and open spaces shall be consistent with the comp plan and the overall trail plan. Fast forward. The city,
well I'll skip that one. Moving on. -Next issue is park and land dedication requirement. The Pulte
project is severely deficient with park and land dedication. As noted tonight by Mr. Griswold, they're
paying cash for parks. They're basically selling out the future residents of that project and you know,
cash for parks. With the estimated, and at least at the neighborhood meeting there were 700 estimated
residents. There should be 9.33 acres. There appears to be, if you include that central area, and I need
this to be confirmed but approximately 2.5 acres and I don't know if that falls under the park category,
but the question is, is this right? To me it seems very short sighted. People will have to cross the major
thoroughfare on 78th Street. They will potentially place demands on Longacres parks and, ifI was
Lundgren I'd be very concerned about this with any parks that they want to put on their property. It's
going to place demands on their's. So if we can we should do better for these residents. So as we take a
look at the ordinances for parkland and dedication requirements, 1879, land area conveyed or dedicated
to the City shall not be used in calculating density requirements of the city's zoning ordinance and shall
be in addition to, not in lieu of open space requirements for PUD's. Now, if we fast backwards here to
Mr. Griswold's comment of paying cash for the parks, it appears here, if we do calculate those 2 ½ acres
that he's allowing for that center area and for the totlots, that is 6.8 acres and if you, I'm trying to do a
rough calculation of what the value is of those acres, and it's $36,000 of acre that he may be paying out.
This is calculated based on his $250,000. The City I think is being chumped here and more importantly
again I think the Pulte residents are being chumped as to what is, to me I think a great motivation for any
developer to pay out and put more density on a piece of property. Next is the Bluff Creek Overlay
31
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
District. This famous document that is very important to the city and the watershed and what takes place
and building in that project is a lot of natural site management. It's taking care of the trees and the forest
and I do want to share with you, sorry. Is that an interesting discrepancy here is, if we look at the city
staff report going back to September 1, 1999, Pulte is being allotted saying to their credit the developers
are proposing to preserve the larger wooded area near Highway 5 and the tract across 41. This would
benefit the area greatly by providing natural area within an intensely developed one and some buffering
and staff strongly recommends that the applicant be required to maintain these preserved areas when their
preliminary plans are submitted. That's September 1, 1999. Moving to October 21st staff report saying
this plan proposes saving the large stand of trees as far as the gateway vision of the corner. Moving to
November 14th. The plan does, excuse me. The plan does propose preserve vegetation of the two
significant areas on the wooded on the site as well as providing perimeter landscaping and it goes so far
as saying that, allotting them and saying that they are retaining 50% of those wooded trees. So from
being strongly for it, all of a sudden that was now being watered down to being 50%. Again, all on the
behalf of the developer. Not on behalf of the city. Okay. The Bluff Creek overlay district states very
specifically, the development within the corridor must be designed with utmost sensitivity to the
environment and development pattern must be of quantity and quality other than what might occur in the
absence of specific standards. Protect the Bluff Creek corridor wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of
mature trees through the use of careful site design. Development in the corridor should be ecologically
designed, built around natural features such as the trees, wetlands and bluffs. Significant natural features
should impact development rather than development impacting significant natural features. Promote
innovative development techniques such as cluster development, open space and I think they're doing
that to excess in the southern part of that frontage road. Okay. The other aspect here and I've heard
various different numbers of how many students are going to be introduced into the school system. I
thought I heard at the neighborhood meeting that there was going to be 150 students. Tonight we heard
76 students and the staff report I believe it says 50 students. So what is it? And it keeps moving all the
time. And I kno~v that there is this supposed profile of what this life cycle housing is but if you guys
can't get it right in trying to factor and determine what this profile is and the planning, what this is going
to be on the city, how can we have faith in this whole process? And again there are discrepancies with
the car movements. It's anywhere from 6,000 in one report and it's 5,000 in another. Mr. Vargas
mentioned about the concern about water. The projection is about 118,000 gallons of water use a day.
And we're at this point severely deficient with our water supply and coming off a water ban and shortage
at this point in time, can we believe that we're going to be in good shape with the project of this
magnitude. And lastly is, too many papers. But if we go to your staff, the staff report finding 5. I think
that there is a very general and liberal use of wording here. Number 5 in the finding. It says
development which is consistent with the comp plan. It is not consistent with the comp plan. And they
go so far as saying here the development is consistent with the comp plan if the city and the Met Council
approve a land use amendment. How does that work? You know. If it's consistent with it if they
approve it. It's not consistent. So with that you can see, I think my frustration and the frustrations of us,
the taxpaying residents, stakeholders, shareholders in the city. There is a feeling of very disingenuous
information approach truly dealing with the facts and it's very hard to have confidence in a product that
is as important as this is for our western gateway and we think that the city and we hope that the Planning
Commission will do a very good, thorough analysis in understanding of this project. So thanks.
Burton: Thanks. Go ahead.
Kurt Oddsen: My name's Kurt Oddsen. I live at 7325 Moccasin Trail. You know kids are great. They
get frustrated with a meeting, they run outside and scream. We have to sit here and listen to me. But I'm
sitting here ready to explode because I have to say something in listening to all this so I appreciate your
patience. Is this what we want in our neighborhood? That question was asked earlier and I thought it
32
Planning Commission Meeting- December 5, 2000
was very significant because I'm not sure this is what we want on the western side of Chanhassen. The
comment was also made on that particular zoning ordinance, are we trying to cram too much in a small
area? I believe on this site we are. And I think we need to take a real serious look at how we plan these
developments. Staff has already said there's two other projects in very close proximity to this. It's been
stated that we should take the housing and spread it out throughout the community. It doesn't appear to
me that we're doing that in this situation. A lot of discussion is made about wetlands, and boy we love
them here in Minnesota. They're not swamps. They're not marshes, they're wetlands. And they're
great. I love them. And they're talking about 600 feet clearance and people are talking about buffer
zones on the east side of the project. Lundgren is even saying gee, maybe we want a buffer zone. Maybe
they're concerned about what's going there too. They have a lot more pull than I do so they may be able
to accomplish that. But 41 and 5 is a major intersection. In our meeting the other night with the
developer I asked him what the setback was going to be from the right-of-way and it's 50 feet. The
comment was made earlier how high will the berm be? 4 to 8 feet rolling, but the grade is below
highway grade. Comment was made about earlier, a year ago I believe, because I think I was here too in
front of the council, talking about putting a pond in that comer. Setting those units way back. Making it
look more like an entrance to a city rather than bringing buildings, flat side of the buildings that don't
appear to be very attractive. There's been comments made about that tonight. That's not my opinion, but
I do agree with it. And they're going to be 50 feet from the right-of-way with a 4 to 8 feet berm. And yet
we're worried about 600 feet on another side and other buffers. I'd like to ask the Planning Commission
to think about that and maybe talk about making that wider. Maybe it makes the property unfeasible for
the developer. So be it. We have to go back and ask the question, what do we want in our neighborhood.
Traffic is a big concern to me. You look at the map, ifI can use their map. You've got approximately
two major exits coming out of here. A possible third one and I know there are traffic studies and all that
but I don't think that people are going to get on this road, mn all the way down to another highway,
maybe Galpin Boulevard, maybe one of the other boulevards closer to the city before they get onto
Highway 5. These are going to be major exits. And somebody brought up the amendment. It appeared
to me if you look at the amendment and the traffic patterns, on the low density and medium density,
you're looking at numbers of 1,200 trips a day, 1,400 trips a day. I don't have the document in front of
me but I'd ask you to refer to it just for clarification. But they're looking at the development of, I think it
was 6,176 trips a day. That's a lot of traffic coming out of there. I live up in Longacres. Most of the
residents don't go out, exit on 41 unless they're heading north, because trying to turn left is dangerous. I
don't even come down from the north side to make a left hand turn because I looked in my rear view
mirror and I see people coming at 60 mph for me, going around'me about a foot and a half to two feet
from my car. It scares me. I come in Galpin Boulevard. I go out Galpin Boulevard so I have a light. I'm
very concerned about the traffic in the area and I'd like the Planning Commission to think about that.
Now, that gets back to the density. ! understand it's the way thing are done. We shift this. We move
this. We plan for this, but it was stated earlier what this was zoned for. We met with the council and the
PUD and all they kept referring to was the 5 year plan. The plan that was done 5 years ago and this was
all agreed upon. Now we're able to change it? I need some help here. I'm not real fast in figuring this
stuff out, but why do we agree to it on one hand and 5 years later because somebody says oh, maybe we
ought to change it so everything fits in. I don't like that. Somebody needs to explain to me why we keep
doing that. And the density on the north side of 78th Street versus the south side is not zoned for that. If
you blend it altogether, it works our perfectly. I just have a hard time with that and I just want you to
consider that. The so called wetlands down here, ooh boy. I tell you what. If that's defined as wetlands,
I have a problem with that. It's a bunch of grass in a wet area. The wetlands that are in here contain
some water in certain wet seasons. So now they're going to fill that one in and move it to another site. I
understand that's done. I'm just saying that I wonder how many more variances and exceptions and
changes are we going to listen to before we finally say you know what? We're trying to make something
fit that doesn't fit. Green space is an interesting issue. I've got to touch on that, and I apologize. We
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
passed a park referendum. I don't know the numbers. Millions of dollars, and we're buying up land and
building parks all over the city. I voted for that. Now I look at this and I say wait a minute, we're going
to have 380, 70 units in there. I don't know how many people. I can't keep track of the numbers
anymore but we're going to designate only this amount of land and we're going to get $250-275,000 for
the city. I'm wondering when we are going to start looking at these developments and say you know
what, I don't want to pass another referendum. If you're going to build in this city, then you put in some
parks and you put in some recreation. You're going to foot the bill for it. If the project doesn't fit it,
then we aren't building. And I don't think this is enough space in that area. I'm not a planner. I don't
have all the numbers but I'm looking at this from just a common sense standpoint, which I would ask you
to look at it. I mean we can bring out all the rules and regulations but let's look at it from some common
sense and say maybe we ought to start thinking about this. Taxes and children in schools, we've touched
on that. I can only be redundant by bringing it up again. So I think what I'll do is I'll end and I don't
know what all the legal procedures are, how it goes to council. How staff gets involved. How the
developer gets involved. Heck, I'm not even sure how I get involved and yet you're nice enough to listen
to me up here and air my grievances. I would ask you not to make any decisions at this point...I don't
know how that's done and I'd volunteer to help you with that so ! can learn myself, but I just see a lot of
moving targets here and it concerns me and ! appreciate your time. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you. Anybody else?
Susan Cohoon: My name is Susan Cohoon and I live at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. And I'm just going to be
real short. I pay over $12,000 a year in taxes. I feel like I'm being boxed in with this cluster housing. I
know this is a redundant fact. We 'know now that within a half mile we're looking at possibly three
projects. Two terms come to mind regarding this whole thing. One of them is payola and the second one
is the City's not dealing in good faith with it's citizens. I'm very disappointed.
Burton:. Thank you.
Leah Hawke: My name is Leah Hawke and I live at 7444 Moccasin Trail and I just wanted to make a
couple of points here tonight for the record. The first one is the neighborhood meeting. We had a
meeting a year ago with Lundgren. I'm sorry, with Pulte when this thing first started and it was agreed
there would be a second neighborhood meeting. That neighborhood meeting was not conducted until
after we requested it because we found out it was going in front of the Planning Commission.
Additionally, this was taken to the Park and Rec Commission prior to the neighborhood meeting. I went
to that meeting to ask them to hold off until the neighbors had been heard. So ! kind of have a hard time
believing that Pulte is really wanting to work with the neighbors when they're asking commissions to
approve it before they've even given us a chance to be heard. Additionally, many members of the
neighborhood didn't even hear about these meetings directly from the City or from Pulte, even though we
were on the list of interested parties way back when. We found it out from Mike. We had to have Mike
calling people to let us know what was going on. I think that's unfortunate. The second point I'd like to
make is I also attended the council meeting where the Livable Communities Act was approved, and what
confuses me here is this 41%. This 30%. It's my understanding that our City Council approved 30%
maximum in new development. Kate, correct me if I'm wrong. There was a lot of discussion between
Councilman Mark Senn and Mayor Nancy Mancino on what that 30% was. And it was nailed down that
it was a maximum of 30% for new development. It wasn't 30% across the city.
Kate Aanenson: That's not how I understood it.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Leah Hawke: Am I, then I would ask for the record that we let the person that voted on it speak. Kate, I
mean they sat there and they argued to and for and you were asked what the numbers represented and
Mark Senn said I thought it always was 30% for the new development, and you responded yes. And that
was what went into the record so I also want to be clear about what the City Council has said should
happen in Chanhassen and what has been approved. That's not what's happening here tonight and I think
if you say 30%, you need to live by 30%. Because that's where residents go, what is going on? You're
saying one thing and you're doing something else. I was also at the parks and rec commission where this
was discussed and I don't think that they were comfortable with this proposal. That's why they tabled it.
That's my opinion. I do know that they mentioned the gateway. That was also mentioned the first time
that this went in front of the City Council. Is this what we want the gateway of Chanhassen to look like.
The other issues that came up that haven't really been spoken about here tonight are locations of
recreational areas and the proximity to the street. As a parent, I mean my point to the Park and Rec was
if you're going to build it, build it right. If you look at totlots here, they're right on 78th Street. Which
parent is going to send a 3 to a 5 year old or 7 to 12 year old to one of these totlots that on what's going
to end up being a very busy road. So those are really my three points. Very off the cuff. I have to go
relieve my babysitter and get my kids to bed, but I really think there's a lot of misinformation that's been
circulating about this. I for one would like it nailed down what this is and what the rules actually are and
then have it presented to you. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Hugh Bishop: My name is Hugh Bishop. I'm here on behalf of Miss Rosie's Farm, Susan McAllister's
property which is being surrounded almost by the Pulte development. We're here to speak just briefly'to
two issues. The first is affordable housing. A good concept that should be embraced. I'm not going to
speak to that but Susan McAllister would like to speak to it herself. And I believe her answer is yes it
should. The issue that I am speaking to is should the proposal for the rezoning PUD-R be approved. And
we believe that you should recommend that it is approved with one sentence added to the conditions
under which it's approved. The background of this is that, as you probably know Miss Rosie's Farm is
the only petting zoo in Chanhassen and has, after some amount of work and back and forth with the City
gotten established that yes, we're in a transitional zone and we're changing from agriculture to higher
density but for a period she's been given permission to continue_operating the petting zoo. Not petting
zoo, petting farm in a way that it has been set up. And there's a 10 year period for a limited use. Now
one of the provisions when the City modified the zoning code was to provide setbacks for petting farms.
We had to create these last spring. So we have now a new setback requirement of 300 feet for any
structure or storage area from an adjacent single family residence. Well you know we comply with that.
There's no single family residence within 300 feet of any structure or barn on Miss Rosie's Farm. So
that's great. Now, the Pulte development as it's presently proposed is not going to cause any problem
there either because there's no single family home that is proposed for within 300 feet of where she
might have the barn or storage area so that's great. Now the concern would be this. What if there were a
change at any point down the road and maybe a double changed to a single. Well, now is the time to just
add this one sentence for clarification and what we'd like to contemplate is there are three possibilities
you know. If there were an application for a single family to go in within 300 feet of where we are right
now. One is, they could say well you know, we're here now and so you need to take down your barn.
Well that doesn't seem quite right. Susan could say well you know I was here first so you can't build.
Well, she's not really interested in saying that. So what we would like is to have the one sentence
addition of a condition upon which the PUD would be authorized to provide the interpretation or just a
provision that neither of those would happen. That the owner of adjacent land would not be able to
enforce the existing setback requirements 300 feet so as to prohibit development of the Pulte property by
it's successor's or by Pulte themselves. And consequently, fair for the goose, fair for the gander, just
35
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
make it clear right now so it's not an issue that needs any discussion later that the developer of the PUD
property will not enforce our existing setback requirements in such a fashion that it's required to take
down her barn. That's all that I really want to propose. I do have a handout for you and then I'll
recognize Susan McAllister for the other issue that she wishes to speak to herself. Unless you have a
question.
Burton: No, thanks. We'll take a look at your handout. Why don't you go ahead Susan.
Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I am at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard. I've heard a lot
of the stories about the Longacres people, how they don't want it in their neighborhood and they don't
like possibly the type of people or whatever they believe they have too nice of houses to be in that area
with the affordable housing in their back yard so I have one really good suggestion. I'll take it in my
back yard and I'll take it in my side yard and I'll take it in my front yard because I don't see anything
wrong with it. I think that you know being a person that's lived here since 1959 1 am somebody that
needs to be responsible to the other people that are coming into the city and that it's the new way that we
have to do things. Chanhassen is not growing any more land but we're growing people and we need to
house people and this is the new, I don't like to use the word trend but I believe this is the new way that it
has to be. I'm a person that designs trends for mass merchants. They pay me to come up with a good
way to get a good product. I believe that what Denny Griswold and Pulte have proposed is a good
product. I'm also talking as a member of the, 5 year member of the Environmental Commission for the
City of Chanhassen. As a member, past member of the Highway 5 task force in 1995 which chose, you
know did the recommendation for this. Also a member of the Highway 5 overlay district and a member
of the Bluff Creek corridor. I believe all aspects of this development fit everything that ~vas on, I was on
those committees for. It's different and it's scary and I have to tell you that a year ago I was not, I was
right where Longacres was now and it took me you know quite a while of bending and stretching and
thinking and you know really soul searching and I believe that where. I am now is looking at it totally
objectively. IfI weren't living there, you know it's the perfect place for it. It's segmented off and it only
works in masses, okay and I believe that what's being done is the right way to do it and I think if we're
going to do it, let's dig in our heels and do it right. Don't just put our little toe in the hot water and say
oh, that's a little bit too hot. Take the dive. You people are there to start helping us with the new trends
and to house people so I expect that's what you should do and I'm hoping that's what you will do. That's
what I-have to say. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Brian Evans: My name is Brian Evans. I live at 2585 Southern Court, on the northern edge of the
development. I really don't have anything new to say. Everything's been said. Hashed over. I think it's
kind of nice to see the American way here. Everybody getting their say. I just want to say that this is
what I feel. I bought my first house in Chanhassen in 1976 and I've seen a lot of changes and there's
only one opportunity here and I think you know that as a Planning Commission. We want to get it right
the first time. I'd hate to look down the line 5 years and say we did it wrong. We should have used it for
corporate. We should have done something else with it. I guess my other concern is, and it may be
frivolous to some but there's one flock of wild turkeys on that field and my hope is that flock gets
captured and relocated before any kind of a development takes place there. Thank you.
Burton: Thank you.
Pastor Tony Larson: My name is Pastor Tony Larson. I live at 2631 Longacres Drive and I wanted to
address the issue of traffic that wasn't considered earlier as we look at this map here. All the traffic
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
that's coming out there on the Highway 5 and then the traffic on the other end going to Highway 41. I
just wanted to bring up the, that I'm well aware of the Westwood's plans of building a church on the
other side. The northwest portion of Highway 41. I know the staff there very well. I have been on a
pastoral staff of a very large mega church in the past and this is what Westwood is and is becoming and I
just wanted to also add the idea of not just Sunday morning traffic coming from the other side of 41, but
also throughout the week. When we're talking about a mega church, the impact of traffic not just on a
Sunday morning or Sunday night or a Saturday night or when they get into multiple services on multiple
nights, then you talk about Wednesday nights and then their plans are to also include some offerings into
the community that would invite more traffic throughout the week, during the day as well as in the
evening and I just wanted to bring up that point that needs to be taken into consideration along with this
development. The impact of further traffic from the other side of 41.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
Steve Hanousek: My name is Steve Hanousek and I live at 7501 Bent Bow Trail in Chanhassen and I
echo what my fellow residents have said tonight. I'm not going to go over that again but I would like just
some clarification. The rental units, are there going to be rental units or are they going to be manor
homes? I know we covered that briefly but that means there needs to be definition of that and I just want
to leave that out there. Thank you.
Burton: Thanks.
Tom Green: My name's Tom Green. I'm Vice President of Mills Fleet Farm. Mills property that owns
that property and I acquired that property for our company back in 1987. I see some familiar faces here,
especially Mr. Conrad.
Conrad: It's too bad isn't it?
Tom Green: Yeah, still there. I've gotten a little older also.
Conrad: Why did you buy that property? . i ' '
Tom Green: I don't know. But I'd like to go through the history of that land. Some of you folks don't
realize it. Somebody asked about corporate. The original purchase, proposed purchase of that property
from Dr. Savaryn was Minnetonka Inc. The Soft Soap people and they wanted to put a corporate
headquarters there and the City of Chanhassen didn't want it. Mills Fleet Farm came along, and
obviously you know what we wanted to put there, and that such a...cry came up that we ran back to
Brainerd with our tails between our legs and we sat on that property now for 13 years. The Pulte people
came along and frankly it's been zoned for this type of a project and that's apparently what the City
wants and so they've got a reasonable, in my opinion, a reasonable project together and you don't want
that. And so I'm at a loss what we should do with that land and if somebody would want to buy it for
what we're paying taxes on or more, we'd have to consider it because it seems to be impossible to
develop in the city of Chanhassen. Thank you for your consideration.
Burton: Thank you. Any other comments?
Jim Deannovic: I'm Jim Deannovic. I live at 9455 Amsbury in Eden Prairie. I'm the person who owns
the north side of the piece of property who was going to originally do rental townhomes. And it seemed
like there was some indication that Pulte didn't try to make this thing work. Well in fact they have and
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
so have I. With the rental townhomes there was never a subsidy from the City taxes. And I think there's
been a lot of miscommunication in that regard and we've tried to work with Pulte to make this happen. I
know that Pulte, I've been at some of the meetings. Pulte's been in here and he's tried really, Pulte's
tried incredibly hard for a long, long time. I feel the same way as Fleet Farm.
Burton: Thanks. Anybody else like to address the commission before we close the public hearing?
Alright. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Burton: Now it's our opportunity to discuss the matter. Anybody want to venture forward with their
comments?
Sacchet: Well, I'll get started. You know as I said when I asked, started asking some questions of the
Pulte people, I don't have that many issues with the Pulte thing in front of us. I do believe that in a
traffic location like that, where we have a highway and another major through road going through, that
that's a good location for high density. I do believe that we need more affordable housing. It's actually
interesting, just a week ago there was a headline in the Star Tribune that reads Met Council tells suburbs
to add affordable housing and then goes on that if the suburbs don't do that, that there will be penalties.
That it's actually going to be pushed with some additional incentives. So it could be costly not to pursue
that. Now the question whether this is really cooked enough, to use an image. I don't think this is
cooked enough. I think that the staff report we have in front of us is not sufficiently working the issues to
the point that I'm comfortable with, that I feel exactly what's in front of me to approve or recommend
approval I should say. I do believe that, my concern is surely with the densities there are issues that some
of you have mentioned a little bit of being a moving target in this process and we need to be very, very
clear about what that aspect is. We need to look at how does it fit into the context and I don't live too far
from there myself. I do believe that the general concept that Pulte puts in front of us with having-a
gradual transition from the high traffic area where it's higher density to go up gradually to lower density,
it makes a lot of sense to me. I support that. I think the proposal has a lot of merits. However I want to
be very clear in terms of xvhat is in front of us with the densities. In terms of the western gateway, well I
have a little bit of issue with that. I mean for me the western gateway to the city.is not the 41 and 5
crossing. For me the entrance to Chanhassen, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the Arboretum.
And what's that neighborhood there called, Crimson Bay or what. That to me is entering the city. Once
we're at the crossing of 41 and 5 we're unfortunately, I mean I like rural too and I just moved out that
way because it got a little too urbanized here to what's at that part of Chanhassen, but that's what's
happening. And Susan you mentioned it, it's the trend of our time. We can't stop progress so I think the
gateway issue for me is not really an issue. The aspect with traffic that was brought up. Well, as the
traffic increases there will have to be traffic lights. It's just as simple as that. I'm trying to get onto 41
from a little further up north than you guys are in the Longacres area and I do take those left turns and I
have my kids say dad, there's enough room to go. I say no it isn't. I live with that every day but as these
things become issues, as the city we address them and maybe put traffic lights there so my position, to
sum it up and I'll take everybody's time here excessively. I do believe I would like to propose that we
table this here to address a lot of these issues that are still open, but in general I'm thinking this is a great
proposal. It needs to be fine tuned more. All the issues need to be addressed. We have to be very clear
what's in front of us and I think all the questions that you've been raising, especially you Mike Ryan, I
really appreciate all the work you've put into this and I think we have to be sensitive to all the comments
that were brought up. But then at the same time it's as important as we are sensitive to the comments of
the landowners. I mean just having built a house lately in this city, I have to agree that it is not the
easiest place to build something. Put something in place. And if we have people that have major tracts
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
of land and at least in one of the cases have made an effort to develop it, one way or another way. And
then one way we say no. They try to do it the other way, we say no. Well, it's tricky you see. We want
to be consistent with our agreements. We want to honor what we've agreed to do and at the same time
we don't want to be so rigid that we can't do anything anymore. So when we say this is not exactly in
line with all the visions that were there before, well let's be reasonable. It has to be give and take from
everybody. It's a transition from higher density to lower density. The houses that are going to be at the
edges there, yes. They're proposing a duplex home which in that sense is something they're asking us to
approve. Now is that such a bad thing? I personally don't think it's a hurdle that is unsurmountable.. I
think we can come across and we have to look at with the PUD the amount of green space that stays there
and yes, you're correct. I did the math myself from the significant trees, depending how we define
significant trees. If we define significant trees as being a tree that is 30 inch or 40 inch or bigger, half of
them will be cut down. And that's an issue I'd like to dig into a little further too. That how much would
be cut down if it would be the traditional development? I would expect more than half. But so what
we're in a position to trying to make it as workable as possible but I think I said my piece so apologize. I
took a while.
Burton: That's alright. Anyone else comments?
Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question of staff. One of the things that Mike Ryan brought up was the density
transfer from the, how are we describing it? The northwest, I think it's Outlot F. Is in the Bluff Creek
primary zone and so they would not be allowed to build there anyway so we shouldn't allow a density
transfer. Will you, I don't have my Bluff Creek thing here right now. Will you talk about that.
Aanenson: Let me clear up some. When this project originally came in, again there were the two
property owners. Pulte and Mr. Deannovic. Mr. Deannovic owned the Savaryn property. Owns the
Savaryn piece which is this property right here... Okay. From the beginning the staff has tried to work
the two projects together. The Bluff Creek ordinance is under the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen.
We regulate the primary zone. What we have done under the ordinance is said, you can transfer that
density out. That's a way to accomplish the preservation because our goal is to preserve in the primary
zone. If we don't allow the transfer out, we are obligated in the ordinance to allow them a variance to
build within that. We have to give them some property. Now Mr. Ryan is right when he showed that
letter because Pulte's original position was, and we said as staff from day one, our position is we don't
want that property built on. They had no control of that so their letter stated, we're not asking for
anything. Well they weren't because they didn't have control of that property and they have been trying
to gain control of the entire piece and as of late last week, when Mr. Deannovic appears that he's willing
not to do the rental property and Pulte's still trying to get control of the entire piece. That's been our
goal. To have one property owner to work with. It makes it much easier and that's why some of the
ambiguity and that's why it got tabled because Mr. Deannovic came in at the last minute with three
different products and it confused us. We didn't want to come here saying we're not sure exactly what
that's going to be so we recommended that it be tabled until we resolve it. That they again try to have a
neighborhood meeting. So that's where that came from.
Kind: So the proposal before us tonight is one owner, one parcel?
Aanenson: Well they haven't secured that yet. They're working to do that. Right. And that's some of,
what I'm hearing from Uli some of the things he wants to make sure has been resolved. It's a control
issue.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: That makes sense to me. With that I'll expand on my comments if that's alright. I'll try to keep
them short. First of all, all compliments to staff and Pulte and the neighbors for all your comments and
input and hard work on this. I know I spent a lot of time looking at this packet too and I'm sure you all
have spent a lot of time as well and I think it's come a long ways in one year. I can't believe it was a
year ago already that we looked at this. I do have some concerns that need to be addressed, especially if
we table this. If we need to button some of this stuff up. The totlot issues obviously. I don't think that
that is our role as a Planning Commission to get into what we think it should or shouldn't be, big or small
or whatever. That's Park and Rec Commission's role. But from a planning perspective I think we need
to make sure that we are being consistent with other family neighbors, multi family neighborhoods and I
guess I'd like to direct staff to take a look at what we've done in other multi family developments and
give us some information about totlots and that sort of thing. I do have the same concern I had a year ago
about clustering all the one car garages together. I prefer having one car and two garage units mixed
together. However I think that the village homes, those are the one car units, could be acceptable as far
as quality goes with some of the changes in architecture that I talked about with the applicant. My main
concern is that the back elevations look better and the front entries have the same quality as the other
products. The coach homes and the manor homes and the club homes I think all look quite nice and the
village home in Apple Valley looks a lot better than the one in Eden Prairie so I was pleased about that.
The other concern I had is that, the expectations have been changed for the neighbors and that's the part I
wrestle with. If I was a neighbor, would I feel like the rules have been changed on me? And when I look
at this I see that the housing type has changed. They knew there were going to be possibilities of twin
homes and...to change and I'm trying to sort out how I would feel about that compared to saving that
large stand of trees on 41. And I know that our PUD planning tool is the only way we could transfer
density and save those trees. So next time this comes to the Planning Commission I would like to hear
the neighbors talk a little bit more about whether it's worth it to save those trees or not to transfer the
density. Because we've established now that the density needs to be transferred to do that. Or whether
you feel like the rules have just been changed. So that's my struggle there. On the plus side I think that
the twin homes along the perimeter of the wetland are not changing the rules and the view from
Longacres is the same as it would have been if it was low density housing becaUse then there would have
likely have been twin homes there as a transition from the medium density on the south side of West 78th,
SO ! think that would have been a reasonable expectation that there'd be twin homes there. And that
appears to be not changing so that makes a lot of sense to me. And the buffer is a natural buffer that that
large, large wetland seems quite sufficient to me. In fact I think it's awesome. IfI overlooked that I'd
just be so excited. It's very nice. I would also like to see for our next meeting some sort of, I don't know
if proof is the right word or a ghost plan showing how many units could be put in there if it was a
standard subdivision. A ghost plan or, that's what I call it. Not real but just if they complied with our
ordinances, how many trees would we really lose and can you really get 383 units in there on the upland?
I like the idea of providing a different housing style. A non-traditional single family home is important in
this city and it is the only way we're going to meet our affordability goals and I heard it the same way
Kate did. It's funny how people at the same meeting can hear different.
Aanenson: Maybe if I could just comment on that. I guess the intent was that we do it per project. What
I heard was new construction.
Kind: I heard all new construction too.
Aanenson: So I just confirmed it with Bob too. That's the way we heard it but obviously there was some
other.
Kind: It's per project.
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Well I think that's what other people's expectations were is being per project. I'll go back
and look through the minutes. That certainly wasn't my intent. I'll go back and review the minutes and
see what exactly took place and report that back.
Kind: Okay, so that would be helpful information included next time around. Overall I think PUD's are
good planning. I think if you take a look at the intent of our PUD ordinance, code, this project meets the
requirements of that. We've told the landowner that we don't want a corporate campus there. Soft Soap
was no. We told them we didn't want commercial venture. Big box. No. And we put in our comp plan
that we wanted this to be housing so I think we need to live by that. And it does meet the intent of our
planned unit development standards so I do think it is a good candidate for PUD. I guess that's it.
Blackowiak: Sure, I'll take a stab. I just had three main issues with this pretty much all night. My first
big issue is traffic. I'm very worried about access to and from 5 and to and from 41. I know that means
that there will be other lights. I believe there's something scheduled for Century, is that correct Kate?
Aanenson: Correct.
Blackowiak: And then more than likely that type of number would necessitate some type of a light to
exit on 41 and I don't know what that street is going to be called.
Aanenson: That's West 78~.
Blackowiak: Oh it's going to be West 78th.9 Okay. So have you heard anything, I mean I know it's a
state highway so there's not much.
Saam: On 417
Blackowiak: Yes.
Saam: Stop sign is what I heard.
Aanenson: Right. Not a signal at this point.
Blackowiak: Not signalized?
Saam: No. It's a 3 way stop on the west side. Or the entrance on the west side, yeah. A stop sign.
That's what's shown in the EAW also.
Blackowiak: Okay, so no light huh?
Aanenson: Right. Again let me just rephrase it. That's one of the issues we brought up if this was to go
office industrial. The traffic goes up significantly so I mean the issue doesn't go away if you flip...in
there, right.
Blackowiak: No, no. But yeah, just overall traffic is an issue for me. My second major issue is that the
rental versus the manor homes has not been resolved and until that issue is fully defined, I don't even, I
don't feel that I could, I would want to really make a vote on that because I think that that issue is going
to really drive a lot of what happens in terms of the neighbors and in terms of school enrollments. In
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
terms oftotlots. Just a lot of different things are going to change depending on whether the eastern edge
of the property is rental versus manor homes. And finally, I would like to have a little more input from
park and rec because if they're comfortable with what's on the plans right now, I guess I would have to
question how they got their numbers because I don't think there's enough green space in there. I would
like to see a little bit more. 275's the number that's been bandied around for the cash outlay. That's a
park and rec number so they're going to have to, I mean it's the number that they came up with so I guess
I'll have to, I would like to hear how they arrived at that number and find out if indeed they're
comfortable with that number because it doesn't seem like an awful lot to me either. Short of owning the
property there's not a lot you can do to stop development so I think one of the things that we all have to
remember is, if we have an idea of what we want we have to work to get the best project and I don't
'know if we're quite there yet. I think we're moving in the right direction but I think if we see this again
or maybe a couple times, who knows, we're moving in that direction so I hope that we can continue to
work together and get a product we can all live with.
Burton: Ladd.
Conrad: 100 years ago when I was here I probably was for the commercial development of this. Then I
was for Fleet Farm. I liked that idea. It pays taxes. And we're probably under commercialized in
Chanhassen meaning it's not going to, the percentages are at the low end and it's right now fixed. So in
terms of sensitivity to some of this stuff, I think I've lost almost every issue so, and I think the City
Council put a moratorium out here and tried to figure out what to do with it. And they probably, I
probably disagreed with what they wanted to do. That's a set up for my comments I think. This is a
perfect spot that we don't see very often for a PUD in terms of buffering. Normally we're talking about
20 feet. Normally we're talking about 50 feet of three story'. We're in a different area here so some of
the comments from the neighborhoods, ~vhich I really appreciated. I think everybody's done a terrific
homework and thinking. But from what we're used to, we're here every 2 weeks. Some of us maybe too
long. This, in my world, is a terrific project based on other things I've seen come in. The neighbors said,
you know a lot of what you said I disagree with but I'd have, we'd be here until midnight and I tell you I
give you why and it'd be fun just to stop your comment and tell you and you should know. You should
know what some of us have been thinking. You really should and I don't want this to go forward
because you may not like what we do but I want you to understand what we might do. I think that's real
important. It's important to be involved. As somebody said, this is the best form of government and to
bundle you in is wonderful. You may not get what you want but you'll hear why and we should do that
job and I think w,e can make staff do that. My recommendation is to table this and not because I don't
like what I'm seeing in general, because I do. Somehow we have to explain some of these things.
There's too many good things that, they still may not agree with once we explain to the community but
they've got to know. So for minutes I think Kate, we've got to go back, and I'm not sure what the
motion's going to be. Well no, I do. We're going to table it but you know, I think we've got to go back
through the couple hours that we've been here and really pay attention to what the neighbors said. And I
really want to be able to go through and dialogue a little bit about why, the why's. If we can. And that
means you've got to come back and whatever and so, come on back. We've got to do it but you said
some things. The things that I'd like us to take a look at. One, I want park and rec's input. In most
cases, it's a double stream. We are, they're recommending to the City Council stuff and we don't see it
and here's a case where I think their recommendation should be involved with us in a PUD. They
should. We should hear what they're saying about totlots and access to common areas in general. I'd
like to use them that way as a resource and we very seldom do. I want to be totally confident that we
have a diversity and look of colors, materials and whatever within the project. When we put a big project
in, I just don't want it stamped out. And there is economics that Pulte is doing that they have to, but
again just to make sure we have the diversity and they said the right thing. I want to make sure Miss
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Rosie's comments are bundled into our review in terms of the, it's hard for me to understand what they'd
like in terms of the 300 foot deal so I need staff to advise me on that. I do think Pulte needs to take a
look at the back of the village home. It's not, most of the designs look pretty good to me. I like them.
But that side of the village didn't look quite right. I'd like the city staff to look at the water issue just so I
know what this means. The watering at 2:00 in the morning is ridiculous and that's so stupid, but let's
talk to everyone, me, about it. I don't get it. The tree preservation, I'd like to know a little bit more
about that and what we're saving. I think it was brought up the part, and some of these you'll get off of a
tape but the park dedication calculations, I'd like to explain that and make sure we're on the money there.
The projected students, I'd like to know what they really are based on that. I think a year ago we were
concerned, just like you may be in terms of taxes and what are we bringing in and I think one of the
reasons we were sold on this is it was probably developed for people that really, there weren't that many
kids that were going to affect a school sYstem at that time and therefore the taxes necessary to handle it
may not have to be increased but, and that's funny thinking you know. To get a handle on that but again
I'd want to know. I think I want to know for sure and say well then, just for your benefit, the neighbors
around, that it's probably the same as a single family, 15,000 square foot subdivision or something like
that. Just for your edification. The affordable housing number we need to know what that is. I don't
have a bet on affordable housing. We do have some commitments. I think it's become more of an issue
than maybe it needs to be. Diversity of home styles is, it's the same thing but the offering diversity here
is pretty good. I think you want it. I think you don't want your kids moving some other area. I think we
want a place for senior citizens or people that are moving to a different life style. I think we need that
here. There aren't that many places to put this in the future, and we're here looking at places to put these
type of projects and there aren't many left. There just aren't-in Chanhassen. It's, this is one that it may
work. We have the right transportation systems. Logically from a planning standpoint it's not bad
planning. We've got to sell you on that. You may not like it but we should sell you on it. The traffic out
at 41, I need the engineering staff to take a look at it. Make sure it's right. Tell the. neighbors it's right.
Tell the neighbors it's wrong. Whatever it is, let's give them the feeling that it's not stupid. We don't
know that. I think we've seen some EAW's but let's take a look. The turkeys on the thing, I'd love to
take the turkeys somehow and make sure it's bundled into this project. We should do that. The design of
the former rental units, I need to know what that is and I'd like to have staff review the, that comer. I
think the folks from Pulte are probably telling you the right thing. I think the narrow profile, the trees
buffer on that intersection, it may make some sense but I want staff to tell me that. I want in their words
to tell me that it makes some sense:. I always thOught I wanted to make it the gateWay down there but a
l°w profile and some, a bunch of trees may be a good thing. I'd like our staff to do that so those are my
comments. I'd like staff to review them and hopefully we can, and I only captured some of your
comments unfortunately. They're good. They're good comments. I think there's reasons that you're
wrong in some of those comments but I think we should make sure. Make sure that's true. Anyway,
those are my comments. I think it should be tabled for another meeting so somebody can go through
some of these.
Burton: Okay. And I could just simple mirror everybody's comments but I think I agree with everything
you all said but I'll go on and add my own comments anyway. First I want to thank everybody for
coming tonight and also to thank everybody for handling this in kind of a civil and democratic way and
not making this a heated exchange. I think it's a lot more productive to do it the way we're all doing it.
This isn't my dream project. It's not what I would ideally like to see there. I love the rural feel of
Chanhassen. I'd like to preserve that as much as anyone but regardless of what we all want, this is going
to get developed. We can't stop that and that's all been discussed tonight. So I sit back and kind of look
at what the benefits of the project are and the detriments and I do think there are a number of benefits. I
think it's a good way to get the street here. It's a good way to work on meeting our affordable housing
goal which my understanding is historically has been a very important goal of this city and it's becoming
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
even more important as the Met Council is directing. This may be a better way to preserve the trees than
other alternatives. I think it's also a good and natural way to have transition from the high traffic areas to
the lower density housing. And I also think, as I think Ladd mentioned it, it is good planning practice.
We've got a plan for development that's going to happen west of even here and I think this project takes
that into consideration. The detriments again I think they're, and I can't get around this one no matter
what comes. I'm saddened that we lose the rural flavor of the area, but you can't do anything about that
really. The neighbors concerns are all detriments of the project. I know the tax issues, city services
issues with the xvater. I think it's important that we consider the neighbors expectations of when they
originally came to the area. And what's coming here now. The wildlife's an issue and also perhaps even
the additional traffic from the church. When that is ultimately developed. Additional concerns that I
have, and I'm sorry my notes, I'm trying to read some of my notes and my handwriting is just atrocious
so it's kind of hard. I do have concerns about the adequacy of the recreation areas and the totlots. I
would also like to have the input of the park and rec commission on that. Our PUD ordinance, and it's
intent says that it's the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality
and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with other more standard zoning districts, and
I'm not sure if we have that yet. I think that's part of what we're asking staff to clarify. I have, I'd like
to see something kind of special and different here. I'm not sure that we have that. And I think that's
sort of ~vhat some of Deb's questions were directed toward is improving some of the getting a little bit
more higher quality of the development and I'd also like to see a more sensitive proposal to the
environment and the neighbor's concerns. And I don't know what to do about the gateway issue. I guess
I could be convinced that this is satisfactory too. Another element is again weighing the neighbor
concerns versus the affordable housing goal. I think that we can still have an affordable housing element
to this project and still meet the neighbors concerns. And I also would like to make sure that we have
something in our proposal next time that addresses protecting the McAllister property. I know that there
are a number of lawsuits where people move into a, it's called moving into a nuisance. I don't think their
property's a nuisance but that's what they call these type of suits and I want to protect the McAllister
property from those type of claims. I don't want anybody to be complaining about the animals when
they've ~known it's been there all along. We do have a high amount of discretion in reviewing these
things. I think it makes sense to table this and I'd ask that the neighbors stay involved throughout the
process and keep helping us out with our decision. And with that, I guess we need a motion.
Sacchet: I want to make sure we do the best we can do so, and I'm making a motion to table this.
Burton: Is there a second?
Blackowiak: Second.
Sacchet moved, Blacko~viak seconded to table action on the request from Pulte Homes for
Arboretum Village at the corner of Highways 41 and 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
Conrad: Mr. Chairman a point. Can we make sure we know what we're doing by tabling it? And the
process. Will we be, Mr. Chairman will staff be addressing the issues we just brought up? And it's
going to be that simple? Is there any kind of neighborhood involvement that's necessary before that
meeting? Is there anything you'd like to have done with the applicant present to the neighborhood?
Anything on that?
Burton: I think it would make sense to have a meeting with the applicant and the neighbors before we
see it again. And incorporate whatever comments they have to staff.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Conrad: I'm not sure.
Aanenson: Can I address that? We are clicking on a clock of timeframe to get this reviewed. I
anticipated this is going to take longer. Have spoken to the applicant and he's willing to give us extra
time. At least 120 days. The next Planning Commission meeting is January 2nd. It is a hard time to try to
get together and the Park Commission, I believe their next regular meeting is not until January. So if you
wanted their input, we're kind of pushing us back into January to resolve some of these issues. Certainly
there needs to be some clarification communicated. As Ladd pointed out, understanding the ordinance,
that sort of thing. I think that's going to take neighborhood input. Some redesign between the applicant
and the neighbors and staff. So we're probably looking probably towards the end of January. I just need
to make sure that the applicant's going to give us that extension to meet the State... If you wanted to ask
that, if we can do that.
Burton: Would the applicant, can the City have that extension of time?
Dennis Griswold: Until the end of January?
Aanenson: Well for the Planning Commission I mean but by the time it goes to Council, you're talking
February. I have the date starting the 60 day, October 23rd. So in December we're at 60 days and I'm
telling him we need another 60 days at a minimum and then we have to re-evaluate that.
Dennis Griswold: Is there not a Planning Commission first half of January?
Aanenson: Yes there is but if they're recommending that they want input from the Park Commission, I
don't believe they meet until later in the month. They may be having a special meeting this month. I'm
not sure what their agenda is. I'm just saying...
Burton: Yeah, I think we come before the Park Commission in January and we need, we're asking for
their input before we meet so we would probably be the 16th of January would be our next one? It'd be
two weeks after the 2nd.
Aanenson: Correct.
Burton: So that would be our next one. And then we go to council so we're just looking to have time so
it goes to council, came to the council in the time frame that you require.
Dennis Griswold: We'll go with that extension but I would ask your indulgence if we could have the
information together to make a decision at that point. And I know you don't know what we're bringing
back to you but I would want you to understand that...very critical and very important to us. We want to
work with the city on the time issue too' but give us a decision.
Burton: And I can't tell you what will happen in our next meeting but we understand your concern and
xve understand that we need to make a decision. We have to make a decision because the time's going to
run anyway so we're going to be forced to make a decision.
Conrad: Mr. Chair, can we ask to see if this could get onto the Park and Rec's agenda?
45
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Aanenson: Did anticipate that question coming up. I spoke with Todd. They are having a special
meeting. I'm not sure if you can get it on. Certainly the neighbors want to have input too. I'm not sure
what their timeframe is. So we'll just have to see what we can do to communicate that. I just want
everybody to know that's part of the process.
Conrad: We conduct public hearings, excuse me Mr. Chair.
Burton: That's fine.
Conrad: We conduct the public hearing. ! think the public made their comments known tonight. At least
about the part of the tottots. Are there other issues? There are. Okay.
Audience: Can I make a comment? Or not?
Burton: Quick.
Audience: Very quickly. I just think what we want to make sure is that we take the time and if this is
going to happen, which I heard from a couple people that it's going to. Or at least under very serious
consideration, from my standpoint and I won't talk for everybody. From my standpoint is, I just want to
make sure we do do it right. And the density issue and quality issue and some buffering, some things like
that are important. We think...gateway and I would just love to sit down and talk about that. Really I
would because I think it's important. But that's what we would like. I would like to have input on is
what happens. And I think time is understandably for the developer is important.
Burton: Yeah, we're trying to accommodate all that. So I just want to be clear on the extension that we
have.
Aanenson: I'm saying, I just don't see, even if the park commission met sooner, I'm not sure based on
we're getting towards the holidays, we can work with the neighbors and get that through the process in
that first meeting. I think we're going to need at least until the 16th meeting in January to, for the next
Planning Commission.
Burton: For the extension that we actually need from the applicant though, is it just through the 16th of
January we need or do you need to make sure it gets...
Aanenson: Well I'm telling him we're taking the extra 60 days. It may go longer than that. Just so he's
aware of that and, otherwise you're going to have to make a recommendation, whether it's favorable or
not, and get it up to the City Council so we stay within that.
Burton: Okay. Anybody have any other issues they need to? Okay. Alright, we're actually going to
move on to old business.
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS.
Aanenson: ...Anyways I just wanted to share with you where the park design is going on this project.
This is an area again that we got through the projects. The PUD on the one side and it's been left natural.
It's a very nice, natural area. 100 acre park. And the high area to the wetland. This is the Trotter's
Ridge subdivision with Coulter going through it. Now looking at the parking for this area and the trails.
As you recall this is an area we also looked at using as a place for the school kids to go over and use
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
some of that. Do some of their field work so the park commission is now just putting together a design
and I just wanted to share that with you what's happening on that piece of property.
Burton: Thanks. So that was old? How about something new?
Aanenson: Our first meeting in December, we do have one. January. January 2nd. We do have one
subdivision on. Sorry, a rezoning. It's a lot that has...be seeing that. As part of the application for that
first variance you saw, there is another request that Anita may be coming through with her own request
on that. She wanted to do it the same meeting but we wanted to keep those two separate issues. But as
part of that application so you may be seeing that too to come back through. So that's it, and again we
wanted enough time to resolve all the issues on this. That's all.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated November 14, 2000 as presented.
OPEN DISCUSSION.
Aanenson: I do have an open discussion. We do need to advertise. In the past, this time of the year
Mayor Elect asked about that. Ms Jansen asked about when we're going to advertise. We found in the
past, we moved it to April expirations. This is a difficult time of year to advertise for replacement of
Planning Commission so we'll be looking at doing that the first of the year. Until then, until we get a
replacement, I'm not sure what you want to do as Matt.
Kind: You did a fine job tonight.
Aanenson: If you want to wait until we get somebody else involved and then kind of restructure that
whole thing so we'll just kind of leave it status quo, if that's okay. And then LuAnn should be here at the
next meeting too so we'll just kind of run it that way until we get somebody else on board and then we
can make it, if that's okay to make those decisions. We just found in the past that there's so much other
things going on, people aren't reading the paper to look for those ads so we'll do that right after the first
of the year. _
Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more open discussion item.
Burton: You can do whatever you want. It's open right?
Kind: I don't even have to talk to you?
Burton: No.
Kind: The concept of using upland only for calculating lot sizes, this came up tonight and I was just
wondering if staff could take a look at our ordinance and make sure that that is what we have in there.
That you can only use upland to calculate. My intent is to avoid having situations like Longacres where
the lots included part of the wetland to calculate...
Aanenson: The lot lines went out. They still had to have so much upland so that, yes. That's a good
question. The lot lines went out into the wetland. Generally we don't do that so that's, while the
property lines go out, they still have to have so much upland. It doesn't count towards the density.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
Kind: ...prohibits that from having lot lines going into the wetland?
Aanenson: Sure. When you review each subdivision. That one was done in like 1991 or 2. We don't do
that as a general rule, but as far as their density calculation under that PUD, they were given based on
upland. The wetlands weren't included. The lots go out. I mean the smallest lots in there could be
11,000 but they had an average of 15. But they weren't counted towards that.
Kind: The wetland portion wasn't counting towards the 11,0007
Aanenson: No. The lot lines just extended out there.
Generous: Or 15.
Kind: And do we currently have an ordinance that prohibits that from happening again where lot lines go
out into the xvetlands?
Aanenson: ! can't think of another example where we have that. There might be one or two. As a
general rule we don't, and that was done before we did the new wetland ordinance. Again that was in
'92. We've done the new wetland ordinance that requires the entire buffering and the averaging. I
believe that was done before that.
Kind: I was just wondering if there was some aspect of our code that we should be taking a look at just
to make sure that that doesn't happen.
Aanenson: Sure. We'll look at that.
Kind: I'll go home and pour over it.
Conrad: Kate a quick update. What happened to that one parcel on Lake Riley where we wanted a
buffer. What did council do?
Kind: The Witt's.
Aanenson: I don't believe they had to put anything in. Lori just left but she had to evaluate the runoff.
If there ~vas additional runoff, then they had to put something on.
Generous: What they did install was found sufficient I believe.
Conrad: What they did install, which was nothing right?
Kind: Rip rap and blue grass.
Sacchet: Here's another ordinance thing that came up in this Pulte thing with the boulevard tree planting.
Do we allow them to do it 55 feet while the ordinance says 30 and it looks like the ordinance was done
by somebody who doesn't -know trees so we should change the ordinance.
Aanenson: Right. With Jill's had that discussion before with the Planning Commission and with the
City Council because her feeling is that instead of stamping them in places that you maybe want to
cluster them, get better you know, and then spacing them out. And depending on the topography, if
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 5, 2000
you've got an area that's going down. Maybe you want to skip that space so we've tried to say, you have
to have trees equal to that spacing but then we sometimes would group them if you have maybe a
deciduous and a conifer or something like that along the street. So we'd say you have to have that
quantity. But they may not always be 30 on center. Sometimes you need more. Sometimes you need
less, depending on that.
Sacchet: So there is actually a rationale in 30 is what you're saying?
Aanenson: Yes. We've had that in a work session I believe that's come up. I know that's been asked by
the council, which is a segway to another one. We do have two work sessions again scheduled for next
year and I believe the first one will be in February. So if you're thinking of topics to discuss.
Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was
adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Sub~nitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
49