Loading...
PC 2004 01 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 6, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Craig Claybaugh, Kurt Papke, Bruce Feik, Rich Slagle, Bethany Tjornhom and Steve Lillehaug STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Bruce DeJong, Finance Director PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen Melissa Gilman 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen Villager REVIEW 2004-08 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Bruce DeJong presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Just to clarify. Our role is not to look at the dollar figures per se, but to look at the overall picture. How it complies with the intent of the comprehensive plan, is that an accurate statement? DeJong: Yes, that's correct. Sacchet: Before we get into questions I want to be really clear about that. Questions. Feik: I had one. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: You called to attention those two items, both ST003 and 15 as it relates to the 2005 MUSA. Timing of those events, I just curious, question as Lyman Boulevard not being upgraded until 2008 which could be 2 to 3 years after significant development is already occurring in that 2005 MUSA area. Specifically the AUAR area. Is there any concerns from the city regarding the timing of that event? That's my only question. DeJong: The concern that the city has is that the Lyman Boulevard is really a county road and it doesn't show up in the county's 5 year capital improvement program. We've put it out there basically to highlight for us that yes, there is going to be some significant costs associated with that. We don't have a clear idea of what those costs will be, nor do we have a very good idea of the timing of those improvements but it's more of a Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 reminder that we need to do something and we need to address this for Carver County. Beyond that there's certainly no engineering estimates that are associated with that or anything. It's just that my understanding is that the County does not provide urban type sections with things like curb and gutter and so we're just kind of putting a dart up there on the board and saying that we need to address this at some point in the future. Feik: Sort of reminder or a tickler huh? DeJong: Yes. Feik: Okay. That's it, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt? Papke: Yeah. I'm somewhat new to the Planning Commission so my questions may just come because of my lack of experience here. About 25 percent of the budget is for the water treatment plant. Could you just in 2 seconds or more describe where those water treatment plants will go and what will they serve? DeJong: Well in the CIP there are a couple water treatment plants and they are located one in what we call the Lotus Well Field, which is really fight off of 101 and West 78th. Actually the tennis court area right there. We have several very productive wells there that pump out a lot of water but it's a lower quality than some of the other wells in town. So that would be the primary area that we would address with the first treatment plant. The second treatment plant would be different. It would be located in the high pressure zone which is out on the western edge of town, just slightly east of Highway 41. And that is scheduled without really having any approval from the council at this point beyond conceptual plans that we reviewed last night at a City Council work session. But they're sitting out there as reminders that we do have some water quality issues and that we need to address those. The City Council certainly has not come to any conclusion about the size or the location of those treatment plants. Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve? Lillehaug: I have some questions actually regarding the dollars. I guess I'm not supposed to ask them but I'm going to. When I look at the grand totals I see a pretty large fluctuation from year to year from the actual totals. Like from 2004 to 2005 the budget goes from 10.8 to 5.7, and as you progress there from 2007 to 2008 we're going from 2.9 to 19.7 million. Is this a consistent and good practice as far as the CIP goes? In my mind it'd be a lot more beneficial if this was balanced a little more across the board and I realize you can't always do this but I see there are places that could help in balancing this a little bit. Do you have any concerns with that? DeJong: From the standpoint of balancing this, there are different funding sources that are used for different projects. The ones that really affect the tax levy, such as issuing debt for the equipment certificates, we do have balanced fairly well on an annual basis. Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 These other things are more one time shots that will be paid for, the initial cost will be paid for through issuing debt. And then the repayment of that over the course of many years. Now the water system improvements which is obviously a huge portion of this will be paid for with debt that's issued and then repaid by the rate payers. So people who actually use the water will pay that off over the course of probably 20 years, or even more. And some of these things such as our street improvements, which you can see fluctuate from a low of about a million 2 to about 4.5 million dollars. A lot of those are paid for with the state aid monies that we've accumulated over the course of several years. We could carry a balance in those funds to cover large projects. Lillehaug: If I could maybe elaborate a little bit here. A couple items that I'm not quite seeing here that I would potentially think that we're missing. For example, one in the water system improvements. The comp plan indicates that a water tower or holding system is required for the AUAR area as well as for an area for Trunk Highway 5 and 41, and I don't see any costs for them and you're saying that these are based on a, first question is, are we missing that? And the second question is being that that is a user, it's reflected as a user fee. The AUAR area, I don't know if we need a water tower out there or not, I can't remember from the AUAR, but if we do need one out there, do those costs shift to the developer'?. Can we shift them to the developer? So two questions in there. DeJong: Well I'll answer the second one first. Generally we don't shift costs for our enterprise fund onto developers because we really run those enterprise funds as a business. You know it's not necessarily to make a profit but at least to break even for the city. The second point is, I guess I'd have to defer to Mr. Saam on the necessity for a water tower out there. What I can tell you from my knowledge is that the water tower at 82nd and Highway 41, right up by Arboretum Tire and Auto is not being fully used at this point simply because there isn't enough developed area to draw down out of there. We actually drain that over the course of the winter because of the potential for freezing because of the low water usage, so we do have some capacity out there to serve potentially some of that 2005 MUSA AUAR area. Lillehaug: Before Matt takes over, the comp plan identified that water tower, as well as another water holding facility north of Highway 5 and 41, is that then negated out of the comp plan at this point because of the adequacy of that water tower? DeJong: I'm sorry Commissioner Lillehaug, I do not know the answer to that. Saam: I can add something Commission Lillehaug. First off you brought up the water tower down in the AUAR area. That was identified in our recent water master plan that was completed last year. It was also identified in our '98 water comp plan. Now the location of that may be in the AUAR area. May also be up north of the AUAR area. The master plan that we did last year on the water system thought it would be better suited up near the Lake Susan area. That hasn't been determined yet but we will need a future water tower. The reason you don't see it in here is because it's after the 5 year CIP. I believe it's within like 2012, something of that area so that's why you don't see it. Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: Alright. I've got a lot of questions. I'm going to try to keep it short. You mentioned enterprise funds. I looked through the list here and there's several with a new fire department. Wrong page here. Fire station number 3. That's 3.5 million in 2008, as well as fire station 3 vehicles and equipment. That's a million dollars. This fire station 3, is this location anticipated to be in the AUAR area? And do we consider this an enterprise fund to cover these or is this another item that I guess I would think we could shift to a developer. It's a significant amount of money. DeJong: It is a significant amount of money and typically we get community buy in for these type of expenditures through a referendum. And it will have to be determined basically by the community that the time is right to add another satellite fire station and equipment to serve that area, and I'm not sure if that's going to happen within this time frame or not. That's another one of those items kind of as a tickler file. It's sitting out there as a potential. I know that when the City Council discussed ambulance service with the City of Chaska, that they talked about possibly combining to serve in that eastern portion of Chaska and the kind of western portion of Chanhassen with a joint station so there aren't any definite plans at this point, and I don't know exactly how that will be financed but more than likely through general obligation bonds. Lillehaug: Okay. One last question and I'm done. And it would be with the water treatment plant. In the comp plan, the comp plan doesn't mention that we have plans for a water treatment plant. You can correct me if I'm wrong but that would be my interpretation of it. And that's a fairly recent comp plan, '98 I think. Now in 2004 and 2008 here we're going to spend 10.5 million on water treatment plants. Is this consistent with the comp plan or, we're looking at is it consistent with the comp plan here and in my mind it's not addressed in the comp plan so this is, it's an item I guess I'm not clear on of why we're planning for it. Is this something that was added? Saam: I'll add something Commissioner Lillehaug. In our '98 water system comp plan or update to our master plan it was earmarked. Now the dollars may not be the same, but we do have history dating back to '98 having that earmarked. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? No? Thank you. We move to comments and make a motion I presume. This is not a public hearing. Anybody want to comment on this item in front of us? No comments? No comments? Lillehaug: I'll make a quick comment I guess. Personally I wouldn't support a water treatment plant and earmarking 10.5 million for a water treatment plant. Sacchet: You will not? Lillehaug: I do not support it. Sacchet: Okay. And would you consider it not in line with the comprehensive plan? Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: That would be my interpretation. I did review the comp plan and I don't think it's consistent with the comp plan. Sacchet: Okay. In terms of the comp plan laying out keeping the quality of services up in the city, I mean that's kind of a general framework. I was kind of putting it into that context so I personally didn't actually see a major discrepancy there. Is there something anybody want to. Papke: How do you feel it's inconsistent? Lillehaug: It does mention water treatment but not to this extent. This was in my mind 10.5 million would be a major water treatment plant treating most of the problems with water in Chanhassen and I don't think that was addressed in the comp plan. My interpretation of what was in there. Sacchet: So you would say it's more? Lillehaug: Definitely more. Sacchet: It's beyond the call of the comp plan. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Okay, I see your point. Any further discussion? Comments? Yes, go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I guess I'd like to hear if staff has any further comments with respect to Commissioner Lillehaug's question on the history of the water treatment plant. And a little bit more than what you've given us to this point Matt. Saam: Of course I wasn't around in '98 but in just looking at the comp plan that I have in front of me, the 2020. Back in the CIP that was put together in '98, water treatment plant number 1 and 2 are listed under the water system improvements. Sacchet: It doesn't add a dollar figure to it? It's just an item? Saam: It has dollar figures, and I believe they're not the same as the ones we have in here, which I previously stated so they've gone up. Sacchet: For reference do you have the dollar figure there? Since that's kind of at the heart of what Mr. Lillehaug is questioning. Saam: Sure. Water treatment plant number 1 was proposed $500,000 in 2004 and 3.5 million in 2005. I think we have in there 4.5 in 2004. And then water treatment plant Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 number 2, they're the same amounts. Another half million in 2006 and 3.5 million in 2007. Sacchet: So you are assuming 4 million per plant. Saam: Yes, at that time. Sacchet: And at this point we're looking at 4 V2 and 6 million which is not totally out of whack. Saam: Exactly. I was just going to add the years are slightly different also. Sacchet: Okay. Any further discussion or comments? Kurt. Papke: Just a general comment. It was difficult for me to review a 47 million budget with no commentary on any of the line items and this big thick comprehensive document to compare it to. You know I'm not sure how much value ! feel like I've added to the process here. I mean judging from the kinds of questions you're getting from us, obviously we have not been involved in all the decisions on all these different projects so I think all I can state is from my perspective, I'm not sure how much value I've been able to contribute to this and I don't know if any of the other commissioners share that. I see a couple heads nodding up and down like maybe i'm not the only one that feels that way. Just a general comment. Sacchet: Basically it's an area that we normally are not involved with from the Planning Commission side, except for the comprehensive plan piece and so in my review of this I wasn't really looking at the amounts as much as, are the items in line with the intent of the comprehensive plan in terms of where the development is planned. In terms of how it contributes to the goals that the comprehensive plan sets in terms of maintaining quality of services. So I consider this on a very high level. There must be some value otherwise they wouldn't bring it to us I hope. Anyhow, yes... Lillehaug: One last comment. With Matt clarifying that, you know it appears that the values are about the same. I was reading text and ! didn't look at that chart so I guess it probably is consistent so, I change my opinion. Sacchet: So you consider it not necessarily as big a conflict or enough to hold it up in our ordinance. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Okay. Well I appreciate that. Thank you. With that I'd like to have a motion. Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: I move the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2004-2008 capital improvement plan and find the plan to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Papke: Second. Feik moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Plan and finds the plan to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO REPLAT ONE LOT (40~355 SQ. FT.) INTO 3 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES~ 6700 POWERS BOULEVARD; BURLWOOD 2N~' ADDITION; EPIC DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bob Martinka 6650 Powers Boulevard Rich Ragatz Minneapolis Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Any questions commissioners? Claybaugh: Yeah, I have a question. Sacchet: You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Can you give a little history to why Golden Glow Court was not located on the property line? A1-Jaff: You mean. Claybaugh: Right, you said under normal circumstances. Al-Jaff: Correct. Claybaugh: The fight-of-way would be located on the property line. A1-Jaff: If you remember with the first addition when Burlwood came in, one of the scenarios that was presented to the Planning Commission was a cul-de-sac that would 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 terminate at this point until the future subdivision of Mr. Martinka and Mr. Christensen subdivision. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with the property owners and see if this entire right-of-way could be extended. Part of the agreement that Mr. Ragatz, the applicant for Burlwood, reached with Mr. Martinka and Christensen is the fact that the right-of-way would be located on Mr. Ragatz' property in it's entirety with the exception of this triangle. And that is required because when this subdivision was approved the right-of-way was centered at the midpoint between what is Burlwood today and Mr. Martinka's property. Does that answer your question? Claybaugh: Yes. I guess it does. I'm just a little dumbfounded with, that that was the solution that was reached. Sacchet: Just to clarify, so the original intent was indeed to have that right-of-way split between the two properties. I mean it actually lines up very clearly now the way you describe it. A1-Jaff: Well if, and if you measure this, this is 25 feet right here and another 25. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Feik: Yes. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: Please. I would like to, refresh my memory a little bit. We've seen this a couple of times and some things were in motion over the course and I would just like to clarify a couple of items for myself. The triangular piece with Mr. Martinka, if I pronounce that properly, has been resolved? Or this is contingent upon that being resolved at least. Al-Jaff: Correct. Feik: The lot directly to the north of that lot, and I forget the name of the homeowner. Christensen, thank you. That lot accesses Golden Glow Court where? Since they do not abut to that road. A1-Jaff: The Egyhazi property? Feik: No, to the north. That one. Right where your pen's at now. A1-Jaff: This one? Feik: Yes. How does that access to Golden Court since they don't have property that abuts it? I understand that. I'm assuming there's an easement. Al-Jaff: One of the conditions of approval of the first addition is that these, this outlot right here be dedicated to the city to guarantee access. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: Okay, that would have been the first one. A1-Jaff: To guarantee access, con'ect. Feik: Okay, so it's not in this one because I missed it. Al~Jaff: Correct. That's why I added the condition that says you have to record the first Burlwood in order to guarantee access is continued. Feik: Okay. Then carrying on from that, the lot to the south. There was some discussion regarding the driveway that accesses onto Powers. Whether that was going to be abandoned. The driveway was going to be, was ultimately going to be directed westerly into the cul-de-sac and then there was a variety of discussion on that. Where did that land.'? Al-Jaff: The second time this item appeared in front of, you tabled action on it the first time. The second time it appeared in front of you, I explained that the Egyhazi property will continue access off of Powers Boulevard. Feik: Okay. I wasn't sure how that was resolved. It was just something open in my mind. And I think I Just have one more and that as it relates to Powers and the additional setback. We're comfortable that if there's any foreseeable improvement to Powers, that these lots would not get any smaller. Saam: Yes. I'll add to that. The County has reviewed this and they are fine with the 50 foot right-of-way. That's in keeping with the other properties to the south that have been platted along Powers. Feik: I think that's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Any other questions? Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Sharmeen, a couple of things. One is, you mentioned a few times just recently on the first Burlwood, let's call it. What is the status of that? Has that gone to City? Been approved? No issues? A1-Jaff: It has been approved by the City Council. It's just a matter of recording the plat. Slagle: Okay. So the agreements between the applicant and residents there that were needed as part of Burlwood have been completed? A1-Jaff: The plat will not be, there has been discussions between them. We have a meeting with Mr. Martinka on Friday to discuss a few issues on his property. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Slagle: But it's nothing, if I can ask it this way. It's nothing that you see that we could approve this perhaps and then all of a sudden something happens. Al-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, okay. Another question I had is, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that these three lots will have the back yard facing Powers. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. Now just for point of record. When we looked at our different options that were a result of previous councils. One of the things that was shared with us on the first Burlwood by folks was that there was a desire not to have back yards on Powers. Al-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I'd heard that right. Last question is of the three lots there was some discussion on page 3 under preliminary plat that talked about the garages and the single family home and the property line and I was a little confused in the verbiage of that paragraph. What will happen? I mean are the buildings going to be demolished, the garages? A1-Jaff: They have to be demolished because this property line that divides Lots I and 2 is going to be bisect the existing garage. Slagle: Okay, so when you say, and I'm not saying you but whoever wrote this, should be demolished and so forth, I mean it will be? There's no two ways about it. Okay. A1-Jaff: Moved or demolished. Slagle: Gotch ya. Okay, that's all. Sacchet: Any more questions? Lillehaug: I have two questions. When you're explaining about the right-of-way dedication, what is existing right-of-way? Or where is existing right-of-way line parallel with Powers right now? Are they dedicating more right~of-way or is that? A1-Jaff: They are dedicating the entire 50 foot right-of-way. Lillehaug: Isn't Powers currently running down that main bold line there? A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: So how's? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 A1-Jaff: This is where the pavement ends. So there is an additional 25 feet that's being. This is the pavement of Powers. Lillehaug: Right, but where's the existing right-of-way line for Powers? Al-Jaff: With the dedication or prior to? Lillehaug: Currently. Right now. A1-Jaff: Right here. Center of the road. Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug. According to this preliminary plat, it appears that they are dedicating the right-of-way and that they own to the middle of the road. This is, we have many situations like this in town. What the County would have then is an easement for roadway purposes. And then when these properties develop, that's when they get the right-of-way. We have this on Ashling Meadows, Lake Lucy Ridge. I'm not sure if you were on the Planning Commission at that time but we have the same situation. They own, a lot of the older parcels down to the middle of the county roads, but the county has an easement or prescriptive fights over the roadway. Lillehaug: Okay, so then where is the easement? AI-Jaff: It would be up to the pavement. Up to the pavement. Saam: I'll just add many times with prescriptive easements our city attorney has said that your easement ends where your maintenance needs end, so in a case like this, it's usually at the top of the ditch. On the top slope toward the property of the ditch. So, if that clarifies it. Lillehaug: Yeah it does. Yep. Okay. Next question. With the recent plat approval that we went through, I think there was an underground storm water storage system. I don't see it any longer as part of any underlying line work as part of that plat. What happened to that and if it's just not shown there, or if it's done, what's being proposed in lieu of that? Saam: Okay, I'll start off by saying that this plat is really separate from the street and the sewer and water. The storm sewer improvements save for one storm sewer line going down a lot line in this plat. With that said, the underground detention system that you were referring to, that went away with the final plat of the first phase. They're providing treatment through a storm septor manhole, and then they're discharging to the creek that runs I believe through the Martinka property. And one of the conditions of the final plat approval was that the city, or the applicant grant an easement to the city for that drainage. Lillehaug: Well I guess that's not part of this plat anymore but it doesn't seem like that need water quantity treatment anymore. Okay. That's all my questions, thanks. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Kurt, you have a question? Papke: Yeah. Quite often when applicants are requesting a variance, staff puts together an analysis of precedent. Similar types of applications and variances that have been granted under similar situations. I didn't see an analysis this time. Off the top of your heads, can you recall, is there any precedent for granting a variance as a result of the right-of-way dedication by the developer? I'm just looking for precedence here for what's being asked for. A1-Jaff: No, and that, yesterday Chairman Sacchet contacted me and that was one of the questions that he had. Is there a precedent? The circumstances with this request are so unique that let's assume that Mr. Christensen comes in and requests a 13,000 square foot variance. There isn't a county road that abuts his property. There isn't a collector that abuts his property so again those circumstances that are associated with this application are so unique to this site, they are not being duplicated anywhere else. Sacchet: If I may jump in at this point. I'm actually curious. What you're saying Sharmeen, if I understand correctly is that those surrounding properties besides not having the abutting road constraints on 2-3 sides, or the road construction on their site, aside from that how many, how much could they be subdivided? I mean if they, what's the maximum lots that could be subdivided on those adjoining properties? A1-Jaff: Assuming that they meet all ordinance requirements, looking at Mr. Christensen's property, you could potentially get 2 parcels. Sacchet: It couldn't be 3 or 4? Al-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Okay. How about the one to the south? That's even bigger. A1-Jaff: Mr. Martinka. You could only get 2. And it's because of the lot frontage. Sacchet: So there's the lot frontage constraint would clearly state that it would be limited to 2 lots? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's important in the context of the precedent because I was struggling with that. As Sharmeen mentioned I tried to get some information yesterday about that. So we can minimize the precedent. We can clearly identify this as a unique situation. That it's not applicable because where do you have that many adjoining roads? Where you have the whole road on the property and so forth, so that's basically a point there. Now in terms of the, since we're talking precedent. Let's also touch on the hardship aspect a little bit. I find that one in some ways as challenging. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 You're findings in the staff report respectfully states that there is no other property in the proximity that has an area of 15,000 square feet or less. Al-Jarl: That's correct. Sacchet: It doesn't seem like that really expresses a hardship. I mean it looks like actually what you explained...precedent this is much more the hardship in that there are all these encroachments by the easements of right-of-way's that a hardship of actually building that road on the lot itself and carrying cost for it. How does that 1,500 square feet, not being in the surrounding add to the hardship? If you could explain that. A1-Jaff: Going back to had this road been divided equally between the two parcels, you could be able to meet the minimum requirements for lot area. Sacchet: So indeed if the road would be where originally envisioned, there would be 3 lots that conform with the size. Okay. Okay, okay so I didn't see that as clearly. I'm glad you point that out. In terms of the trees, it seems like with this being divided into 3 lots, pretty much the whole area has to be graded and that obviously has an impact on what's going on these lots at this point. Staff report makes reference that a significant amount of evergreens will be transplanted. However not all of those will be counted towards the forestation requirement because they're all the same species. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So we would require that the applicant plants another number of trees in addition to the transplanted ones? A1-Jaff: They will work with the city forester. The trees that are intended to be transplanted will still be transplanted. They will add. Sacchet: Yeah, that's the main part of my question. Okay, okay. They will still be transplanted? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: That's what I was trying to establish. Now 13,000 square foot lot is not really that uncommon in our city, but usually you would have it like in a PUD environment or medium density or something like that, right? AI-Jaff: In a PUD. Single family in PUD's can go down to 11,000 square feet. Sacchet: And what's the reason that we do this way, not a PUD here'?. Could you explain that briefly? Al-Jarl: You need a minimum of 5 acres to actually do a PUD. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, so size wise this doesn't meet the requirements, okay. A1-Jaff: There are some things that were pre-set and again it, this entire subdivision was set into motion many years ago. The entire layout of the site was set into motion many years ago. It's not your typical. Sacchet: And that's part of what we're struggling with that it's kind of coming in piecemeal in terms of the traffic situation and so forth, okay. Alright, that answers all my questions. Thanks Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Sacchet: If the applicant would want to come forward, if you have anything to add further. We may even have some questions for you as well. Please state your name and address for the record please. Get the microphone up to you please. Rich Ragatz: Rich Ragatz, Epic Development. Chairman and Planning Commission, thank you. I'll keep it brief. I know you have a lot on the agenda and I think Sharmeen's done a good job of outlining the issues here. At a previous meeting you had me go back and try and work with the neighbors to make sure that we could get this put together and have the road put through and I have gone out and worked with the neighbors and continue to work with the neighbors, and I think the end result is a win/win situation for everybody. For the city. For the neighbors and for me, the developer. The city gets to have their street put in the way they want it, and they have improved public safety as a result. The neighbors have something that's the least impacting physically and economically because I'm going to be paying for the street, and in the end I get an approved development that I can start doing in the springtime and I think that works for everybody and hopefully you guys will see the rationale for that. And I just wanted to touch on the agreements with the neighbors. We have several agreements in place and we're actually reformulating one of those agreements but I understand the condition that you need. You need those agreements in place to move this forward, and that's what I plan on having so I'm available for comments or questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions of the applicant. Tjornhom: Mr. Ragatz, had you not gone ahead and paid for the roads and worked with the neighbors for your development, you know what would have happened? Would you still have had your development or would it have been smaller or what would have happened with the whole thing? Rich Ragatz: Well I think it might have been a different phased development where I might have just done 4 lots. The northerly 4 lots and just waited until the neighbors wanted to participate and move forward with me subdividing, but in the end I though for everybody's sake it made more sense to just, let's get it done. You know we spent too much time on it. You know it's a small deal. Let's try to work it and move forward. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? I have two quick questions and I already asked this from staff so I just want you to confirm that I usually ask questions about trees, so this is about the trees. You say you're transplanting 44 evergreens but then staff finds that even though you still have to plant 29 different type of trees so with adding that load of 29 additional trees, you're still planning to transplant the 44 evergreens? Rich Ragatz: Yes. I like trees and. Sacchet: It makes sense. Rich Ragatz: It makes sense. Sacchet: There's a cost, that's why I'm asking. Rich Ragatz: Yeah it is but it's on a busy street on Powers and I think it needs additional buffering. Sacchet: And the other thing might be somewhat moot point but it kind of peaked my interest in your application letter you're referring to an easement agreement with the property to the south to get 17 additional feet added to your development. Is that, do I understand that correctly? But you choose not to enforce that. Is that... Rich Ragatz: Oh yes, correct. I had an agreement with Carol Egyhazi but for various reasons, I don't want to try and force it. I had worked something out with her where she was going to give me the 17 feet to make it a conforming plat, and I was going to take the private drive that she would have had to dig up and plant grass on. I was going to do that at my expense. Sacchet: So, but that's not happening? Rich Ragatz: No. Sacchet: Hopefully between those 17 feet, that would again have added more to make those lots conforming. Rich Ragatz: Yeah. Slagle: And is the reason, if I can ask, because she can go onto Powers as it is? Is that what you're talking about? Rich Ragatz: Well I'm already going to be doing that as part of what I told you that I'm going to pay for building a cul-de-sac and as part of that, Matt added that condition where I have to actually take out that portion of the private drive from the cul-de-sac east to where her driveway would start. But early on, this has gone on several months. I had 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 worked out an agreement with her where she was going to give me 17 feet but I figured hopefully we don't have to go through with that. Sacchet: Alright, that's all the questions 1 believe we have for you. Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite any of you that want to come forward and comment to this item in front of us, to do so now. Are there any takers? Yes there are a few. Please state your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. Debbie Lloyd: Good evening. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Bear with me, I have a lot of paper here. First of all, and I know you're aware of this but I just want to point out that on December 8th council approved the first subdivision. The applicants were Richard Ragatz and Larry and Kathy Kerber. And today in front of you is the application with the same applicants. Sacchet: Correct. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. When we talk about hardship, page 9 in the staff report. Had the road been centered between the property to the west and the subject site, you know this is the alleged hardship. Well if you go to city code, Section 18-60 under lots. Subdivision. Point (f) reads this way. Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision, which I'm considering is like the first one you reviewed, shall not cause undue hardship to owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land. Well, if it doesn't, if it's not supposed to cause undue hardship to neighboring properties, it shouldn't cause undue hardship to their owner property. I don't see a valid reason to claim hardship. I'm shaking again. Slagle: You're doing a good job. Debbie Lloyd: I have one. Does anyone need one? Matt? Sacchet: Alright, we got it. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. If you look at this handout, you know what you're looking at. You're looking at 40,000 odd acres. I mean square feet and they say you're looking at a variance. I don't see it like that. You're looking at 3 variances. Each variance is, if you average them out, it's about a 10 percent variance. When variances come in front of you, you know you've dealt with them. We're seeing a lot of them now. They're not of this magnitude typically. If you look at one lot variance, or one variance for one lot, the other two being up to code, it's a 31 percent variance. That's huge. On the next page. I took the calculations just of the Burlwood lots from the staff report and the present average lot size of the 16 lots is 30,657 square feet. The average of the 8 smaller lots is 18,403. ...it's reasonable use. Page 8 of the staff report. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable properties within 500 feet. Granted all these homes are definitely within 500 feet, but the staff report did not include all homes within 500 feet. If it would have it would have included Mulberry Circle and Utica. If you drive by those 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 lots, you will see those are large lots. I don't have the size but I can tell you they're not 15,000 square foot lots. The intent of the provision is not to allow, and this is right out of code. Is not to allow proliferation of variances but to recognize their pre-existing standards in neighborhoods. Variances that lent with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet the criteria. I think creating 3 lots with 13,000 square feet departs downward from the standard of the developments within 500 feet. The question came up, what if all the lots were to be subdivided and I didn't do it according to what, I didn't look at frontage and depth of the lot but it appears that if all those lots were developed using 15,000 square foot as the rule, there would be 27 lots in that entire development with an average of 18,167 square feet. Also page 2 of the report. Just wanted to point out because it's been asked before about the 60 by 60 house pad. That requirement to show a 60 by 60 house pad is only found in Section 18 of the code. It's the only place it is. For PUD's it's also in another section. Subdivision findings point 1, page 6. I think the subdivision is inconsistent with zoning ordinance, contrary to what it says that it's consistent. Point 2, I also believe it's inconsistent with city, county and regional plans because our plan calls for RSF neighborhoods to have 15,000 square feet lots. And I'm concerned because I live in an RSF neighborhood. I'd like to see those standards maintained. That's one thing the community likes about ourselves. We build somewhat larger lots. If this development would have gone through the PUD, that would have been a different issue. They could have come through with a smaller lot. What do our citizens have to gain? Maybe a few tax dollars but do these smaller lots provide affordable housing, which is what we really need. No, they don't. These are high priced homes. And there is one more point. The staff report on the square footage of the homes and the impervious surface calculations. Hard surface. ! don't believe those numbers could be true. I think they're based on, and it's hard to read in here you know, something you print off the internet, but it appears that the driveway calculation looks correct. The home, it looks like it's based on the finished square footage of the main floor, which I don't believe includes a garage, the patio, or the decking, the extension on the rooflines and stuff, so I think those numbers might need to be reworked. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Sure appreciate your diligence and research of this. Maybe we should have you sit up here. I'm sure we'd know which way you'd vote by now. Anybody else want to add comments to this item? Otherwise I'll be closing the public heanng. Nobody else? This is your chance. Alright I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments, discussion. Any comments or discussion points? Claybaugh: Yeah, I guess I'd come back to the point that I'm still troubled somewhat to the fact that Golden Glow Court wasn't located on the property line. I don't feel that the development is premature in any way. If the adjacent properties did not want to participate or didn't feel it added value to their properties, then I'm not sure why the developer is putting in as extensive a road as he is at this point, in either event if it was located on the property line, you'd have the required square footage. And if that wasn't the case, then you'd have a much shorter road and cul-de-sac. In either event you'd be able to achieve it so I guess I keep coming back to the point of why the road, what the 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 stumbling block is with having that located on the property line. And if it is with the adjacent neighbors, why the developer is putting in as extensive of a road as he is. Sacchet: Is that something staff could comment about.'? A1-Jaff: That was, one of the original proposals that appeared before the Planning Commission included a cul-de-sac that's, if I may. The original application terminated the cul-de-sac right in this location with the understanding that at some point when Mr. Christensen and Mr. Martinka were ready to develop the remainder of the cul-de-sac would go through. The Planning Commission tabled action on that proposal. Directed the applicant to go back and work with the neighboring properties so that was an option but it was the Planning Commission's direction to really work out what you see. Claybaugh: Unfortunately I wasn't at that particular meeting, but it looks very unilateral at this point. The developer's basically carrying all the fray to try to put it together and that's the only reason that I'd be entertaining that. I don't like the idea. I agree with what Debbie had to say in her presentation and I think that this all precipitated the requirement for these variances so if, I just feel that the developer's being pushed down a path that didn't want to go, that the neighbors aren't buying into and he's up trying to convince the Planning Commission and everyone here that it's the right thing for us to do. And I don't feel that he should necessarily have been put in that position in the first place. Sacchet: Okay. Any other points of discussion? Comments. Go ahead Bruce. Feik: Yes, I generally support the application. I'd like to remind everyone up here that the general alignment of Golden Glow was put in motion many, many years ago. There was 3 or 4 different alternatives. I think it goes back 7 or 8 years. City staff, planning, everybody arm wrestled with that, if we go back and look at those notes for it sounded like many, many months. That being said, the general alignment was essentially fixed. Generally. The applicant I think has made a significant accommodation to the neighbors, both an economic, today's dollars as well as future access for future development, that the neighbors can certainly significantly benefit from. As it relates to the small lots, the people that it's really going to impact are the neighbors. The immediately adjoining neighbors. The small lot having 2-3 lots there versus 2 lots, and I look at it as trade-off a bit in that the neighbors are really getting almost a windfall by having this road put on the easterly portion and not splitting the two lots and hats off to the applicant willing to try to make that accommodation, including extending that cul-de-sac well beyond the property to the south. So generally I support this. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: I agree that in 1995-96 the Planning Commission and City Council kind of gave us a puzzle, or you know they designed a square piece of parcel and then decided to let somebody else cut the pieces out and make it all fit, and that came to us and the developer and I think along with the neighbors, I think we all tried to do the best we 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 could to make all those pieces work somehow and I waited tonight. I haven't said a thing because I wanted to see if there would be neighbors here again, and if they would be saying positive things or negative things or what would be said at all and no one came up so I'm assuming because no one did come up, no one was angry or had questions or comments or concerns. That the developer is doing due diligence with trying to be a good neighbor and a good developer and work with the homeowners in the community. And I think too, we have gone beyond what he needed to, as far as paying for roads and making sure everyone was happy with what was happening and so that's why I too support his plans. Sacchet: If I could just quickly add, in order to be complete in this. I did get a letter from one of the neighbors that was speaking for the 2 lot solution versus the 3 lot solution. It's also has to be stated it's probably one of the neighbors that profits the most from this arrangement so, and I got this letter 2 months ago so I don't know whether it's still accurate, but just for the record I want to add that in there. Yes, Kurt. Papke: Just to kind of add something to the previous comments about the one sided nature of this. I think one thing I can't completely discount is if Golden Glow was shifted to the west to bring these lots in conformance, the net density of the entire area wouldn't change. If I understand the constraints correctly, regardless of where this roadway is placed, all we are doing is doing a slight density shift to the east. A1-Jaff: That's accurate. Papke: So from that perspective we will not alter the gross density of this development by allowing this variance. So it is one sided in that is a shift. That's all. Slagle: Just one quick point of clarification, if I can ask staff. Having been shared the information tonight that the water, the system if you will for handling water was changed from our vote, well it's going to come back to you. To a different system. Was there any other significant changes that occurred in Burlwood, call it one from what we voted on? That either of you are aware of. A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Lillehaug: Well, where do I want to start? First off, when it was in here a few months ago I think I'll be clear that I indicated that I would not support splitting this into 3 lots, and I stay consistent with that. And I want to give you a couple examples here. If you go about 2 miles south of this site, straight south on Powers Boulevard, we had an applicant come in here. What was his name, Mr. Rossalik? Was that his name? Generous: Rossavik? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: Rossavik. You compare that to this situation here. He's a house owner, developer. He wanted to develop that land. Adjacent landowners basically weren't ready for him to put a street in there and to develop that land, and we voted, and we didn't let that go through. We said it was premature. I think we can apply that in this same respect here. The developer chose to go through here, even though he couldn't shift that road over to the west. That's his prerogative. He still chose to go through with this. Does the city owe him a variance to split that into 3 lots'? Certainly not. Certainly not. You can go through all these variance findings here, and I'm going to do that. (a), there's no undue hardship. It's a self created hardship. You can look here. I mean the proposed lots are a little over 13,000 square feet. We're talking we've got a road on either side of this lot. This is the perfect example of why we want to 15,000 square foot lot. Right here. You've got a road on each side of this lot. I want to maximize my area of that lot. I don't want a 13,000 square foot lot. Yeah, it's only a couple thousand square feet but you know what? Our ordinances are there for a reason and I think this is the perfect reason why it's there. Is to enforce having a 15,000 square foot lot there. So that'd be finding (a). Finding (b). I guess I don't agree with the finding there. It's at a comer of two arterial roads. So I disagree with that also. Finding (c). The purpose of the variation, it is based upon a desire to increase the value of the land, period. That's why this variance is in front of us. To split it into 3 lots to increase the value. That is the reason. And then (d) again, this is a self created hardship. I think there's too many things here where we're trying to do a feel good thing here and say well, you worked with the city. He's building that road at his cost. If the developer got together and bought up all those parcels in there, the developer would still build that road at his cost, period. I don't think it's appropriate to grant the variance here. And ! think Debbie Lloyd explained very well that we have a duty to withhold our ordinance here, specifically for this reason. Papke: Withhold or uphold? Lillehaug: Uphold. Sorry, hey thanks. I'm going to end on that. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Steve. Well, I've been struggling with this one quite a bit. And what for me is one of the deciding factors is that this is not a straight forward situation. This is not like starting from a clean sheet and looking at what happened in isolation from all the things that happened before. And if I remember correctly that was the driving force in how we dealt with this. The previous time this came in front of us, when we looked at the first go around with this, that really the trouble was we're trying to build on agreements that have been made before probably most, if not all of us were involved with this process. And my aim, and I guess it was somewhat the consensus of the commission at the time was that we wanted to settle this in a way that not come 5 years, 10 years down the line, a new set of characters is going to be sitting here. Other staff people are going to be here, and they're going to deal with the same problem. And at that time to me that became the .overriding factor in terms of what direction to go with this. And I believe that's ultimately what's led to the current alignment of this road because it's a borderline situation. The agreement was made that this road goes in pretty much with that alignment. Little more to the west. That it has that cul-de-sac, that Burlwood cul-de- 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 sac on the south side, Golden Glow or what it's called, and very few even of the residents that live out there now even remember much of having made that agreement. However, it's my understanding that as what we're representing as a city, we have to build on this agreement. We can't just push them aside, and looking at what's in front of us, wouldn't we have that context. I would agree with you Steve. I would agree with Debbie that by looking at plainly just the ordinance it does not meet the letter of the ordinance. But then we have to look at why and what went into this. I have to say that I really think that the wording of the findings, the hardship, reasonable use finding is very unfortunate because it really argues against giving that variance. I mean the fact that there are no lots anywhere nearby that are even 50,000, they're all bigger. Certainly doesn't provide us a reason why we should consider that. However, considering the restrictions that have been put on that property, going back all these years to when this original concept was put in place with the road alignment being put in place with the development to the south being allowed to go in, which at this point it would be no question. We would consider it premature, but it was allowed to go in and in that context there was the street easement, the dedication made for Golden Glow Circle. We have an opportunity here to close that loop. That's what we were trying to do last time when we dealt with it and I'd like to do that again, and I don't really see another way to do that than to look at the glass half full and at half empty. Look at that we have a good solution in front of us in that we have a developer who's willing to foot the whole cost of that road of that cul-de-sac to provide pretty much the whole land for that to sit on in spite of all kinds of encumbrances instead of all around. And now given your finding Debbie that road encumbers this easements are another reason to create a hardship by themselves. We're looking at quite a bit of larger context than just that element by itself. I mean we're not looking at cumulation of many of these elements. So are we departing downwards? We're departing downwards on that particular piece of land, but I think we've established the uniqueness of that property. We've also established that we are not increasing the overall density. It's not going to allow any other parcel to develop more densely based on this variance, so I would consider it unique in that sense and if we do put this through, I would want to put special attention on making it very clear how unique this is. That we make very clear statement that this is contingent on all these encumbrances all around it. So in that framework I'm inclined to support this so that we can close this chapter in a way that is not just going to come back at some future time as it has come to us. I feel that's a bigger responsibility than being to the letter of the law here, which just creates headaches all around. In this particular case. That's my opinion. Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Can I interrupt? Are you comfortable with having 13,000 square foot lot then in those 3 lots? You know they divert from the adjacent lots, those areas quite a bit. Those on each side. Do you have any concerns with that? Sacchet: I'm more comfortable with that than putting this out to potentially come back at any unknown future time and unravel again. That we again have to start from scratch. However do we work it? Are we going to honor the agreements that were made 5 or 10 years ago? I think we have an opportunity to put this in place, and with the element that it does not create a precedent. That we can clearly put into a framework that this is not going to be a precedent for probably hardly any other property in the whole city, and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 certainly not in the neighborhood there. I am comfortable with that element, yes. It's a balancing act. It's not an ideal world. It's a little bit a choice between two pains and i would lean towards trying to put a clear end to this so it's settled. Rich, you had a comment'? Slagle: Just a question Mr. Chair. Do you believe that, although we can't tie this into Burlwood One, or as we said at Burlwood One we couldn't tie Burlwood Two into that. Is there a chance that we could approve this and Burlwood One not happen and he'd still be able to do three small lots? Sacchet: That's that condition that you added, right Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: That's the condition I added. Slagle: In your opinion that's concise enough? Sacchet: Right. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Yeah, it builds. It builds one on the next. I mean they're closely intertwined so they can't fall apart. And it's a shaky construct in some ways but I don't think we'll ever see a more solid one than this and that's why I'm leaning towards passing this through from my viewpoint. Go ahead, we're still discussing. Or questioning. Tjomhom: Staff or whatever. Uli, the Chairman was just speaking that we had resolved this into the lots now across the road would be restrained to just two lots a piece, correct? Because of the road and the whole addition. Is that right? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: You mentioned frontage as a key element with that, right? Tjornhom: Now would some developer in the future be able to come and claim a hardship on their properties because of this and say they also can get 3 lots or something. A1-Jaff: No. The hardship in what you saw before you today, it's truly unique to that, to those 3 lots. Tjomhom: Okay. And that can't be carried out then to the neighbors for any reason? A1-Jaff: No. Tjornhom: Okay. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: And it'd be hard to consider a hardship for the neighbors because all they do is profit. They don't give land. They don't pay for the road and it's my understanding they'll also get free utility stubs, isn't it? So they basically get free infrastructure. Lillehaug: Who's going to remember that 10 years down the road here? Al-Jaff: When they come in for a subdivision, we have to look at how are they getting utilities. What's all available to them? Are they all paid off? Are there any assessments outstanding, so that's part of the research, the background research that we do. Lillehaug: Yeah, but I mean all our discussion. It's not anywhere in these reports as far as the history on any of these. I'm saying all of our language is gone from any of this 10 years down the road, and if someone comes in for a variance for lot frontage width, we've got a substandard lot fight across the road from it. Well, does that set a precedence? I don't know, but an argument certainly could be made. Sacchet: I see your point. Do we have any other comments, questions or are we ready to make a motion? Claybaugh: Make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: Make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood 2nd Addition for 3 lots with lot area variances shown on the plans received October the 17th, 2003 based upon the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 23. Feik: Second. Sacchet: We have a motion, we have a second. Are there any friendly amendments? No? Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood 2nd Addition for 3 lots with lot area variances as shown on the plans dated received October 17, 2003, based upon the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: Applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a minimum of 43 trees to be planted. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 3. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 o 10. 11. 12. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. All transplanted evergreens must have a warranty for two growing seasons. A revised landscape plan must be submitted to the city before final approval. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. Applicant shall plant a minimum of 16 overstory, 24 understory, and 40 shrubs along Powers Boulevard and 4 overstory, 6 understory and 11 shrubs along Lake Lucy Road. Fire Marshal conditions: One fire hydrant will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal and City Engineer for exact location of required fire hydrant. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters (pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1). No burning permits will be issued for tree/shrub disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. Show City Detail Plat Nos. 5300 and 5301. On the grading plan: Add a 75 foot minimum rock construct entrance. Revise the grading between Lot 1 and Lot 2 to avoid draining stormwater toward the Lot 1 house pad. Extend the silt fence around the proposed berm along the east side of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Add a benchmark to the plan. Show all existing and proposed easements. Show the proposed contours for the berm along Powers Boulevard. All disturbed areas shall be resodded or reseeded within two weeks of grading completion. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 13. If fill is imported or exported, the applicant will need to supply the city with a haul route plan for approval. 14. The property is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These fees will increase in 2004 and will be collected prior to building permit issuance and are based on the numbers of SAC units for the new building addition. 15. Relocate the existing storm sewer on the property to within a 20 foot easement along the shared property line between Lot I and Lot 2. 16. Show all existing and proposed easements on the preliminary plat. 17. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City' s Building Department. 18. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 19. Prior to final platting, site drainage map and calculations will need to be submitted for staff review. The site drainage has to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 20. Building Official conditions: Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 21. The applicant will be required to remove the single family home and the detached two car garage prior to recording the final plat. 22. The applicant shall pay park fees in lieu of land dedication or trail construction on two lots based on the fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 23. Final plat approval of Burlwood 2nd Addition shall be contingent upon the recording of Burlwood Addition. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We have 6 to 1. That is enough for a variance to carry. Okay. And it's only a recommendation to City Council so this will go to City Council on January 26th. Is that accurate? Al-Jaff: This is lot area variance to the zoning variance. Therefore. Sacchet: Okay. So that goes as a recommendation also. So the whole thing goes as a recommendation to City Council. Thank you very much. With that, we. Oh, since it is for council. Let's make a summary. Summary for council. We did not have necessarily full agreement in the Planning Commission recommending approval for this. However the majority of the Planning Commission felt that this was an equitable way to resolve the rather difficult situation that we inherited in that particular neighborhood. That we feel there is a hardship in terms of fulfilling the agreements that have been made, how many years back? 6, 7, 8, 9 years? A while ago. Al-Jaff: '96. Sacchet: '96 so it's like 8 years. 8-9 years ago. And we feel that between the full road construction falling on the shoulders of the developer, including the providing of the land, the actual building, the cost of it, including building the Golden Glow Circle to the south, that that is a very unique situation combined with all the easements that are encumbering this property on several sides. And that as such it's a totally unique situation that we can clearly state this is not creating a precedent. And especially that would the road be aligned as originally envisioned or equitably between the different properties, there would be no reason for a variance. The lots would be compliant. We also established that the surrounding properties could not subdivide into additional lots so we're not changing the envisioned density in that neighborhood than what they were originally envisioned to be, so in that sense we could argue it's not departing downward, which is admittedly somewhat arguable. And anything else you want to add to the summary here? Lillehaug: I'd like to add some of my comments. Sacchet: Yeah, you should add for your point why you disagreed. Lillehaug: I think the council should consider allowing, or should not consider allowing the small lots. I don't think them was a hardship presented by the applicant. I think it was self created. The applicant chose to move forward with the platting of this property without all of the adjacent properties and being able to shift that road over, I just think it was a self created hardship and I think it may have been premature. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. One other aspect I want to add to our summary is that one of the driving factors, at least for me in going this route is that I consider this a way to put a stop to an awkward situation that has been perpetuated for a while. By going this route we're done with it. It's not going to come back and that to me is a significant element to balance the scale. Alright, with that we're ready for our next item on the agenda. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18 UNIT TOWNHOUSE PROJECT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR 18 TOWNHOUSE LOTS AND OUTLOTS; AND A VARIANCE FROM THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ON 6 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2; LOCATED AT 2930 WEST 78TM STREET (NORTHEAST CORNER OF WEST 78Tn STREETAND HIGHWAY 41); HIGHLANDS OF BLUFF CREEK; PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT~ LLC. Public Present: Name Address Jeff Russell Mike Ryan Todd Simning Ed Hasek, Westwood Professional Services Brent Hiscox Susan McAllister Scott Bemas, Edina Realty Holly Huber 7632 Arboretum Village Circle 2595 Southern Court Plowshares Development Eden Prairie Plowshares Development 2930 West 78th Street 6800 France Avenue So 2828 Coach Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Lillehaug: Sure, I'll start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Bob, could you explain what the adjusted, maybe you already did and I missed it. What the adjusted Bluff Creek Overlay District boundaries per city staff. What does that really mean? And I'm looking on page 2 of 6 of the preliminary plat. Are you familiar with what I'm talking about there'? Okay. Generous: The applicant is proposing that to change the primary zone boundary by moving these trees out we would create a new boundary and I tried to show this in the lined area. In addition the boundary goes down in here and he would propose that that boundary be expanded to the south and it's sort of like an exchange of area. Now it is an alternative and it's you know, a policy decision whether the Planning Commission and 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 council wants to go forward with that. Our environmental staff did recommend that the primary zone boundary is what it is and that we keep that and work from there. Papke: Clarification on that issue. The area that's proposed by the applicant to be added to the overlay district, is that where the barn is sited? Generous: Right, and the corral area. The open area that's there. Papke: So what they're proposing to do is take out the barn, remove the barn and then attempt to reforest that. Generous: Vegetate, right exactly. Fill in that canopy covered area. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Well I think my bigger question, I want to make a quick comment is, one of my pet peeves here. I mean if you look at this report, it's a good report. But we've got way too many conditions. I think what's going to happen here is just like in the last application. I mean just a simple thing like an underground storm system that's no longer there. Well we've got 48 conditions here. I mean I don't have any confidence in what's the end product going to be. I don't have a clue. We've got 48 conditions. My main question here is, if staff is going to try to recommend pushing Lots 4, 5 and 6 out of that and enforce the setback, am I following that correctly? Can that be done without really changing this whole site plan and kind of keeping this same picture here? I mean I don't see that happening, so what are we looking at.'? I mean are we really going to be looking at the final product here? I don't think we would be. Generous: No. Either, well one way to comply would be to remove those 2 lots. That'd be simple and we'd see what the results are at best. Another way is to revise the plat. Shift it down and go with twins or some other alternative. I don't know. We'll leave that up to them to resolve. Lillehaug: Has this been discussed with the applicant already? Generous: We told them that this has been an issue. They wanted to come forward and see you know, again they're presenting an alternative that would change the boundaries and would be reasonable. Sacchet: They're seeing where we go for it basically. Lillehaug: So I mean I have a lot of, there's 48 plus conditions here. I have a lot of questions. Claybaugh: That's on one of the motions. There's 5 motions. 48 out of just one of the motions. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: On the plat. Sacchet: So maybe we should take this in steps rather than try to be exhaustive. Lillehaug: Well I'm ready to make a motion to table it right now, because I don't see a complete application. Sacchet: But then in all fairness, if that's the action we would go, we should have some discussion to give staff and the applicant some idea why we're tabling. So I do think there is good reason to go through the motions here. On the other hand I would say you may just want to hold off a little bit with getting into real details and multitudes of questions until we actually get to that level of granularity. Lillehaug: Sure. Well then one question of staff here. The existing tree canopy, if you look on sheet 2 versus sheet 4 and 6. I mean they're nowhere near close to each other. I mean and that's just, I think that's an important issue that the existing tree canopy line, would you concur that it's not the same when you go from sheet to sheet. And specifically you can see it if you look at Lots 4, 5 and 6. Am I looking at that correctly? If you compare sheet 2 with sheet 4, the existing tree line is nowhere near the same. And that's how it is throughout the site. Maybe I'm missing something. Generous: It looks like they're showing them after... Sacchet: After they, they're a trade-off right? On sheet whatever. Sheet 5 I guess that is. Lillehaug: Okay. Sacchet: Actually 5 of 6 I think is clearly after the development. It shows the reforestation and then sheet 2 shows the current situation. Is that accurate? Generous: That's what it looks like, yes. Lillehaug: Alright. If you go to sheet 3 of 6, on the sanitary line. Do we have an appropriate easement for that sanitary line.'? East of the applicant's easterly property line. Saam: You mean west of the easterly property line? No. Lillehaug: East of the easterly property line, off the applicant's property. That storm sewer goes. Generous: In Arboretum Village. Lillehaug: It goes across a piece of property that's not his without an easement that's appearing. Saam: Yes, we do, as I remember Arboretum Village, we got easements pretty much 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 everywhere there weren't townhouse lots, and I don't know if Bob remembers, but all the open space I think was granted as an easement to the city. Generous: And the city also owns that land... Sacchet: Maybe we can ask that to the applicant. Maybe the applicant will remember too. Lillehaug: Alright. I'm going to stick to my important questions here. If you go to page 6 of the report. The Bluff Creek primary zone, 20 feet. I think it's supposed to be a 40 feet. I'm looking in the chart. It's supposed to be a 40 foot setback, correct? Generous: Correct. This is based on the variance. Lillehaug: Now is that, I've got to make sure I understand this correctly. Is that, it needs to be 40 feet from the primary line that is shown there? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: And we're nowhere near that. Generous: No. Sacchet: We're into the primary right now. Generous: Yeah, they're encroaching actually into the primary zone. Slagle: And your plan is to bring it to 20 feet. Generous: Make it a 20 foot setback. Lillehaug: Why? Why deviate in this case? I mean what is the outstanding circumstance that we'd, I mean the Bluff Creek Overlay District, it's supposed to be 40 feet. What is making this a different circumstance from the other adjacent properties to that whole district? Why is this different from anything else here? Generous: Well too is the location of West 78th Street as it came into this project sort of dictated how this site lays out. There is a potential that they could shift the storm water pond to the north side of the property and shift the units closer to West 78th Street. And then they may meet the setback because storm water ponds can be within that. Sacchet: Storm water could be in the setback? Generous: In the 40 foot setback, definitely. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. That's a water feature which is consistent with the Bluff Creek corridor and it'd be pre-treating it. There still would be the no cut zone but we would try to preserve the tree line again and that has been... Lillehaug: And that might work if you put the pond where the barn currently is, correct? Generous: Exactly, and that was one of the suggestions I had for them. Their alternative, so why don't they put it there and. I also wanted to see if they had a storm water pond there, they would have to discharge it down to the wetland. Eventually if they had to run a pipe down, then maybe they should put a trail connection down to the trail system over that pipe, since they're already going to the woods. But they came up with this alternative and have the storm water pond on the south side of the project. Lillehaug: So there's a trail, if I'm looking on sheet 2. It's way up in the north, that's the trail? Okay. You know what, I'm going to let other people talk. Thanks. Sacchet: Yeah, we can come back to you with this. We understand, this is not exhausting your questions. Slagle: I just have a couple of questions. Bob, touching upon the trail. Was there a reason given by the applicant, and I will ask them as well, but as to why there wasn't a connection down to the trail.'? Generous: Just that they didn't want to encroach into the treed area. The primary zone. At least to that extent. Slagle: So they don't want to encroach with a trail but they'll encroach with buildings. Generous: Yes. Slagle: Okay. Let me ask this question, and this might be one that just as a non-doable but was there ever consideration into extending whatever road that will be and having it come off Century Trail because I think you mentioned that either the city owns that land to the east or there's some. Generous: The city owns it, yes. Slagle: So, I mean have we considered instead of going onto West 78th Street, if you went to Century, would you be able to build differently and fit 187 I'm just throwing this out. Saam: I guess it may have entered my mind at one point but was quickly put to rest. First off, the applicant doesn't own the land to the east. While the city has easements on it, it's not for roadway purposes. So now we'd be telling the applicant well yeah, you have an access off West 78 Street but go buy land. I mean that's why I quickly put that idea to rest. There is an existing access that was planned for. We just built West 78th 31 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Street and gave them the access there. It makes sense to use it. I will point out in one other previous submittals, they had two accesses off West 78th Street. We pushed them away from that idea also and said just use the one access so. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. Slagle: So, and i'll ask it again. We might have an application in front of us that could result in 3 townhouses or units potentially being eliminated, which might make it a, not a viable project I'm just saying perhaps to the applicant. And I guess I'm asking again, if you had a street that went to Century, would you be able to get more lots on there or would it in your opinion be the net results the same? No matter where it jets out to. Saam: I haven't looked at it in that context. One thing I will point out though Commissioner Slagle, another idea we had recommended to them regarding the ponding was that we have a, there's a pond down at the corner of Century and West 78th Street. A rather larger one to the east. We said there's some potential there to expand the size of that to treat your water. Basically pick the pond off the site. Then you have more usable area. You know with the primary zone and everything. Slagle: And how was that received? Saam: They said they'd look into it and this is I guess what we got so maybe we can ask the applicant. That's another option. ! kind of hear where you're going. You're looking at options. That's another option that they could do which would maybe alleviate the primary zone setback and those issues. Lillehaug: And that's, if I can butt in here. Slagle: You certainly may. Lillehaug: And that's a regional pond so that'd be kind of the overall goal of the city to try to get rid of the smaller ponds and put them into one bigger pond? Saam: Yeah. Yeah, I mean we do like that idea. However there's other jurisdictions that have claim to that. MnDot. They would need approval through them. Maybe MnDot shot them down, I don't know. So I'll just throw that out too because it is used by the Highway Department for part of Highway 5. It is also though used by Pulte so, and MnDot's already granted approval for Arboretum Village to drain there so. Tjornhom: I have a few things. When they came before us in August. They didn't come before us. When they met with us about what. Sacchet: Work session. Tjornhom: Yes. Did they have roughly 4 or 5 units in the overlay district? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: They had multiple plans. Tjomhom: I can't believe... Sacchet: I remember that. I think we, what they put in front of us as a concept was 18 units, not cutting into the tree line...because that's what I recall. Or at least that's what we asked for. There was one proposal where, I think that's the ultimately the recommendation we gave them. Lillehaug: This looks familiar. Generous: Yeah, this is the one that the applicant provided me. They were just for discussion purposes. They were looking at this concept. And as you can see, it backs into there. The direction was, you know townhouses may be okay but it looks like there's too many units on that and I don't know if you went any farther into looking at the primary zone boundaries. Sacchet: Certainly the guidance we gave them at the time was that we wanted to not cut into the northern tree line. I recall that very clearly. Tjornhom: Okay. Also, are these rental townhouses or are they just townhouses that will be sold? Generous: It's my understanding they're for sale. Tjornhom: Okay. And how does this fit into the metropolitan, or the Met Council's comprehensive plan for our city? Generous: It provides an alternate housing type. Tjornhom: Alright. Generous: So from that standpoint it's good. It's also at a density that's good for us under the low density. We'd like to push it up closer to the 4 units per acre and so at 3.18, it would be better. Tjornhom: And in the discussion of maybe changing things around in the development and putting the pond, or the stormwater pond into the zone, the creek area. Is that correct? Is that what I was hearing? Do they over spill? I mean I keep thinking you know, this is like a pretty important part of the bluff, and are they going to overflow? Could it happen where there's a rain and it fills up and then all the fertilizer from the yards and all the whatever runs into that bluff. Or no? Saam: I mean potentially I guess anything could happen if you get a serious flood but the ponds are sized for hundred year floods, which are fairly rare, so. Plus it will have an outlet pipe, so I guess we don't typically see them overflow. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Slagle: You could talk to St. Michael though. Saam: Yeah, and Red River Valley. Those type of things can happen but. Sacchet: Just to clarify Bethany. Are you referring to the storm water pond or the Bluff Creek setback? Tjornhom: Maybe I wasn't hearing things correctly but I thought that the units could be shifted and that you could then have the storm water pond in that area. Is that what I heard? Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Generous: That was one of the alternatives. Feik: For just a moment bear with me. Assuming this moved forward tonight and passed, they ultimately have to come in for final plat, which we would not see. Generous: Correct. That goes to council. Feik: Thank you. Which could be very different from what we've got, if we have to eliminate 3 units, move roads, move structures. That's it, thanks. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Just one quick one. Relative to the Bluff Creek Overlay District, removal, replacement proposal of the applicant, which I understand you are opposed to. Has the city forester given you any guidance as to the suitability of the area proposed? The 4,700 square feet that's proposed for replacement as to how feasible it would be to revegetate that? Did you get any input on that or are you just rejecting that out of hand? Generous: She's supportive of the idea. She didn't directly comment on this proposal, but very similar to our overall Bluff Creek plan that talks about re-establishing vegetation in the corridor, especially on farm properties. Papke: Thank you Bob. Sacchet: Any questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. Has the applicant discussed the price point for these units at this point? Generous: I did discuss it earlier today. Their base price would be approximately $300,000 per unit. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Okay. I guess most everything else has been touched on with the exception of some of these recommendations by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. Didn't see any comments with respect to staff's comments regarding it. It's on their letter to yourself. One of the last paragraphs where they're recommending a two cell basin in lieu of a single cell basin. Can you comment on that at all? Generous: Well I did ask Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator. She said that she didn't believe it was necessary. This pond would drain eventually to that regional pond, and so you get the same benefit. Claybaugh: Okay, And then direct this question to Matt. If in fact the NURP pond was moved out to the north end in lieu of the south location that it's at currently, and those units were shifted back, do you have any concerns about the radius of that turn? If that road had to be reconfigured. Saam: I guess I'll say without seeing a proposal I don't have any concerns. I'm assuming they would submit something that abides by code. Sacchet: Is that it? Claybaugh: I think that's all my questions. Sacchet: Yeah, I've got 3 quick questions. First, the primary and secondary boundaries. On the subject property's east boundary, that seemed to kind of make a jig. All of a sudden it's, and I know what it is. Is it 20 feet or 30 feet, they all of a sudden are further down. Why do we have this C type of phenomena happening there with those boundaries? That seems a little awkward. It kind of takes away from the credibility of those boundaries. Generous: I believe they're relying on our base, the city map. The GIS map which started out at that point. We would suggest that the primary zone boundary is a tree edge on the property to the east also, so then that line would be contiguous. Sacchet: And then in addition, if we look, there is actually a couple of the units are drawn on the Arboretum Village. That are immediately adjacent. They seem to certainly come all the way to, and also under the secondary, do they touch on the primary or is that just the lot size? Do you see what I'm referring to? Generous: Oh yes, and I think it's because they picked up the line off the map as opposed to the actual physical conditions. Sacchet: Just to be really clear, those squares are the lot sizes of those units. The units are sitting to the road side? They don't, I mean where would the unit be sitting on those? Generous: It would be within the lot line there but they don't have the specific building pad. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So potentially the building could be touching into the secondary but definitely not into the primary? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. That's my first question. My second question, there is this rather significant retaining wall proposed to the east of this development. It actually says 9 foot height, which seems very high, so I'm a little bit perplexed because the territory there seems relatively fiat. I mean not totally fiat but being from Switzerland this is definitely flat. And all of a sudden we have a 9 foot retaining wall. And I look at this and I kind of wonder, are they planning to make these walkout, lookout units and just fill the dirt in between so that it's a level up and then put a retaining wall at the end. It seems a little crude. But it kind of looks like that. Do you have any enlightening wisdom on that please? Generous: I'd defer to our engineer. Sacchet: Or our engineering, alright. Matt. Saam: You basically got it right Chairman Sacchet. They're raising the grade on that east side there significantly to get the walkouts on both sides of the street. Sacchet: And where's that dirt coming from? Saam: I'm assuming, I haven't checked this with the applicant, but I'm assuming they're pulling some dirt, probably not for the road bed but from the pond area. They're going to be excavating out there. Maybe that will be used for berming or around the retaining wall. But they may indeed be trucking some in. That hasn't been determined yet. Sacchet: And then we have this road stubbing literally feet away from, few feet away from that retaining wall. Is that acceptable? Saam: We'll require barricades to be put up there but. It's not the best situation, no. Sacchet: It'd make an excellent ski jump if you put a ramp up there. Anyhow it's, I'm getting carried away. My third question, condition number 4 of the preliminary plat says the final plat approval is contingent on the developer acquiring the two parcels adjacent to West 78th Street. What are we talking about in that case? Generous: As part of the Arboretum Village development, they did have an Outlot J that they preserved there, or that was here as part of their property. And then Outlot G was the property that was dedicated to the city. These are excess properties. The developer couldn't use them and so he's willing to sell Outlot J to the developer and the city really doesn't need this portion so we're working on an agreement. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Okay, that answers it. Thank you very much Bob. That's the questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and see what you can add to all this wonderful story. Please state your name and address for the record. Todd Simning: Todd Simning, Greenwood, Minnesota. Plowshares Development. Are your eyes glossed over yet? I think mine are. Sacchet: Not totally. Todd Simning: Not totally? I guess I'll start with the couple easy items first. Just in reference to the trail system. Whether it would actually go down into the trees or not. The biggest reason it was decided not to put a trail system through there was strictly on the advice of when we were working with staff. 41 is actually going to be improved at some point and there's most likely going to be a trail connection along side 41 going down to the existing trail to the north, so at the time we just left it out of there. Secondly in reference to the street coming off Century Boulevard. We actually looked at it at one point in time, but what ended up happening was, it was too close to the comer of the radius of West 78th Street and Century Trail, and so it was kind of eliminated as a possibility to actually put that road through there, so we actually did look at that at one time. Also in reference to the pond, and this will go into a bigger story as it unfolds, but in reference to the pond being, taking our water off site, we did check with MnDot and they shot us down completely. They were already taking Pulte's water on and they really wanted to preserve that ['or themselves and were not interested in working with us to allow our water to go there so that was one of the other reasons why we ended up with a pond on our side over here. Just as a clarification, and I guess it might be something that we need to discuss with yourselves as well as staff. We were under the assumption that the variance would be 25 feet and not 20 feet, and that we couldn't grade within the last 15 feet of it, versus the last 10 feet of it. So we were gaining 5 feet on a variance addition but we had to stay further away from the primary because you guys had 10 feet and we thought we had to be 15 feet from the primary zone. So that was just more of a clarification for our conversations with staff and maybe Bob can shed some light on that. Okay, so let me start from the beginning of coming out here in August or September with you guys. You know we had went through many different designs of this overall plan and I had actually brought one to you guys that showed 24, well I had 32 lots. I had 28 lots and I had 24 lots. And you guys laughed at me and said don't bring the 32. Don't bring the 28 and so we put the 24 out, and one of the ideas that you guys had was mainly that you know what, we'll support townhouses there but 24 probably looks like it's too many. At the time that was disappointing but yet on the same token we went back to staff to try to work through getting your ideas and trying to work through a good plan with them. In the midst of trying to figure out all this, and what we wanted to accomplish and we met with Bob on many different occasions. Before we went through this plan that you guys see fight now, we had actually came up with an idea via Bob, and it had to do with the ponding on the north side. And we actually eliminated that on our own accord as a viable option and I'm going to pass around a detail here that will kind of help explain why we ended up deleting that as one of our options. The plan that you guys have in front of us still has 18 units on it, but it does show that the pond can fit and is allowable 37 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 on the north side over there. Bob and ourselves had actually talked about possibly putting it towards the east side, and what ended up happening was that we ended up putting it on the west side as an option when we looked at it for a couple different reasons. It made more sense just strictly because, from an engineering point of view, the overflow of the storm water would actually go down the ditch over here instead of if it was on the east side here, the overflow would actually go down over the, through the woods and then down over the trail and eventually make it into the wetlands. We didn't think that was a great option just strictly because you know I know it's engineered to 100 year flood event, but you just never know anymore. So we wanted to go ahead and put it on the west side over here because then it would actually go right down the ditch line on 41 and not really end up going over the tree line and into the wetlands down there over the trail. In doing this type of concept, whether we were on the west side here as a pond or on the east side, if we were able, or if we were actually going to do that, which we definitely could do and we could present to you guys, we would lose an additional, roughly 20 to 25 trees no matter where we ended up putting the pond there. To us it made sense to try to put the pond up here towards the south side, and go ahead and try to save as much tree canopy as we possibly could. Our price point of our units are going to be in the $300,000 to $400,000 range. This is a very unique site but it really offers us a lot of natural amenities that we, as well as yourselves want to try to protect. And so using that and wanting to keep the tree line and knowing that those would be our most valuable units back there, we eliminated it as a possibility of going in here and showing the pond. Tearing out another 20 trees and you know having to sell that and open it up and you'd see 41 a little bit more, and we didn't really want to have that happen. The other thing that it allows us to do if we don't put the pond down there in the north side, and we leave it up here towards the south side, yes. I am asking that we be able to encroach on the tree line just slightly. We will go ahead and revegetate with nice vegetation, trees, that sort of thing. But it will also allow us the opportunity to get a little nicer buffer along West 78th Street, instead of having the units being at the minimum 50 foot setback far up and close to West 78th Street, we can at least have some sort of happy medium in there to say okay, if we had to have the best of everything, obviously we wouldn't be encroaching the trees and we'd be as far away from West 78th Street as possible, but in order to make everything work out, if in fact we can put the pond here to the south, move it just slightly into the trees, it made more sense to us. And so that's why we came here today. I know you guys have a lot of questions, or had a lot of questions on it but that's why we came today with the outline that we had. There's been a lot of conversations with staff and ourselves. I don't know. We just wanted to really save more of the tree line as possible. If in fact you guys wanted to see that the pond is on the north side, we can definitely do that. We're not opposed to it. We're willing to work with staff on that and work with the Planning Commission on that but that's the reasoning why we came with what we had today. Couple other small notes I guess. Let's see. On page 20 of 20, which is number 8 and there's a lot of conditions which is a little bit confusing to ourselves too. But it specifically states in there that sprinkler systems on homes, it has to be for all the units. All of our units actually don't meet the 8,500 square foot minimum. Our two unit buildings don't, and I just wanted to make a clarification on that also for staff maybe to note that we understand that our 3 unit buildings are over 8,500 gross square feet so they would have to be sprinkled. But the 2 unit buildings actually don't, gosh what do you 38 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 call it'?. Don't require it. However, having said that, if we do choose to sprinkle all of our units, we'd also want it noted that we actually are not required to have a hammerhead in the street system then. So that little turn around, which is right here, this little thing right here for fire trucks to get in and what not, we could possibly eliminate that if in fact we did sprinkle all our units, so I just wanted to clarify that on that item. In our opinion, I hope you guys feel the same way but in our opinion we feel that the proposed layout is actually a much better proposal than what we possibly could have come with and been within the rules and the guidelines of the city ordinances and city codes. We're very excited about the overall project. I hope you guys are too. We're looking forward to building a unique development in Chanhassen. We created one, Marsh Glen right over off of 101 and West 86th Street, which again was a very sensitive area, just strictly because of the wetlands areas behind. We worked hard with the city staff to create an easement along there and save as many trees as possible. We finished all our houses are done. Homeowners are in there and it really turned out great so if I can encourage you guys just to go through there and see what we are as a developer and a builder, that might give you a better feeling of what we feel is a good neighborhood and how we like to save trees and save the natural environment around us. And I'm open to any questions you guys might have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. You're nodding Rich. Slagle: I can start if you want. Just a few. Can you tell me, excuse me, what would be your target audience.'? Who do you see living here, assuming this goes through. Todd Simning: I see this as a development very similar to our Settlement Ridge, the Pines development over in Eden Prairie. We had two phases over there. We did 34 lots. 32 or, 33 lots on one side of the street and 28 lots on the other side. But it would shock you. It shocked us on what our audience was. We had anything from 27-28 year old first time homebuyers, through the 30's, the 40's, the 50's and we had some 70 and 80 year old people. We hit all target ranges of ages in there and it just, it really surprised us. We had a lot of single women that actually bought in our developments. I would say probably about 25 percent of our client was single women and they were looking for a smaller development that they could feel safe in, and that's one of the reasons why we, I think we attracted that type of buyer from what they had told us. Slagle: Were there families with kids? Todd Simning: Very few. I think in our first phase out of 33 we had 1, which was the Deans and then on the second side we have 2 out of 28 that actually had any children. Slagle: The reason I'm asking, specifically with the children's issue is, this development is, correct me if I'm wrong staff but a fair distance to any park that we have in the city. In fact the two closest parks would be Lundgren's private parks. So if there are children, and if you remember when we met a few months ago my question was in your center area showing a cul-de-sac or a circle. One of my recommendations would be that you put some type of playground in there. Obviously you haven't followed that and that's okay, 39 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 but I then follow along with the questions earlier about the trails because I do believe you're correct that 41 at some point will result in a trail. I know it's going to connect to the north, to the Longacres area. I don't know what the plan is to go south to West 78th from the trail. Will it continue down to West 78th? Generous: To 82nd Street eventually. Slagle: Okay. My question then, if I can ask is, that being the case, would you be open then as far as your sidewalks go, to extending out to 41 as you come out of your development? If I'm not mistaken the sidewalk is on the south side of West 78th. Todd Simning: It's on the, our sidewalk actually, and I don't think Bob's got this highlighted completely right here. He's got it initially marked here but we also have a sidewalk that does come down to 41, and that's actually on the plan. It's just not highlighted right now. Slagle: Okay. Obviously you've heard sensitivities about the primary line. Can this project proceed if 2 or 3 of your units were eliminated.'? Todd Simning: Fair question and I know that, I do know that it would be difficult but I guess I couldn't answer. I do know without 3 we're not doing it for sure. Anything less than what we have, it would be, it would be, we can't be over $400,000 on our units. We know what sells. Our units sell between 325 and 390,000 dollars and it doesn't make it a viable project for us to sell these things over $400,000 because we know that that buyer's not there. We've proven it on our other sites. It just doesn't make any sense for us to do anything. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question I have is, it was mentioned earlier regarding the number of conditions that were in the, at least one of the items we were looking at, and again I think echoing what's been shared, that's a lot so my question, and Mr. Chair I hope I'm not being premature by asking this but would you be opposed to, if there was a motion to table this until some of those things get resolved. Todd Simning: Yes, we would be open to that. On there it seemed, at least I thought that a lot of those conditions on there were redundant to what is normal operating procedures on a development, so I actually thought it was kind of strange for maybe a different reason than you guys have because we just assumed that those things are happening, and typically on our conditions we see things that are out of the ordinary that aren't typical SO. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Questions from the applicant. Feik: You said the price point is roughly 300-3 IA. What's the square footage of the units Finished square footage. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: 2,700 square feet, up and down. Finished both levels. 1,500 on the main floor, 1,200 on the lower, yep. Feik: And as long as you're standing here, I have a question for the city engineer as it relates to the parcel to the east that you said that we have some sort of an easement over. And this may be a hair brained idea, but within that easement could you put a pond? Could you move the pond east off the lot? It could be an amenity for the neighbors to the east. Would that generally fit within that? Saam: I guess potentially it could be done. Keep in mind again they don't, this applicant doesn't own the property. The City doesn't own it. We have certain rights over it, so whoever owns it, I'm assuming an association owns that. They'd have to negotiate with them in order to be able to do that, but I guess yeah, it could be done. Feik: Just looking at an alternative. Any gut reaction to, knee jerk reaction to that? Todd Simning: I think it would be difficult myself just, and I think Matt's nodding his head up and down too. We thought that this parcel right here we could work with the city and buy it. This over here ended up being more of a kind of given to the city I think more on an open space arena and I think it would be difficult just strictly because you end up having units right next door to it and if it's not your pond, who's going to want a pond sitting there. Feik: Alright, just curious. Those were my only two questions, thank you. Papke: Continuing on the pond vein here, and let's maybe just try to finish off the last alternative. Putting it where the barn is, I understand, if I understood you correctly, you were concerned about some of the trees that would have to be taken out to put the pond to the north central part of the property where the barn cmTently is. Is that correct? Todd Simning: Well 20 to 25 trees would be taken out, whether we went to basically where the pond is, or over by the west side. And our concern was mainly with the pond, what I'll call the east side, was just strictly from overflow, any water that does make it down past into the trees and then it goes over the trail and continues onward. That was the main concern there. It was easier to get water out of the pond if it went on the west side. Papke: Right, correct. But if we overlook that at the moment and just look at the practability of putting it where the barn is. If one looks at the trees there, they're elms. They're box elders. They're not the more significant trees on the property. If you know we looked at taking some of those out and locating the pond in the central area there, would that, is that feasible from your perspective as a developer and the grading. Are there any other barriers to locating the pond there... 41 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Todd Simning: If I may, I just need to converse with Ed Hasek with Westwood Engineering here. Papke: Sure. While they're conferring. I walked the property last weekend a little bit. I didn't actually go on the property but observed it from a distance and if you look at that barn area, it's not, there's big brush piles and so on. I mean it's not, it's the kind of area that if you could use that square footage for a pond, it might not be a bad alternative. Ed Hasek: I believe that you have a copy of this. I'm hoping you did. A color copy of this that was submitted to the city. Are we on the screen'?. Right, excellent...vegetation in this area. The city doesn't differentiate between box elder. Significant tree is simply is a tree that... Papke: And I disagree with the city on that regard. Ed Hasek: ...but we have the ordinances to deal with I guess. My name is Ed Hasek. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered landscape architect and a planner in the State of Minnesota. I would agree. The vegetation in this area is less quality than perhaps other areas of the site. There's no question about it. That continues all the way across the back of the Pulte parcel as well. Our concern again, simply from the design standpoint was what was going to happen with the water if it overflowed the pond. And if there's a way to work with the city to pipe that underneath and get it into the creek underneath the trail so the trail doesn't wash out, that's an option that we can certainly look at. Personally I think that if we were going to put the pond on the north side, this is probably where it wants to go if it wants to go anywhere. I guess from a design standpoint and from simply the overflow and what makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, it seemed to us that it should be adjacent to the road so we can use existing infrastructure, ditches. Papke: Just to complete that thought, from the city engineering perspective, if the concern is overflow of the pond, and we're designed for a 100 year storm event, is this something we should be worried about or is this something that we can safely say you know, the likelihood of the pond overflowing is not that great. And if it does overflow, okay. So the trees get a little, the tree roots get wet for a day or two, because there's a pretty substantial slope there. The water's not going to hang there. It's going to flow fight down to the marsh. Saam: Exactly. I guess from that perspective if it's sized for the 100 year, I mean we don't look at it outside of that. So if it's sized for the 100 year, we're fine with that. Papke: Okay. No other questions, thank you. Slagle: If I can just add to that. Matt, would not if it was on the northwest corner of the property, and the thought being that it would overflow into the ditch. The ditch is going to run down into the swamp anyway. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Just takes a different path. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant.'? Claybaugh: Yeah, I just had a question. On page 4 of 20, the last paragraph under Section 20-501. Intent. Staff states in exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development of plans will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than what would be the case with other more standard zoning districts. Could you respond or explain what you think you bring to the stew in that context? Todd Simning: You want me to stir it up a little bit? Claybaugh: Sure. Todd Simning: I actually think that we do bring a higher quality product to the market place. I think that's exemplified in a couple different ways. Number one, if in fact you go to our developments that we've built, our townhouse developments, the Pines primarily over at Settlers Ridge. When you go through there, we're not the normal builder. Or developer. I mean you see a lot of undulation in land, in landscaping. You'll see significant amounts of large trees that we brought in. You'll see a significant amount of actual landscaping that we've done, which contrast that to say Arboretum Village next door. It's a pretty standard stark looking development. They serve a purpose because they're at a certain price range, and I'm not knocking that but if you contrast that with what we have done in our developments, you'll see a drastic difference in the quality there of just strictly the land itself. Number 2, just with our units themselves, if you do go and take a look at what we've accomplished with our's versus some of the other guys. Lundgren Brothers, that would be in our same price category, that sort of thing. You'll see a definite difference there and I think that's why we've, when we've competed with them in the same developments, which we have in several different occasions, we've outsold them very well just strictly because our units are more attractive than what they had to offer. And then lastly, customer service wise, if you talk to our clients that we, that are living in our developments right now, as well as who we're building with right now, there's a definite difference between ourselves and some of the other guys on the street. We really take care of our clients and that's important to us. Claybaugh: I'm going to try and fine tune that question a little bit. I'm assuming most of those things that you covered are reflected in your price point. I'm speaking more specifically to the context that we have 5 motions in front of us, okay. Regarding to this conditional use permits, land use amendments, what is the benefits specifically to the city? What is the trade off for Chanhassen? Todd Simning: You guys get a nicer product within your city. You feel good about a nice development. You get tax base. That's always important. So if you're looking at, I would think that those would be the two primary items. Besides that, it's going to fill somewhat of a void that there's not a lot of townhouses within the kind of move up 43 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 market where there's quite a few people that live and work around the area that again from single women to retirees to young people that are looking for a higher quality neighborhood to live in, and you guys would attract that as far as Chanhassen goes. You're definitely up and coming as Eden Prairie's filling up and you know it continues to come out and you just see more and more people that are starting to come out here. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Lillehaug: A couple questions for you. This is a real easy one. Why are you cheating yourself out of 5 feet with having a 31 foot road instead of 26 loot road? Todd Simning: You know we have a couple developments right now that we did. Our first Pines project in Eden Prairie, I think we had, god it was pretty narrow. I think it was like 21. 22 foot, and when we did that one there were two, I always try to get better, okay. There were two problems with that. Number one, we had a 22 foot wide street, which was allowable, but we also had smaller driveways. Our second side of the Pines we went to a 24, or 26. It's 24 or 26 and we went to 20 or 22 foot driveways. Construction wise, it makes it a little tough because there's not a lot of places to park. Besides that, as people live there and they're having company, it's really nice to, even though we have nice sized driveways here, there's, it's nice to have some place for your company to park. In this development, I think we're just getting that much better again where we're saying okay, let's give ourselves a 31 foot street. Let's give ourselves some places to park. We have 25 foot driveways on average, and it just provides a nicer element for the people that ultimately live there over time, and that was important to us. We just listened to our customers and that's what they've told us they look for in developments and so that's what we wanted to accomplish. Lillehaug: How about with your wall? I measured, based off the contours, the existing and proposed. It needs to be maybe a 10 to 12 foot wall. Do you have any concerns with that? Even if it's a 9 foot wall. How would you address, you know a rail or a fence on top of it. Do you have any concerns with that'? Todd Simning: At the height of it, it is 9 foot and then it tapers down on both sides fairly quickly. We think we can do a nice landscaped barricade type deal to prevent any issues or problems there. We actually have one at the Pines right now, which is in Eden Prairie that is actually larger than this. We do them out of boulder walls. We have our boulder walls engineered so they're not just a flat, ugly looking wall. I mean there's some undulation to it. It's nice looking. It actually incorporates the overall landscaping with the trees. Is more of a natural setting than something that's just so commercial and it goes straight up and down so we've had really good luck with it and haven't had any issues. Lillehaug: Okay. My last comment, or question would be your access off of West 78th Street. If you're traveling east on West 78th, yOU know you have your, you do have your access right at the end of the median. It's not ideal. Looking at having, providing an access off of Century Trail, if that indeed is a city outlot there. Is one of the other 44 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 concerns that you can't get the elevations to tie in with Century Trail? I mean are we totally abandoning the idea of coming off of Century Trail? Todd Simning: We strictly had just because of what we had found out from the city earlier, that when we had to be so far from the comer here and we really didn't have anything to work with when you're considering that you had to be so far up and then all of a sudden you're right next to somebody else's units over here again. It's kind of like the pond. We really felt as though we would probably get enough outcry from neighbors so to speak that we were trying to force something on them, and really we wanted to deal with our own property and that was a better way of going about it. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: One more quick question. To what extent, obviously this is not a new notion that staff is recommending we preserve that northern tree line, and I do believe we also touched on it in our preliminary meeting when we were here, what 3-4 months ago. How doable, or how much effort have you put into looking how this could be accommodated without having to cut into that northern tree line? Todd Simning: Right now because of the setbacks from West '78th Street with our pond, on the south side right there, we can't make that work. Can't do it. Sacchet: So you feel you exhaustively researched that? Todd Simning: The only thing that we could do to get just a little bit further out of it is, is to potentially go down to a 26 foot street, which would bring in another 5 feet out and again hopefully I addressed that. I mean ultimately it's up to you guys whether you want to say that I have good reason or not to do that. Sacchet: But the pond needs to have that size? It couldn't be a little lopsided to bring that side down to... Todd Simning: According to our engineers, that's the size that it needs to have, or be there to accommodate what we have. Sacchet: So you feel you pretty exhaustively looked at that Todd Simning: For the layout that we have here, I think that we have exhausted what we could possibly do. The only thing that could happen is if you guys said that no, we really want that pond on the north side. Then basically I would say hey table me, and give me that direction and we'll go back and we'll redesign the plan to show that. We just didn't feel as though that was a great alternative. Sacchet: Well yeah, well we can touch on that in comments a little more. Thank you. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Lillehaug: One other quick question if I could. Staff addressed your sanitary line, trying to keep that out of the normal water level. Paralleling the pond on the south there. Do you feel that where it's at, it's out of the normal water, or it's above that water line? And my concern is, we try to push that north, we're getting too close to the houses and structures with that line. Todd Simning: You just went right over my head. Ed, do you? Ed Hasek: Could you ask the question again? Lillehaug: Staff, in their report indicated that they would like to verify or to ensure that the sanitary line that parallels the pond, north of the pond, south of the houses, that it's, I'm not paraphrasing here but I think it's ideal to have it out from underneath the normal water level of the pond. My question is, is it right now? Ed Hasek: I believe it currently is right on the edge and it can be moved and we understand, that's a very good comment by staff but that can be accommodated. I'd like to address just, there were some comments about, earlier about the elevation of the road and some of the things that were going on and I'd like to go through that really quickly with you. Really what's happening with this site is the pond elevation and the need to store water in that pond, the outlet elevation that we have on that is setting the elevation of all of the structures on this site. We have 4, 5, or 6 steps in the garage going into the units. We kept the garages as low as possible. Pushed the units up as far as possible to make this whole thing work, so the elevation is really being set by the water elevation in the pond that's on the north side of the property right now. Just so you understand why things are as high as they are. One other reason why there was some comment about the elevation of the wall. Personally when I put this thing together and designed it to start with, I had the end of the road higher than the wall and the engineering staff at Westwood said no, we're not going to do that. We've had problems with that in the past. The wall has to be higher than the end of the road because we don't want any water running to the back of the wall, especially if it's going to be a boulder wall. So that kind of sets the elevation. The pond sets the elevation of the units. The units set the elevation of the road. The road sets the elevation of the wall. It's kind of how it goes so. Sacchet: While we're at it. You would have to import dirt to build it up that high wouldn't you? Ed Hasek: I haven't gone through a complete analysis. I believe that our first go around we thought we were about 10,000 square yards short. That's not a lot of dirt for a site like this. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I had a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: You commented on the touch down points for the existing plan that you have before us. Could you comment on how it would affect the elevations of those touch down points if the retention pond was put on the north side? Ed Hasek: I think we could lower the site slightly. Not substantially but slightly. It may go down 2 or 3 feet. The road elevation. Claybaugh: That's substantial. Ed Hasek: Yes. On this site it could potentially be substantial. The other thing that it might offer us is the opportunity to reduce the number of stairs in a garage. Claybaugh: Right. Ed Hasek: But that would mean we'd have to keep the road up in order to do that. The garage floor has to go up. Therefore the road has to stay up because we can't. Claybaugh: What kind of elevation do you have on your garage floor over your road elevation? Ed Hasek: I don't know off hand. I think it must be a foot and a half roughly. It's not even that I don't think. Claybaugh: That's the extent of my comments. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Todd Simning: Thank you. Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment on this item, this is your chance to come forward and tell us what you want to say to us. Please state your name and address for the record please. Mike Ryan: Yes, hi. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mike Ryan, 2595 Southern Court and seeing this proposal, it does seem like these guys are going to great efforts in many ways so it looks like a fine project. However, for many of you who know me, I was very involved with the Pulte project and I had a lot of concerns about that and using some of the terms tonight here, that there is I think a need for some consistency with respect to the comp plan and where we work closely with the Pulte project and that, everything north of 78th Street was on the comp plan, or is on the comp plan, is designed for low density. And in this case I understand that they're requesting that to be medium density. And the council at that time did recognize that everything north should be in that low density requirement. This project is, it is known as, or being defined as the Highlands which is, I believe that's part of the head waters if you will of the Bluff Creek Overlay District and I do have issue as a resident of Chanhassen about that variance requesting, going from 40 to 20, and really would like the city and the council here to 47 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 take a good strong look at that. But most importantly is the old growth tree forest there. I think with the Pulte project, as well as with the Lundgren project there was a lot of effort to try to maintain that old growth forest and, I'm not trying to sound as somebody who's into trees and so forth, but I think that, and certainly in Chanhassen there is very few forests and I hate to see, and I think this is where one of the units, if I may. Down here in 9, 10 and 11, and I realize that's not in the primary con-idor but it's, I know it's a very healthy tree structure and I don't know if there's anything that the council here can take a look at with respect to that. So I guess in summary I just wanted to make those comments and I don't know if there is any clarity as to exactly or to communicate this but how much of a percent of the trees be it in the primary and the secondary as well as even beyond that corridor, is going to be lost. So I don't know if staff knows that or if anybody could speak to that. Sacchet: You want to quickly touch on that Bob'?. Since it is part of the development. Generous: Well I'd like to start with the consistency with the comp plan first. This development is considered low density. The only reason the land use amendment is in place is because our PUD ordinance doesn't permit the clustering of housing, so it's actually less dense than Pulte's project north of West 78th Street. That came in at 3.5 units per acre. This is 3.18 so it's less dense than that .... setback, that's a question. Old growth forest. Jill did a calculation and I worked on this earlier today. Let's see if I can remember. They're removing approximately, what is it? 27 percent. 33 percent of the existing canopy coverage on this site as part of the overall project. The percent that's in the primary zone, we'd like to get it to zero. Right now they have about 4,000 square feet of area. The total tree removal is just under an acre. It's .9 acres so they're doing a lot. One of their previous plans actually preserved this old growth trees but in exchange they were cutting into the trees up there so it is a balance on the site. Which area do we want to preserve more? I must commend them for their plan. They have preserved some of those trees along Highway 41 corridor and in the future if they can work it out as part of the final construction plans, they would save additional trees because it only adds value to their project and it's less trees that they potentially have to plant on this site. Mike Ryan: Okay, so what is the percentage of complete loss of trees? Sacchet: Well according to the staff report the baseline currently has 42 percent cover and the proposed tree preservation would go down to 28 percent. Mike Ryan: So is that 50 percent of the 42? Sacchet: It's gone from 2.75 acres down to 1.84 acres. And the applicant actually made, I've never seen an applicant that made such a diligent effort with actually inventorying. They also did it in terms of the total number of trees. The significant ones that we inventoried go from 106, if I read that correctly, and 27 would be lost by that calculation, or it'd be 25 percent of them in terms of numbers. In terms of the size of the trees, it's a little more dramatic. It goes down from roughly 2,000 inches and close to 800 are 48 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 removed, so it's probably in the 40 percent range in terms of the size of the trees. And I'll have some comments about that later on. Mike Ryan: And l'm not trying to, like Pulte where we're not objecting to the Pulte project but what we're just looking for again is consistency and this does, I do mean this. It does seem like a reasonable project. One thing, and this is probably more editorial, is that it, I learned a lot with the Pulte project but it always amazes me how these developers come in here and all of a sudden it's, how it ends up being everybody else's problem versus their's and as one being in business, usually you know the lay of the land. You know what you're working with and you know your price points and so forth, but you guys certainly see this much more than I do in this process but at any rate. Not trying to throw a wrench in it. It's just...it could be any extent or great efforts to try to keep the old growth, I think everybody would be appreciative of that. Sacchet: Thanks. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to comment about this? Susan McAllister: I'm Susan McAllister. I'm one of the parties that's involved with this. It's my property. The old growth trees are very much on their way to their death bed because it's a high parcel and they basically, not all of them but most of them have been hit by lightning and so I just wanted to make that clear. ! do have some photographs of some of them. And my number two point is that I used to walk in the Longacres forest a long time ago, before they developed it so yeah, there has been a lot of trees taken out of that site too. I guess I would, I don't know where you're going to go with it tonight but I'd like to see it a little clearer and I wouldn't oppose you know to table it if you thought it wasn't clear enough right now so that's all I have to say. Sacchet: Thank you Susan. Anybody else want to comment on this while we have a public hearing? This is your chance. Nope? Alright. I'll close the public hearing and we'll bring it back to commissioners. Comments, discussion. We sprinkled in some things that bordered on comments already. How about we start on this side. We started mostly on this side so far. Claybaugh: Yeah, with respect to comments, I would like to see the NURP pond moved to the north side in the existing barn location. I think in the final analysis, whether there's an overflow in there or not, which is highly unlikely, it's still going to end up in Bluff Creek. It's just going to take a different path to get there. With that, and I'd like to see the properties moved out of the primary zone and I think that would enable them to adjust that elevation. Get the retaining wall down. Eliminate some of those steps that they've identified from the garage to the main structure. I think there's a number of positive benefits by doing that so to summarize I'd like to table tonight and that would be the direction that I would provide them with. Sacchet: Just to clarify what you're envisioning Craig. Is the pond where the barn is, meaning still keeping that tree line intact around there to the north? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Claybaugh: Still keeping that tree line intact as much as possible, but I think that those were of lesser quality trees in that area. It doesn't mean that to be, it wouldn't be some impact obviously but the lesser of two evils. Sacchet: Thanks. Papke: Yeah, just to expound on that. I agree 100 percent. I think if we, if you look at the trade off's here, and again I understand you want to obey the letter of the law here and do canopy coverage and everything. But also touching on some of the resident comments on the old growth woods. The current proposal to do the, to chop out the, or remove the current overlay district involves removing some 25 inch diameter maples, which you know would break my heart. On the other hand, putting the pond where the barn is might involve removing some box elders and some elm trees, which as the property owner states, are probably not long lived anyway. So for myself, I would be very amenable to arguments from the applicant to removing some of the elm trees and box elder trees which are low quality in the barn area there, and trying to find some way of moving the pond in there and keeping the primary district line where it is. I think that could be a win/win scenario. Granted the applicant also voiced some concern that having the NURP pond along West 78th Street allows you to set those homes back away from 78th Street. I think in this particular situation, if you really want to stay at your currently building count, that might be the only viable solution to move the pond towards the back. Move the homes a little bit closer to the street and having that be the trade off. So that's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Feik: I agree with what's been said thus far. I would agree with tabling it for an additional reason in that I think given the number of conditions that we've got here, if we were to move this forward, ! don't think it would look much like what we're looking at today. To try to conform with all those conditions so I would not be comfortable with moving forward with this based upon the scope of the conditions. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Bethany. Tjornhom: Not to be redundant I agree with everything that's been said so far. But I do want to say that I think it's a nice development so I hope it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Rich. Slagle: A couple things. It is a great development. I'll even go as far to say great. I will throw out a thought and again fellow commissioners know I have an interest in trails and sidewalks. I will re-emphasize again to the applicant and to staff, I do think there's some merit to having a path go through the woods to connect to the trail. I think that would be a selling point to a perspective owners, but I think more importantly is, as we will see later, justification for either having sidewalks or not having sidewalks in different communities. We have a site that's going to be presented to us. One of the rationale if I 50 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 remember right is connecting to trails. And if this was a neighborhood of single family homes, I would tend to think that the park and rec group as well as staff might be more open if you will to connecting to that trail. So I only throw that out. I would be pleased to see that. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Couple comments. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street. I'm not going to reiterate things here. I'm just going to add to it. I'm not opposed to a 26 foot wide street so that is a point I think we should look at. The walk that parallels 78th Street that is proposed. I think it's proposed as a 6 foot. I'd like staff to work with the applicant. Are we okay with a 6 foot walk or do we want to match the 8 or 10 foot trail that is on the south side of the road? I'm not opposed to either way. I just want to make sure that we get what we want there. One other thing here, and I want to discuss this with fellow commissioners. Looking at their alternative plan that was handed to us, where it pushed the houses to the south, it still looks like we, you know if we look at that plan they have 20 feet from the primary zone. City still requires 40 feet, correct? Generous: That's what the ordinance says. Lillehaug: Yeah. So we're still looking at a variance here and I want to make sure everyone's aware of that. I guess. Slagle: If I can, would that variance fall in line with what staff is suggesting? I think it does. Lillehaug: It does. And then my question, I want to throw it out there is, I mean I liked it but why are we deviating from 40 feet and allowing 20 feet, and I don't, does someone have that answer for me? Because i don't. Sacchet: Well part of it, the way I understand it's a trade off. I mean we're preserving the northern, what is it? Third or what of the property in it's natural state. And as a tool to get to that end we have the PUD and yes, we have to put it into the medium density context because in the low density we can't do this clustering thing. So by doing the clustering, concentrating the density by taking it out totally out of that primary zone. I mean that's the benefit we're getting. Lillehaug: So can a development come in there, a single family and go into that primary zone and put a house? I'm just saying, why aren't we hold to 40 feet here? What is the trade off because I guess I'm, I want to understand and see it because I'm not seeing what the trade off is here. What development could come in there and go into that primary zone? Is there one? Generous: It hasn't been tested yet. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: We were fortunate in that we work consistently with people that were willing to work that trade off. So the question is then where do we make the delineation? How far do we go with what we're trading off? It's a give and take. I mean it's every case. Generous: Mr. Chairman, Lillehaug. Commissioner Lillehaug. The other thing is if you use that starting point of the 18 units, the twin home project, they potentially could have gone with 5-6 unit structures and been able to meet the setbacks. But then we wouldn't have had the consistency of development with the Pulte project that we directed them to try to accomplish using the 2 and 3 unit structures. So that would be another trade off or reason that we're looking at making this work. Lillehaug: I'm not totally sold on it but I'm just throwing it out there. I mean it's a great development. I'm just trying to justify reducing it from 40 feet to 20 feet, which is 50 percent. Claybaugh: Is it a given that we have to settle for the 20 feet? I mean we haven't seen this reconfigured. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: I would like to see it more mitigated as much as possible and not necessarily just hold on 20. I think that the potential is there and I think the number of units that are going to encroach on that are going to be mitigated as well. Sacchet: Yeah, and part of our role is to lean on the city's interest side with these type of things. Claybaugh: I mean once it's reconfigured I think we can all take a look at it and evaluate for ourselves if they've done due diligence and mitigate it to the degree that we feel that they can. Whether that ends up being 20 feet, 10 feet, we'll be able to see that when the plan's reconfigured. Lillehaug: I guess that would probably end my comments and I think Commissioner Claybaugh kind of summed that up for me. If the applicant comes back and shows that they're doing the best they can, I think. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't support 20 but I think if they come back and shows us. Slagle: Just one quick add on. If we do, as a consensus decide to table, certainly I would hope and expect that staff will minimize, reduce the number of conditions. Sacchet: Right. Ed Hasek: Point of clarification? Sacchet: Yes. Go ahead. Point of clarification. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Ed Hasek: Yes, you had, there'd been one request to try and look at a path through the woods down to the trail. Are we talking about a handicap accessible trail? Because there's a big difference between just a trail. Slagle: Sure, and I think that's a fair question and quite honestly I think staff, whether it's Matt or Todd Hoffman's group, you know. I just think it makes sense. Ed Hasek: Okay, if we can work with staff, that's fine. That's clarification. Slagle: I hope you do. Sacchet: A couple, are we done Steve? Lillehaug: Well I guess I'm sitting real close to him but I don't totally agree with putting a trail through the woods there. I think I would go with the applicant and say going out to 41 is adequate in my mind. Sacchet: Appreciate your point that out. That we're not necessarily unanimous on that one. From my end, I guess everybody else, did you have a chance? Yes? Then it's my turn. There are decidedly too many conditions. ! mean this thing is not solid enough from that angle and especially some of the conditions where you have potentially very fundamental impact. I mean if we say they cannot cut into the primary zone, all the discussion we had here, well where would the pond go? Do they lose units? Would the street be more narrow? And ! think that's fundamental enough that tabling is the appropriate thing to do. Now in terms of the framework of this, it's an excellent project. I mean you guys have really worked very hard. It shows. It's quality. And I believe that within that framework it's just going to get better. When you came in with the concept, it was in September was when it was, I think we actually, I might be wrong. I mean my memory sometimes gets a little murky but the way I recall it is we looked at this and then we thought that 18 units was probably going to be the balance so I don't have a problem with 18 units per se, but I also think that we made it relatively clear at that time that we wanted to preserve the northern tree line. So coming from that angle, I think what we actually discussed at that time is very much in line with what we're presenting here, also with what staff is recommending. Now, you made a point, you being the applicant, that you pretty exhaustively looked possibilities. Obviously you'd like to do it the way you have it here, but I think it'd be reasonable to look at the possibility that was suggesting in the pond where the barn is because indeed there are not that significant trees there. If you have to cut a little bit into the tree line, that's not going to be nearly as significant as where you're cutting into it now, and I do want to make a comment or maybe a compliment to your tree inventory. I mean this is fantastic. And it shows that you're cutting less than half the trees in terms of the ones you surveyed. But then you're looking at in terms of the caliper inches, if you add up the size of the trees, you do cut almost half. Little less than half so there we have a little different thing, and I do understand some of these trees are old. Some of them are not in the best shape. Some of them have been hit by lightning and what have you. However, just to balance that scale a little bit, and since I'm the person here on this group that pays attention to trees, looking. If you 53 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 look at the real significant trees, if you define real significant being 24 inches or more, there are 26 of them. And you're cutting 11 so there you're about a third. Closer to half. Kind of inbetween there. If you look at the real big ones, 30 inches and above, there are actually 11 trees there that are 30 inches or bigger. We're talking really old growth and I share the concern that the resident comment brought up. Out of those 11 trees, you're actually cutting 5. Cutting half of those. So if you look at that, the bigger the tree the more you're cutting. If you look at it in a different way and that came too in our discussion is what kind of trees it is. Because there's a difference in terms of value of box elder and an oak or a maple. If you look at maples, it's a little bit disappointing. You have about 24 maples that were surveyed. You're cutting 16. Cutting two-thirds of them. Oaks, you have surveyed 7. You're cutting 3. Again, just slightly less than half, so when we look at the real significant trees, ! would conclude you're cutting a significant amount because they're standing where you're building. And some of them actually stand where you're cutting into the primary zone. I don't think there's much we can do about that so I'm not trying to make a case. Usually I try to find some trees and say well here's a good tree, why don't you save it. The only thing I can say, there's a couple where you're cutting in the primary zone. However, where this has weight and significance in terms of our discussion here tonight is that it gives, in my opinion additional impetus to preserve the primary land more significantly. Because we do take a tot of the significant trees out. So that is something I'd like to see also considered as we move this forward. I do support tabling this. I still feel a little awkward about this retaining wall. It seems, but I understand, appreciate your explaining with the ponding and all, how that plays together so that makes a little more sense. And again, this going to medium density per se in terms of how we're talking about it, is our lever to actually preserve the sense, the natural sensitive area. To have that trade off. To get to the clustering. Obviously it has to go somewhere to keep the balance of the development. That's my comments with that. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair, I have another comment I'd like to make. Sacchet: Yes, please go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: I was just looking and talking with my fellow commissioner here. The applicant had touched on the possibility of sprinkling all the units and if code supports it eliminating that hammerhead turn around. I'd like to at least point that out to possibly justifying those units a little further to the east if that hammerhead was taken out would help mitigate some of that exposure that you have in the primary setback area. And also possibly take a look at unit number 9 and possibly eliminating one of those units and justifying unit 7 and 8. Swinging that building around with two 2 unit buildings. Just between relocating the NURP pond and possibly justifying units 1 to 3 a little more to the east and eliminating unit number 9 and swinging 7 and 8 over, you're out one unit but I think you've gone a long ways towards mitigating almost all of the encroachment. That's all the comments I have. Sacchet: Thank you Craig. I'd like to have a motion please. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: I'll make a motion. I move that we table the application in it's entirety for Plowshares Development and Susan McAllister for 2930 West 78th Street. Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second.'? Claybaugh: Second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Highlands of Bluff Creek, Plowshares Development at 2930 West 78th Street in it's entirety. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Sacchet: How about we take a 5 minute recess just to stretch. So we reconvene by 10:15. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 20~ ARTICLE XXXI ENTITLED BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff. Papke: Yeah, I've got a clarification question. Is there any issue? The language here is all lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed. Is there any issue with the term building here? I mean if I have an outhouse on this property, do I get grandfathered in the way this is worded? Generous: For that outhouse, yeah unless we wanted, yes. Unless you say principal building. Principal structure. Papke: That's my only question. Is this sufficiently unambiguous that we're not going to run into problems with interpretation later on? If it's a tree house or whatever, you know. I mean does that constitute a developed property if I've got a tree house on my, you know. Generous: That would seem as it says building. Now a principal building or principal structure may be a more accurate term because you have to have a principal structure before you can have accessory structures, etc. Papke: There you go. Generous: So that's a way to do it. Sacchet: So it would say principal structure that would. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: That would mean more than just an outhouse. Feik: So it's not a hunting shack on a vacant lot. Generous: Right. Feik: Or deer stand. How many of these a year or in the 2-3 years. Generous: We have 3 permit applications that are waiting for the ordinance amendment before they'll come in an apply. I'm sure there's dozens that have come in and we've missed that are like in Stone Creek where they've added a deck and they've met setbacks and everything and we didn't look at well yep, the primary zone's on the back of your property. You need a conditional use permit. Tjomhom: Okay, this is where I'm confused being new. We just spent what an hour and a half with an applicant who was wanting to put 7 townhouses on this same area, right? And we were kind of toying with it maybe it might be okay if he saved trees, but then people, we're still picking on them for having decks on it so I guess I'm confused about what's right and what's wrong and you know. Sacchet: Well I think what this addresses is structures actually in the primary and secondary, right? Generous: Well, whenever a property is in either the primary or secondary zone, technically it's in, it has to come in. Whether they meet the setback. It could be 300 feet deep and it's the back comer of their lot and it's in the secondary zone. The primary zone you need a conditional use permit. You're 100 feet away from it but you still have to go through the. Sacchet: Because part of the property is. Generous: Because part of their property is in, and that's the ordinance says. If the parcel's in the zone. So that's the first part. And the second part is, the existing developed properties have, they have established a setback. They come in, they have a back yard and they cleared out the yard and put landscaping up to a treed edge and so maybe that's the primary zone and they may be 10 feet, 20 feet away and technically they don't meet the setbacks so any alterations they do, they need a variance unless it's 40 feet away, and so that again they established it. We base that part of the ordinance on the bluff protection ordinance where there is existing setbacks established. You can maintain that but you can't encroach any further so that's the second part. So we're recommending approval of the ordinance adoption and I believe that recommendation that we point out that it has to be a principal structure. Feik: Let me ask one more quick question. A couple years ago we had the pool that encroached. If they had pulled that permit properly and this were in place. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: They would have been, they wouldn't need the conditional use permit but they would have had a variance application because the house complied with the setback. Feik: Right. Would we have found them in violation? We still would have because it was found during inspections, right? Generous: Right. As a part of the, yes. We would have found that it was violating the setback portion, and then once that, any alteration requires a CUP. Feik: Right, okay. Lillehaug: So this isn't going to open up the door... Generous: No. Lillehaug: Those safeguards are still there? Generous: Those safeguards are still in place and if they meet the setback, they can't not meet the 40 feet, but if they're already 20 foot from the primary zone, we're not going to say you need to get a variance to put your sun porch on this 25 feet away or there. Lillehaug: So this is a pretty big fix Bob? Generous: I think it resolves a lot of problems that we've had discussions with property owners. Sacchet: Okay. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to comment about this, This is your chance. Feik: And don't be nervous. Debbie Lloyd: No I'm not. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I was really nervous before. That hasn't happened in a couple years. I don't know. And I do apologize that ! didn't hear all your conversation but I think the bottom line for me in changing this policy is, I'm pro public. I don't like staff making those decisions. If it's something that's going to affect possibly the person next to me and there's no other way for me to find out about it, I'd want notification. I'm sorry but | just like the way it is now. It might be burdensome. Well. Sacchet: Let me clarify Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Why would we want public notification if somebody is adding a deck that is within all the requirements but the far corner of their property happens to touch on the primary zone? What's the point? Debbie Lloyd: But haven't things that have come forward have not they been issues that have presented deviations from what the code provides. Feik: They would still have to meet code though. Debbie Lloyd: They will? Sacchet: It's the deviations would still come in fl'ont of us, right Bob? Generous: Yes. If they don't, if they want to encroach any closer, or if the existing setback, they meet it and they want to expand so they would encroach into the 40 feet, that would still need a variance. Debbie Lloyd: Isn't that increasing the non-conformity of a change that has been made? I mean is there any assurance that if they're increasing. Sacchet: Correct me if I'm wrong Bob, but if I understood correctly what's written in the report and what Bob just explained, what we're addressing here is not any increase in non-conformity. What we're addressing is if two cases. One case, if any as small ever it is part of the property is within this Bluff Creek protection, if they want to do anything to their property within the area that has nothing to do with Bluff Creek, they have to come in and get a conditional use permit. There's no point in that. The second case is if they are already encroaching in some way a little bit on the Bluff Creek. If they want to do let's say something on the site towards the road, they still have to come in and get a conditional use permit even though they're not increasing the encroachment. If they would increase the encroachment, then they would have to come in. They'd not be excluded on that, so I think and please correct me if I'm wrong Bob. What this does, it just takes the cases out where it doesn't make sense to go through the extent of requiring a conditional use permit, because it has nothing to do with protecting the setting that we're actually trying to protect. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Debbie Lloyd: Well there must have been some intent. Sacchet: Well it was more like something that kind of slipped through. Debbie Lloyd: You know I've researched so many old files and you'd be surprised the intent there is behind some of these old. Sacchet: Well the only intent I could possibly envision is that they're trying to back track a little bit on what was allowed to happen in Bluff Creek, but this doesn't do it. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, thank you. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: Any other comments? Close the public hearing and bring it back to this motley crew. Comments? Discussion points? Motions? Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Motion please. Feik: I'll make a motion that staff recommends that the Planning Commission. Sacchet: Well actually the Planning Commission. You cross out staff is recommending. Feik: Planning Commission recommends the adoption. Sacchet: This goes to council, right? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. Planning Commission recommends the council adopt. Feik: Yeah what he said. Sacchet: The motion recommending approval, blah, blah, blah. The whole thing. Alright we have a motion. And a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amending the Bluff Creek Overlay District by adding the following: Section 20-15fi4. Conditional Use Permits. (b) Ali lots of record in existence and parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998 are exempt from requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Further subdivision of the property will require a conditional use permit and shall comply with thc Bluff Creek Overlay District. Section 20-1fi64. Structure Setbacks. (b) On parcels of land located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District on which a building has been constructed prior to December 14, 1998: (1) The minimum setback from the primary zone shall be the existing setback, if less than forty (40) feet. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 (2) (3) If the existing building or structure setback is less than forty (40) feet and greater than or equal to twenty (20) feet, then the first 50% of the established primary zone setback shall remain undisturbed. If the existing building or structure setback is less than twenty (20) feet there shall be no grading or alterations beyond the existing setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. (Craig Claybaugh had left the meeting at this point.) DISCUSSION OF STANDARDS FOR ROOFTOP SCREENING AND SIDEWALKS (CHAPTERS 18 & 20). Generous: I don't know that we've really had a discussion. We really wanted just to present you with some information that we found. Sacchet: And you did that through the paper we got. Generous: The sidewalks issue. There was only one that really requires it. Most of them are more open and depending on the type of development you get that. We can push forward a recommendation that we require it in all. Sacchet: Okay. Any comments to staff on those two topics? Feik: Yes. Sacchet: Please. Feik: Rooftops. Currently, I'll pull you an example. Out of any of these other various cities, the rooftops on the NOA station would not be allowed. They're a high point on their site. You cannot, under all these issues I reviewed you should not be able to see the rooftop units at all from any place on the parcel or the adjoining parcels, roads. You know close up to it. Am I interpreting that correctly? Generous: That's how we would. Feik: That's not how we interpret currently though. Because that was that goofy deal with a couple of strange parapets in fl'ont and back and hope nobody walks off to the side. Papke: Which one was this? Feik: The NOA. The radar station. It sort of has the rooftop aligned down the middle but then they have these sort of triangle parapets that are 15 feet wide or something in the middle of the building and they only screen if you're like dead on the front door or the back door. Remind me please what our current. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Generous: It just says rooftop equipment shall be screened with no standards, yes. Feik: So given these half a dozen neighboring cities, what would you suggest? Generous: Well one would be to specify a specific distance that they had to comply with and you know then they can show us. Feik: Well I like the idea there's no place on their parcel or adjoining parcels period. Generous: But from what views? Okay, but from what elevation? A 6 foot man 150 foot away? Feik: Yeah, 6 foot man that's fine but. Obviously this has got to be within reason but I would like to see. Sacchet: Well another half of the definition that takes every possibility into account, but if you have a reference point, and you have to put a stake in the ground because right now we don't have any. Lillehaug: Plymouth's looked pretty good to me. I think that's pretty good. Generous: Yeah, and I had drafted one that says a 6 foot man 150 feet away. Feik: I don't think we use 150 feet. I think you use adjoining neighbors at least. Generous: From the property line? Feik: Yeah, because if you've got a large parcel. Lillehaug: Not from the property line, just from the property. Feik: Well but from the edge of the property line which would be the furthest point of it within any place within the property, the subject property. That puts you essentially on the property line. Because if you've got a large parcel, and we screen the rooftops from the parking lot, but they've got...in a parking lot don't see it, but all the neighbors do. Sacchet: So we want to include the adjacent property, not just the property itself? Feik: I think, I kind of do the perimeter of, the...is sort of either side of that line can magically. Sacchet: Because Plymouth's says an individual standing at ground level on the adjacent property or public right-of-way so it's not just the property itself. It's the neighboring property on the ground level. Adjacent. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - .lanuary 6, 2004 Feik: Not the entire neighboring property. It's got to be on the border. It's got to be something reasonable. I like that much better. I think it gives some definition. Generous: Okay, and we can come up with some language and when we bring back chapters, the portions of Chapter 20 that deal with that, we'll have something in there so we can discuss it again. Sacchet: Any other points of guidance for Bob to draft something like that? Slagle: Are we on sidewalks? Sacchet: We're on both. Feik: if you guys are okay. Sacchet: Rooftop. Papke: The only issue, concern I would have with the adjacent property circulation is if the adjacent property is on a bluff okay and we're going to have to allow for some variances or. Feik: Well that's the point. Papke: So in that circumstance they're going to have to have. Generous: Sink it. Feik: They got to sink it. That's the point. Papke: Is that what we really want? Do we want to be that restrictive that if somebody? Feik: It's really, you know I used to manage commercial buildings. It's not a big deal. It's a dog ear fence that's held down by sandbags 4 feet out from the equipment. It's not a big deal. Lillehaug: What do you do when you're on Highway 5, if I may add. 5 and Powers and looking, you go up over the bridge and the railroad tracks and you've got Target. I mean you're going to see their roof equipment period. You're standing in a public right-of- way. You're going to see their roof equipment. You don't have a choice. Period. Sacchet: Yeah. Feik: There's going to be exceptions but there's some reasonable exceptions but what we've got right now is an undefined language. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Papke: I agree but all I'm saying is if we do set the conditions that you're stating, we're going to have exceptions like Target and other areas where the road that goes by is much higher. Feik: Well I'll give you an example. The property of the new office building on the east side of 169. What's the road north of Londonderry? Slagle: Lincoln. Feik: Lincoln. East side of 169 and Lincoln there's a building, a new glass curtain wall building. It's got a curved false wall on the top. To match the architecture. The same man put up that entire wall on all sides to block the utilities from the residential people that are in the neighborhood. He said you know what, we don't want to see it. Period. You want to have roof tops, it's not a big deal to screen it. Make it happen. Sacchet: Okay. Feik: I don't know, that's my opinion. You can always back down I guess is my point. You can say it's user, so it's. Papke: It's hardship. Feik: It's hardship yeah because you're going over the railroad track and you don't want you know Target's down there. Slagle: You want to be careful with that first word. Sacchet: Alright. Slagle: Can I do my quick sidewalk. Feik: Absolutely. Slagle: I would say this, looking at the cities that we've chosen to compare, and I understand probably why we called these cities Bob but I would request that we consider some other cities only because at least a couple of these are fairly built out. Edina as an example is going to have sidewalks on most streets, probably on both sides of the road just because they're an old, at least older Edina, and so I think their term was only as it relates to other sidewalk systems. You can take that a lot of ways. Left a message for the city trail coordinator in Minnetonka. Burnsville, no regulations. Push for sidewalks with PUD's. Varies, usually one side of the street. One thing I thought was interesting was, for Eagan, which I think would be more closer, you know growing suburb, if you will. On a collector, one side or a trail. A major or minor collector, both sides, and of course tying into the county road trail system, which I think they have a nice system. Not to say we don't, and I don't want anybody to take my interest in Chanhassen's sidewalks and trails just to mean I don't think we have a good system. I think we do. But it's only 63 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 going to be used more and more as the population grows older. I mean I can tell you the people that I know that are in their 60's, 70's, they want to get out and walk. And lastly, if you've seen some of the streets and Steve I'll use your neighborhood as an example. How many homes are on the horseshoe, the big horseshoe road and you don't have a sidewalk? Yeah. I mean every single home in there must be 100. I'm going to guess 100 homes. How can you have 100 homes and not have a sidewalk on either side of the street? Feik: We have that. Tjornhom: We do. Feik: 85 homes and you can't even go onto Audubon to connect the horseshoe so you're pushing your strollers down Audubon. Literally. Slagle: Let me finish. And one of the, it touches on my request for a trail in a previous applicant because what I have determined and watched having lived in South Minneapolis is when you have a circular route, people will use that in a proportion more than walking down to the end of a road and turning around and coming back the same way. So anytime you can create circles and loops, people will use it and so if those people on that development have the ability to walk out their back yard, hopefully through a fairly nice landscaped trail, down to a very beautiful trail, they'll really use that. Now we're asking them, and it's important to note, we don't know when that connection on 41 will hit West 78th, because if you looked at the CIP that we saw earlier, that 41 corridor that Park and Rec is requesting $150,000, if I'm not mistaken, is to drive it north to Longacres. I don't believe this will take it south to West 78th. I could be wrong but it could be 2-3 years before those folks have the ability to do a circle and ! just think that's so important so I'll answer questions. Lillehaug: I've got a question for you Rich. Just throw this out. What do you want to see? Slagle: I want to see, here's what I want to see. I want to see not much deviation from what we do now except for common sense approach to certain developments. How come Bruce's neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks? How come Hunter Drive in Longacres, which is a hilly road, cars go fast, has no sidewalks? Feik: I don't get any sidewalks in the whole neighborhood. Slagle: How can your neighborhood not, and what I'm saying is, obviously that's come to fruition. How did it get through staff, through planning, through a city council that we didn't even okay a sidewalk for 100 homes? And I don't know the answer Steve but I don't like what I've seen so far. Lillehaug: I agree. ! want to see a mandatory there's a sidewalk at least on one side of the street. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Sacchet: So we want sidewalks. We want rooftop screening and we want sidewalks. Slagle: And see I was under the impression, last comment fi'om I don't want to say who but someone in staff that said their belief was they were going to piggy back on Eden Prairie that it was going to be required a minimum of one side of the street, on all streets, including cul-de-sacs. But somehow that never got to us. I don't know why. That's all, just one side of the street. I'd be happy with that. Feik: What do you think Bob? Generous: You're preaching to the choir here. I worked on Walnut Curve and I wanted it. They didn't have anything in the Btinker Street, the Majestic Way so it wasn't connecting to anywhere and so they kaboshed that idea. Slagle: So now you walk or you look down that street and you've got moms pushing baby carriages as cars go 30-35 miles by them 5 feet away. Tjornhom: But Rich who maintains the sidewalks? Slagle: I've lived in South Minneapolis for 5 years. I lived in Woodbury where we had a sidewalk. You maintain it and if you don't, you know what? Eventually your neighbors will start to say hey, Rich. You've got to shovel your sidewalk. Sacchet: We do have an ordinance in Chanhassen too that you have to shovel your part. Feik: And getting to that to a point that you bnng up often as the road, the width of the roads. The roads that we put in encourage you to drive 40. You know if you put in a 25 foot road, people are going to slow down. But we put in these big wide roads with big curbs. They look like Highway 5 and so then we wonder why people drive 40-45 through the neighborhoods. So we're encouraging the wider roads. We'd better encourage people to get off the pedestrian. Slagle: I'll throw a last, this really will be the last comment. If you have had the opportunity to go on Lake Lucy between Galpin and Powers, and tight now if you look at a map, it will show that that is part of our trail system. And all it is is on the street and they've got a yellowing, you know line that in most places you can't even see. And we have been going on that road, and I'll be truthful, 40-45 miles an hour sometimes and there are 8-7 year old kids tiding their bikes. It is absolutely crazy. Why would you do that? Sacchet: It's a problem. Slagle: You know. Why would you do that? And why would I drive fast? Lillehaug: You're tight, why would you do that. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: It's that black hot car of your's. Slagle: Oh yeah, but anyway. Lillehaug: I do agree though. I mean I love my neighborhood, but it'd be better with a sidewalk. Sacchet: It helps. Sidewalks are good. Alright. Is that it for that one? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 2, 2003 as amended by Commissioner Lillehaug on page 31. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE~ JANUARY~ 2004. Sacchet: Alright, are we adjourning? Generous: No. I have a couple of things I just need to let you know. January 20th we'll bring Chapter 18, the subdivision ordinance back. We have a bunch of information and I'll give additional survey information for the sidewalk stuff. And we have house plans and all kinds of that so hopefully we can move that forward. And then our intention is to start to bring parts of Chapter 20, the zoning ordinance for discussion so that you get at peak of it before we bring it into the public hearing process. Moon Valley will be coming in February 17th. The upper part for subdivision approval, and then three of you, your commission seats expire this year. If you want to come back you have to re-apply. We are going to publish it. Slagle: Who is it again this year? Generous: Craig, Bruce and Uli. Lillehaug: They'll all be back though. Generous: They have to fill out the application. Sacchet: We do or don't? Generous: You do. Sacchet: We do, okay. Feik: Can you give us a head's up on what's coming next meeting? Generous: Just Chapter 18 and then, oh what section of the zoning ordinance? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - January 6, 2004 Feik: No, as far as applications? Generous: There aren't any. It's the one after that meeting it starts. What is it? Feik: February 4th? Generous: February. We don't, we haven't met the deadline for submittals. We've been talking to a lot of people but we don't know the timeframe. There is a meeting, we're going to do Chapter 18 and discuss portions of Chapter 20. So you get a head's up so when we dump it on you for the public hearing it's not all new. Lillehaug: When is the Klingelhutz development coming back? Generous: I don't know yet. They still, they sent in a letter extending their review timeframe to May 1st. The last they talked to me they were looking at over the next couple weeks coming and looking at what changes they had proposed and then coming in and meeting with me. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 67