The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2004 04 20CHANHASEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Kurt Papke, Bethany Tjornhom, Steve Lillehaug and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT TO ALLOW RIDING LESSONS AT STABLE LOCATED AT 760 WEST 96TM STREET, SANDY WORM, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-12. Public Present: Name Address Carol Dunsmore Sandy Worm Allie & Chris Fullerton 730 96th Street West 760 96th Street West Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff?. No questions of staff?. Steve, you have a question? Lillehaug: I do. It has nothing to do with anything other than notifying the correct people. I think we missed a bunch of people on the west side for notification of this. I'm in full support of it but I think we missed, I don't see Ellsworth, Hendrickson, Meschke, Dirks on the notification list, and when I look at the postcard that went out, it looks like the wrong lots got identified and the 500 feet is based off the wrong area. Or a combination thereof so. Keefe: Where does the 500 feet start from? Aanenson: From the perimeter of the property line. The state law is 300. Our ordinance is, 350. Our ordinance is 500. Lillehaug: So I mean I totally support this but what direction does staff give us without... Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: We did receive comment from some of the surrounding property owners that were in support of it. Sacchet: But if it would be a controversial issue Steve I think we'd have something. Lillehaug: I don't think it would be but. Sacchet: I don't see how this could be considered controversial. Lillehaug: I don't either. Papke: Can I make a comment or should I wait til later? Sacchet: Let's go through the hearing then we do comments. No questions for you. Thank you very much for staff report. Do we have an applicant that wants to add anything to this? The applicant wants to come forward and if you have anything to add, please do so. Sandy Worm: My name is Sandy Worm and I live. Sacchet: Do you mind pulling the microphone towards you a little bit, thank you. Sandy Worm: My name is Sandy Worm. ! live at 760 West 96th Street and ! just hope the kids can enjoy riding out there and it's only a couple ponies and hope they can have fun. Sacchet: Questions of the applicant? Keefe: I've got a question. Are you proposing to put signage up anywhere? Sandy Worm: No. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: Good question. Alright, thank you. Aanenson: Can ! just add a comment to that? In fact that was a good question. For home occupation we have a very limited small sign that you can put on a piece of property, specifically if it's residentially zoned so. Keefe: If in the future, you know. Aanenson: It would have to come back. Right now the ordinance doesn't allow, ! don't remember the top end but it's pretty small for a home occupation so, it's like 2 by 2 or something like that so she would put that in the driveway, just for an address so people 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 knew where they were going but ! don't think there'd be a conflict there because people could see the ring. Sacchet: Thank you. Sandy Worm: Thanks. Sacchet: This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to address this item, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Anybody want to address this item? Seeing nobody, ! will close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments. Kurt, you had a comment. Papke: Yeah, ! live just on Homestead Lane, just down from the subject property and just a comment on the notification. The horses from that area come on a trail that leads through the Hendrickson property, through the Meschke property and then down the street so the local residents are intimately familiar with the horses that are stabled there already. ! can't imagine any concern coming up. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? If not I'll take a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves. Sacchet: Recommends approval. Page 5. Lillehaug: That the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Interim Use Permit #2004-12 to allow the use of a riding academy located at 760 West 96th Street zoned A2 with conditions 1 through 3 as indicated. Sacchet: Do we have a second? Papke: Second. Lillehaug moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Interim Use Permit #2004-12 to allow the use of a riding academy located at 760 West 96th Street, zoned A2, subject to the following conditions: Adhere to the standards of Chapter five (5) "Animals", Article three (3), "Horses" of the Chanhassen City Code. Adhere to the standards of Section 20-383 (General Issuance Standards) of the Chanhassen City Code. The Interim Use Permit would expire upon the site being served by municipal services. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) REVIEW FOR A HEALTH CLUB, OFFICE, RESTAURANT AND HOTEL ON 21.7 ACRES LOCATED AT 1891 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, GUIDED OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL, ADVANCE FITNESS, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-14. Public Present: Name Address Liv Horneland Jim Lasher Barry Blomquist, Jr. Richard Bjork Karci Eckermann Brad Bohlman Dawn Pollman Kathy Pensyl C.J. Pappas 8804 Knollwood Drive, Eden Prairie LSA Design Amervest Systems Amervest Systems 1838 Andrew Court 1838 Andrew Court 1954 Andrew Court 1972 Andrew Court 54' 1 Mayview Road, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff. Papke: I'll start. I assume the applicant is proposing two restaurants. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: In your recommendation you're saying one. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Okay. And the rationale for one ! assume is that you're trying to keep the business center of downtown Chan, is that the rationale or what's the rationale behind the one? Aanenson: Well, the rationale is, there will be in this facility they're proposing some support, caf~ sort of thing in order to capture that. But the rationale is this is an industrial district. Restaurants aren't permitted in that district, in the retail district so if we're going to allow it we'd want to stay under that 25 percent. So with the two and the bank, so kind of pick and choose where you get that 25 percent. And the other concern we had with that scale, could it be, if you put the cap on there, that it not be a drive thru? Could that work if you still stayed under 25 for the two? Yes. So...just no drive thru ! think that'd be. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Papke: Second question. The proximity of the water park will be right across Highway 5 from Lake Ann roughly. Aanenson: Let me show you on this map. Papke: Pretty close to right across from Lake Ann. Aanenson: Pretty close. Papke: Is there any concern with that where traffic might be generated between the two? Where you know, mom might drop off a couple kids at Lake Ann. The older kids at Lake Ann. The younger kids at the water park, because it' s. Aanenson: ! think with the right-in/right-out you can actually get over to, with a right, taking a right, getting onto Highway 5 and then getting onto to West 78th. I think that would be pretty easy. Saam: Yeah, and we actually have pretty good street access from the Lake Ann Park. You come down to the new West 78th Street. Take Audubon south and take a left on Coulter, so. Papke: So you don't think that would be an issue? Saam: No. No, those are all collector roads. Aanenson: Yeah, ! think there's a signal at Audubon so even if you came this way on Audubon and got on Coulter, ! think that would work. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions of staff?. Rich. Slagle: I've got a couple. And ! just want to confirm that the health club, this conceptual PUD is a private enterprise from the health club standpoint, is that correct? Aanenson: That's correct. Slagle: The water park in the gentleman's letter was sort of left open as perhaps private/public. Aanenson: Right, and they'll speak to that but it's my understanding they're exploring what amenities would be desirable for the community and if there's any participation and that really is a discussion for the City Council and that's kind of a concept. Whether it be an outdoor or water park or. Slagle: Okay. The other question ! had was, and thank you for using a comparison of Lifetime in Savage. If my numbers are correct, the comparison of the Savage facility is Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 60,000 square feet of building on 14.4 acres. Savage site also includes an outdoor pool. And I'm assuming that is some more acres in addition to the 14.47 Do you know? Aanenson: I'm not sure on that. Slagle: Okay. The reason I'm asking is this. Is I'm seeing that the 60,000 club, excuse me, the club that we're looking at is 6 point something acres with the outdoor water park another 4. So you're in essence fitting that all on 10 acres, where a comparable club is on 14.4 and we're not sure if that includes a pool or not, so my only question is, do we feel that this is somewhat limiting in size from an acreage standpoint? Aanenson: Well ! think obviously the parking's going to drive the footprint too because the two have to match together, and as we move through those discussions, and ! think they're still trying to get a read from the community as what elements or amenities are desirable so they match what our community standards are because ! think every community has a little bit different desires, so they're working through those issues too, but certainly the footprint and the parking has been an issue. And ! think that's what we looked at too is some of those, you know it's a 24 operations. Obviously it peaks, ebs and flows and looking at some of the cross over parking with some of the uses we had talked about that too. Slagle: Do you know, and ! didn't see it, is there an outdoor pool or an indoor pool with the health club? Aanenson: There is an indoor pool proposed, yeah. Slagle: Okay. And last for ! guess engineering is on that proposed right-of-way Matt, where the two roads will connect to what ! will call the northeast of the health club. What would be your traffic thoughts there? Stop signs or. Saam: In the extension of McGlynn Drive from the east? Slagle: Exactly, yep. Aanenson: At this intersection. Slagle: Yeah, and then hitting that north/south road. Yeah, right there. What would you, hard to say at this point? Saam: Yeah, what I would envision right now would be two way stop at McGlynn and a thru on the north/south. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Any other questions of staff?. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: ! have some, yes. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: This is getting a little detailed but I think we just need to raise a few of these points right now. These buildings, the right-of-way line on the north portion. MnDot right-of-way. Would that be right up to where the colored portion is on their map? Because ! think we need a 50 foot setback to these buildings, correct? So that lessens some parking area. So is that right-of-way right up to the colored portion or is it one of them other lines further north? ! guess ! would, ! just want to make it clear that ! think we need a 50 foot setback from MnDot right-of-way there and it's clearly not that. Am ! correct? Aanenson: They need to be 50 feet, correct. I'm not sure on that scale... Lillehaug: ! just wanted to raise that point so that wasn't even a question was it? Zoning. Why would we want to allow a bank in this area? ! mean what benefit does that give to the city by allowing a bank in this area that it's not zoned for? Aanenson: Well our recommendation was that it wouldn't be a free standing bank. That it be incorporated with something else so ! guess we leave that back up to you. There's some banks that are still trying to land up some sites and obviously they're working with some of the users they know are out there, but ! would leave that up to you. Our recommendation was that it be incorporated and so it would be a smaller building but a bigger building with some other uses with it. That'd be similar to what we just did on the bowling alley site. The bank has office over it. It's actually like a 30,000 square foot building. So it still have the drive thru but there's offices over the top and adjacent to it so it has a larger footprint and that would be our recommendation. Lillehaug: Why allow a bank at all though? Aanenson: Well ! would leave it up to you. Lillehaug: ! mean it's not guided for that but why would. Aanenson: And the same thing with a restaurant. It's kind of quasi office user. Sacchet: It falls into those 25 percent flexibility, right? Aanenson: Right. Lillehaug: Let's see. Roadways. Trunk Highway 5. ! guess we would only be, the city plans on only allowing one access point off of Trunk Highway 5 for this entire undeveloped area. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Correct, and that's what MnDot had, when we did Coulter, right. They had one access. Originally it was shown on the other side. At that time we weren't sure exactly how the development was going to lay out so that was kind of held off in abeyance and it's my understanding that the developer has an agreement with MnDot to put it on the other side. But it would be right in, it was always was only planned right- in/right-out. Lillehaug: So there from Audubon to Galpin this will be the only right-in/right-out? I mean there will be no others? Aanenson: That's correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Does the city, this is a Trunk Highway 5 brand new section of roadway. Does the city anticipate requiring the applicant to provide a full length right turn lane with concrete pavement to match that new road that we got out there? ! would hope so. Saam: Yeah, and ! would think that would be a MnDot requirement also Commissioner Lillehaug. Aanenson: Right, we haven't got their comments back but certainly that would be some of their, in their jurisdiction too to comment on some of that. Lillehaug: Okay. Then let's go on the north/south connector street. Right into the proposed office bank building. Well, this isn't quite the same situation we had down on, was it Century? It's not quite the same situation but. Aanenson: Yeah, we struggled with that too. Just so you know again, we went through a lot of, and we didn't want to spend a lot of time on that part of it for conceptual but originally when it came in, ! believe the restaurant was on the far side and we said you know it would be nicer to have the restaurant closer to the creek. A nicer amenity if you had outdoor patio. So when you worked out, went over there, that'd be nice. Is this the best place for a bank based on traffic? That's something we'll have to explore. understand what you're saying with your concern there, and we're still looking at that. Lillehaug: Not even necessarily a bank. You know I want. Aanenson: But a cut, a curb cut right here. Lillehaug: Right. Aanenson: ! agree. Lillehaug: It's conceptual. Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, we .... that issue with them too and how that works and right. But I think it's something to flag and watch, yeah. Sacchet: Chances are it's not going to be a good idea. Lillehaug: Does engineering, is their opinion that, is it the city standard to have a 300 foot before you allow a curb cut so that would really in essence be down to the next roadway, is that standard? Saam: Yes. 300 is the standard. ! just want to add that we did point that out. That access would require further study. A traffic study to make sure that the intersection will operate effectively. So we're not blanketedly saying that we're going to allow that. It needs to be looked at. Aanenson: It's on page 5 in one of the bullet points, yeah. Lillehaug: You know do we even give a false indication of that because ! guess I'm of the opinion that we don't need, a traffic study's not going to tell us really anything. It's just a matter, it's policy and. Sacchet: But it's certainly within our discussion Steve. Make a firmer point if you want to firm that one up. Lillehaug: Okay. Let's see here. ! apologize here. Let's see. Fast food. Fast food. Do we have, is fast food defined in our code? Aanenson: Yes it is. Lillehaug: It is? Okay. Regional ponding requirements. Does the city have any idea of what they're proposing for any regional ponding requirements? The staff report indicated that it need to fit in here somehow. Aanenson: They'll have to come back in the next iteration with that. Lillehaug: So on site regional ponding? Saam: Correct. Yeah, we haven't received any drainage calculations to speak of at this point so we have no idea the size that will be needed or. Lillehaug: Boy, that's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any questions Dan or Bethany? Keefe: ! just have a couple. The proposed hotel, does the city have a number of units that they want to build out and this particular hotel sort of meets that guidance? Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Again it's conceptual. ! think when we give them, they were showing some things that they thought may work. It may not be a hotel. That's the thing of putting the list together. Again what we're trying to show is some uses, that is a permitted use so if it went away and became another office or something else permitted, ! think that'd be fine. ! think the thing that we're looking at was the retail, introduction of the retail and that's why we're talking about the... Keefe: And then in regards to the hotel, does that include... Aanenson: Typically we don't address that if it's kind of the continental breakfast. We don't have a lot of those that have full service. Most of them have the continental. All of them do that are in town right now. The continental express breakfast so. Keefe: And did we consider maybe making one larger restaurant versus the two? Aanenson: Right. ! guess that's where ! was coming from. Having one larger one. You know again, just to give you comparison if you look at Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings, that's a 7,500 square foot building. Those are both sit down. Could something like that go in there? Or something bigger, that would be one larger footprint so again our concern was as long as it wasn't their drive thru, the quick in, we thought this would be an opportunity for a nicer experience. A sit down, sit outside, that kind of atmosphere. Keefe: So the proposed restaurant are really to support more the hotel and then some local traffic as well, right. Aanenson: Yeah, that they have tennis courts which is one of the things they talked about. Play tennis, go across the street, and again with the hotel that they were looking at a complimentary, but again some of those things may slide a little bit as we move through this. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: Is that it? Keefe: That's it. Sacchet: Questions Bethany? Tjornhom: I'm kind of struggling with the whole water park, the whole thing in that area. Is a water park really appropriate in an office industrial area or is it, you know ! guess ! just, I'm trying to envision taking my kids to the water park by all the offices and is it more of a neighborhood place? Aanenson: Well it's tied in with the fitness center so you'd have to come through the fitness center. It'd be part of that. Similar to some of the ones that other recreational facilities we do. So it'd slide into that, and ! think the intent there is to screen that, ! 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 mean is control the access of how you get in and out of it so it would be related specifically to this use. Tjornhom: And so then, once ! think someone already asked this question but so would this be for private use then just for members only or would it just be. Aanenson: Members only, correct. Tjornhom: So it wouldn't just be for a city, anybody who wanted to. Aanenson: Right, it's tied to this project. That's correct. Tjornhom: Okay. Thank you. Sacchet: ! actually have a few questions still too. Quite a number of them are addressed. On page 2 of the staff report Kate, there's this comment that ! cannot, ! kind of was wondering. It says that a hotel is permitted but it's an unlikely use. What does that mean unlikely? Aanenson: Well we just don't think there's a market, and that question was already raised. We're just not sure that there's a market right now for another hotel. Sacchet: Okay. So we're wondering whether we already have enough? But then bank is not unlikely? We certainly have more banks than hotels. Aanenson: All ! can tell you is that ! know there's two bank users looking so, and there's a lot of reasons for that but personally ! think there's not a market for a hotel. Sacchet: Alright. Then. Aanenson: Again going back, we have approved the other Northcott one. It hasn't been built yet so there's already one... Sacchet: And also bank buildings yeah. All trees within the creek setback, what does this say? Staff would expect that all trees within the creek setback be preserved. Are they or ! mean we'll see that when it gets more detail? Aanenson: Right. At that level again there is the creek setback. The Watershed District regulations so again at this level they weren't, they're here to get a read before they go back and do that, the more detailed oriented plans, but if you're in the creek setback, there's no reason to be grading or anything like that so all of those trees should be preserved, and then we did talk about, if there was even an outdoor pool in this area, or whether it's a water park, how we were to preserve those. Those features. Sacchet: In terms of the restaurants and bank, when we say 25 percent, is it 25 percent of the building footprint or what exactly is it 25 percent of?. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: You know we took some different evolutions of that to see if it made a difference and it can go either way, whether it's acreage or square footage of buildings. It comes pretty close. It's negligible. We ran it a couple different ways, correct. Sacchet: So it could potentially be two restaurants and no bank? Aanenson: Right, and ! guess that was. Sacchet: Or we could say just 25 percent? Aanenson: Or a restaurant not to exceed, give a square footage. You know, or give yourself some flexibility because again this is giving them some direction as it comes back through, you know that you can tighten that up a little bit but ! think that's where Steve was going, he wants to give some clear direction on some of his issues and that's what ! guess we're asking for too. Sacchet: And based on the comment made about the water park, it does look like public water park is at this point... Aanenson: Well I think that's a discussion you may want to have with the city. Sacchet: And then my last question, in the applicant's write up they're talking about the hotel being 3 or 4 stories. What's, how high can they go? Aanenson: It can go that high. In the IOP district. Sacchet: No problem with that? Aanenson: Yeah, and that's how tall the Holiday Inn... Sacchet: Thank you very much Kate, that's all my questions. With that, if the applicant, yes. Sorry Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I'm sorry but I do want to get it out with staff before the applicant presents. And Kate I just want your thoughts, again conceptually, would there be merit to tying in what I will call either more sidewalks or such that would connect, obviously you have the sidewalks on Coulter. But going up that new road and then maybe even going east on McGlynn to the daycare. Aanenson: Yeah, definitely, ! think so, and you know we had talked about too, all the places where you can possibly put a bridge across the creek to get, to tie into going across that way too and they're willing to explore all those. We've talked about that and ! think that's certainly, it's exercise. If you want to go outside and do a walk, exactly. Slagle: Exactly, okay. Thank you. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Alright, with this I'd like to ask the applicant if you want to come forward. If you have anything to add. We'd like to hear from you. You want to state your name and address for the record please. Richard Bjork: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Bjork. I'm with Advance Fitness and ! do live in Edina, Minnesota. I'd like to thank staff for their support on this project very much and we hope that this is something that the Planning Commission looks favorably upon. We realize that there's a lot of unanswered questions at this point in time but we're here to just kind of banter it back and forth a little bit. See what works, what doesn't work, things like that. We have developed a lot of different mixed use projects and we've done everything from residential to some golf courses. Some parking. Commercial. Things like that. We've assembled a team with some architectural background. With some legal background. Some financial background, and some health club background, so we've got a group together that should make this project work. The fund raising that we put together is going in the right direction so we're comfortable that we can accomplish this project, and one of the major things, because the site is 22 acres, to put together a health club which is a primary use of the project, we really only need approximately 13 acres, so therefore you say to yourself, okay you have to come up with something to use the rest of the real estate to make the whole project work in a complimentary manner. And that's one of the reasons that we have put down the uses that we have. Also the fact that the water park is something that seems to be a growing trend in communities and something that is practical for the local residents. Savage as an example. They give their residents a discount when they come in, walk through the health club and then use the pool on a daily basis. They just pay per day for the use, something like that. So we have not really explored that in detail but it is something that we'd like to see as an ancillary service to the health club, and make the use of the land. So with that what I'd like to do is turn it over to our landscape architect that's on our team, Jim Lasher and have him walk you through the, unless you have some questions for me initially. Sacchet: Any questions so far? No? Thank you very much. Richard Bjork: Jim Lasher. Jim Lasher: Good evening everyone. My name is Jim Lasher from LSA Design. I'm here representing the team. ! can address any specific questions you have about the plan or ! can back up a bit and go through a little bit more detail of the specific plan and then entertain questions at that point. Sacchet: Yeah, why don't you give us a little more idea first. It doesn't have to be lengthy but an overview would be great. Jim Lasher: ! think what ! would like to touch on a bit is the access issues that have been brought up and what we plan to do about those. We do have an easement agreement in place. It's being worked on from MnDot regarding access to this site. Received it today 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 from, signed by A1 Penn, Director of Land Development for MnDot. The basic idea is that we would agree to this body to put the entire road on our property, although I think it would be in our best interest to look at to try to split that right-of-way in essence to move this project forward the team has agreed that we would accept the full 60 foot right-of- way width on our property. That allows the project to move forward in our time frame, and it allows you to move forward without having to go through an eminent domain procedure for adjacent property so I think that is a great benefit of moving forward with this particular project. The second piece is we would certainly agree to that connection piece back over to McGlynn and look to make that a full connecting road all the way through. One thing it does do however is move the access point a little bit further south than we would actually prefer to be so we would request that you allow us to review that in terms of layout. What it may end up being is a bit of a curvature in the road. I believe the access comes in about down here so we may end up grinding that back and coming in this fashion because as we mentioned we're going to try to put the health club on the back portion of the site and re-use the front portion and the deeper it gets in the front portion the more square footage we're actually going to look to this body for approval for the ancillary development. I believe the 25 percent number is a good number and we can live within that number but I would ask for your support in terms of how we locate that specific road. The second piece is the shoreland setback and how we would handle storm water. At this point in time we're going through the general calculations for what our runoff calculation would be and our intention would be is to do storm water for this entire site on our particular site. So please rest assured that is the intention of the group. The shoreland setback we're showing now is approximately 100 feet, and we would look to either a path along that side and then make a connection to the other side or possibly combine the path on the other side with our's. If there's no need to be redundant, and we certainly don't want to be redundant with the path, wherever the best location would be for it, we would concur to go to that location. With regards to the specific uses, I think we can agree to not have access off of the primary north/south road. This is the location. It looks to all access off of this road in both directions. We would request however that there be a secondary access along for the health club here because it would be a fairly large parking facility and we'd like to have at least two accesses to that point. We're probably looking at somewhere between 400 to 450 parking stalls for this particular facility. Two access points would be preferred. And lastly I think what we would like to do is move forward a bit with the water park discussion but another alternative which has been done in other communities is to entertain discussions with the local school district about the idea of combining a public/private venture for this particular project. I'll cite an example in Plymouth where the city of Plymouth and the local health club got together and built in essence a school swimming pool and swimming facility that was used by the Wayzata School District. We'd request from this body the authority to at least move forward with those discussions in the likelihood of maybe bringing back, not an exterior water park but an expanded indoor pool facility that would be able to be used by the local school district as well. With that I'll answer any further questions, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Tjornhom: I have an easy one for you right away. Define to me what a water park, how this is different from just a regular swimming pool. Jim Lasher: At this point in time the water park industry is looking to kind of the bells and whistles world of what's more to something than just a swimming pool. The big, large slides. The outdoor play equipment. The pieces that generally provide that excitement at a water enthusiastic type park, rather than just a swimming pool. If you went to the communities like St. Louis Park or even the Plymouth facility or some other communities in Hastings that have built outdoor water parks, they have large slides, outdoor play equipment, so it's a little bit more of an entertainment type venue and not just a swimming pool. That would be one option. The second option as ! mentioned would be more of an interior straight swimming pool facility that would maybe have an Olympic sized pool that would be suitable for sort of school activities and possibly a diving well that would be suitable for NCAA or high school sanctioned swimming events as well. We'll look at both of those but in essence the outdoor pool would just be a more kind of enthusiastic type facility with a lot more equipment. Tjornhom: But would it generate a lot more noise, do you think than a regular outdoor pool that you would find at an athletic club? Jim Lasher: I believe any outdoor swimming pool will clearly generate more noise than the inside would. ! think our intention would be to go through that particular layout and work with you to see if that was too much of an impact for the adjacent properties and work with your preference there but clearly any flexibility you give us at this point in time we believe we can produce the best plan. Sacchet: Any other questions? Kurt. Papke: Can you elaborate a little bit on the nature of the restaurants you're proposing there, so for instance the smaller restaurant immediately adjacent to the hotel, is this in the you know, a Denny' s or is this, you what level of scale are you considering for your two restaurants? Jim Lasher: We had two primary thoughts on the restaurants, and as you understand in the development of this, what we're trying to do is service the highway user as well as the health club user. When you look at the number of people that come to a facility like this, it's an opportunity in an overall mixed use development to provide ancillary services. We looked at two types of restaurants. The first would be a sit down type restaurant, which would clearly provide seating space and parking space suitable in the 10 to 11,000 square foot range. The second was what we thought would be a fairly good place for a drive thru. Given the fact that fast food is something that people may want to pick up after a health club experience, they could do that quickly and leave the site. Understanding your conditions here about what you'd like to see on this site, we would agree to look at both of those ideas and see which one made the most sense. From our standpoint we would prefer to move forward with both restaurants but understand your position as well. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: ! have a question as far as connecting McGlynn Road up. What is your involvement with that property to the east of you? Now you're showing the proposed roadway here east/west roadway where it is, but what involvement do you have with that property because ! guess it'd be a good engineering standpoint that you don't want a staggered intersection, and I'm sure you'd agree with that but why couldn't we just put a curve in McGlynn and connect up there? Do you know something that we don't ! guess. Jim Lasher: We do not know or have any involvement in that particular parcel. All we would ask is that we would try to do a pure 90 degree intersection at that point in time, but we may end up curving our road a bit to get it closer to Highway 5 than what is currently being shown on that connection and the parcel to the east of us. Aanenson: If ! could elaborate on that a little bit more. The property owner to the east may or may not have as much development interest. It appears that right now there's some different parties involved that are advancing some changes on some of that property. Our position was that the two parties would have to work it out and ! think as Mr. Lasher indicated, based on timing, it would hold it up to get both parties to agree. Certainly it's our job to make sure that the benefit of one is not to the detriment of another and we'll try to make those connections. Give the other party an opportunity to comment. You know they were notified of this project going forward so we'll try to work those through, but again sometimes it's a timing issue. If someone's, if we have to swing the road a little bit to still provide that opportunity for both connections to work, that makes. Lillehaug: That's all ! have, thanks. Sacchet: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing so if anybody likes to address this project, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Are there any individuals here that want to address this? If! see nobody, yes. There's somebody. Brent Griowski: Hello. My name is Brent Griowski. I'm at 2221 Hunter Drive in Chanhassen. And I'm actually representing General Mills which is off 8000 Audubon, adjacent to the area that we're talking about today. And ! understand it's a conceptual drawing and was also been some discussion about whether or not a hotel would actually be considered for that area. North of the proposal. But just to remind the council, as you decide what we're going to put there, it is a 24/7 operation just on the other side of Coulter. And to remind the council that there is some noise that's generated from there. Is a hotel the best solution for that? That's all ! have. Sacchet: Especially when you bang the trucks, right. Alright, is there anybody else? Please come forward. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Brad Bohlman: Hi, my name is Brad Bohlman, 1938 Andrew Court. I have some questions, not necessarily of the commission but possibly of the potential user of the site. ! guess my initial question is what type of an athletic club, how would you characterize it? Would you characterize it as a Bally's? Would you characterize it as a Flagship? How would you look at it? Sacchet: Why don't you tell us all your story and then if you want to come back up, you certainly can do so. Brad Bohlman: Essentially also is there going to be any ingress or egress off of Coulter into the site? Aanenson: Yes. Brad Bohlman: There is? Sacchet: Yes, there is a connector. Aanenson: This street here .... if you're down on Andrew Court, you're right here. Brad Bohlman: Correct. Aanenson: Okay. So this street, there will be a street, Stone Creek comes onto Coulter. It will be offset. This street would be offset and then this street would come through.., so this street would come through. Sacchet: Instead of the other one. Aanenson: Yes. Brad Bohlman: And that goes into the site itself?. Aanenson: No, that's what we were just talking about. All has to do with the interior of this road. Brad Bohlman: So essentially the health club is set back so there's parking that would abut Coulter? Aanenson: That's correct. Brad Bohlman: Okay. Okay, and then ! guess another question would be, is there going to be any type of landscaping or screening off of Coulter to separate the parking area. Sacchet: That is standard, isn't it Kate? Aanenson: Yes. And again this is concept. It doesn't have any... 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Brad Bohlman: Right, I understand it's a concept... Aanenson: ... complete landscaping plan will be another public hearing on those. Brad Bohlman: And I guess kind of piggy back in what Rich was saying, it seems like there might be a fair amount of density here based upon the amount of acreage that they're planning, at least in my opinion. That would just be something, and then just relative to proof of parking versus the density level also. Those are my questions. ! don't know how you want to address them but those are just questions that ! have. Sacchet: In terms that we have berming requirements for the city in terms of shielding parking areas, in terms of density and parking requirements, we have standard formulas that apply to that. We're not to that level of detail with this project obviously but those would all come into play when this project gets further refined. Brad Bohlman: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that? Aanenson: ! was going to say that they do have an iteration of the internal if you wanted just for them to take a minute to go through kind of what they were thinking. That might Sacchet: Yeah, ! would invite you to come back up if you want to address a little more of the detail in terms of what type of flavor health club you're actually envisioning. Jim Lasher: Commissioners, this is a very schematic layout just to get to our total square foot uses of what the type of things would be within the club, but if ! had to characterize this club ! would say certainly it's at the Lifetime, Northwest, possibly not to the level of finishes of a Flagship but it's certainly within that general concept of what we're trying to provide here. The uses are very similar in terms of indoor aerobic spaces, tennis courts, swimming pool, the general health club type layout requirements. ! think conceptually what they're trying to do here within this new concept is to bring more of a holistic idea to a health club use and so we'll be developing that concept further as we move through this idea, but this does give you a general sense of the type of layout of the club, and it is very similar in terms of what you normally would expect in a health club setting. Sacchet: Do you want to just walk through this a little bit? Jim Lasher: Yes, I suppose we could. I'd ask someone else to take you through that. Sacchet: ! mean it doesn't have to be very detailed since we're looking at high level concept, but personally ! have some curiosity. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Adrian Haid: My name is Adrian Haid, a resident of Eden Prairie. Okay, it's facing north, or Highway 5 or west of here. West of town. The club will have basically a fairly large lobby with several waterfalls, and daycare center. And several aerobic studios. As you're looking at two indoor swimming pools basically for lap swimming and other activities, family activities, indoor pool. And we've got 4 basically racquetball is in right here. And we're looking at producing a group of... residents always left out of these kind of activities is basically the ages 6 and 14. They cannot go to their daycare. Mom wants to go work out. They don't know where to go. So Advance Fitness would be the first club in the United States to implement an area for youth. Children of 6 to 14. So that is a department that's in there, and also a 12 hoop basketball court. In addition to that we have the second floor of 32,000 square foot of workout that overlooks the lobby, and with all glass looking outside. Therefore the Advance Fitness is not a Bally's. It is not Northwest Athletic Club and it is not Flagship. By far better. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Richard Bjork: Could have said it better myself. Sacchet: Alright. If you want to move on, do you want to add anything else? Richard Bjork: ! believe that's it, thank you. Sacchet: Okay, the public hearing is still open. Anybody else wants to address this. Is there any more comments you want to share with us? If not, ! will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Comments. Discussion. Want to start Rich? Slagle: ! can start. I'd like to thank the applicant because this is something that is definitely needed in the city of Chanhassen and surrounding area. So ! don't need to say much other than ! think it really is exciting. ! hope we work on the thought that this is sort of a community entity, not to mention that it is privately owned but he's open to the community. The one thing ! do want to add, and ! hope the applicant hears this, is in respect to the neighbors comment to the south. ! can speak, and it's been a few years for some of you to hear this story but we lived in Woodbury across the street from an open lot, which was rezoned and a health club, very large one, 24 hour health club went in, and had lots of lights and was open, lots of glass. And ! will say this, that that particular company was very open to working with the neighbors to the south where they actually helped purchase evergreens, increase the berming from the city's minimum heights and became really a partner with the neighbors to the south. So ! just ask you guys to work. Adrian Haid: ! can answer that question. You're talking about Woodbury, I'm assume you talk about Lifetime. If you look at the end of the building on Lifetime is about maybe 15 feet to the next house. But if you're looking at this house...right there, from this edge of this building to the next residence down here is far. Approximately, ! don't know exactly so if you're looking at that comparison of Lifetime in Woodbury, that is basically the distance to you and I. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Slagle: Well I think you're probably referring to the homes that were to the east. We were across the street which would be 200-300 feet, and all I'm saying is, is when the night time came, the glare of that particular company was quite bright. But not to say that that's not good or bad. It's just that ! think if anything you can do with the neighbors would be appreciated. Adrian Haid: Absolutely. We plan on putting an absolute landscaping in the trees, high bushes. That actually makes it very private. You won't even be able to see it from the south or either direction. Therefore we provide all the amenities to protect. Slagle: And I'll remind you that you used the word private. Adrian Haid: Alright. Papke: The applicant is looking for feedback concerning a possible partnership with the schools. Having been a customer of the Lifetime Fitness in Plymouth, shared with the Wayzata school system, it was always been my dream that Chanhassen could build something like that so ! would be extremely supportive of such a venture and ! would very encourage it because there's a severe shortage of practice space for the high school swimming team here. However, ! have one caveat on that, and this is more a heads up for staff. It was my experience that the diving facility, due to insurance reasons, was not made available to Plymouth to the residents or the users of Lifetime Fitness. So as we go through this, ! suggest that we look very carefully at what is being permitted to the city residents versus what is being allowed when the school is using the facility and so on because ! was disappointed as a customer that my daughter, who is on the Chaska High School diving team could not practice diving at that facility so ! just raise that as an issue. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points. Lillehaug: Can ! ask the applicant one more question? Sacchet: Certainly. Lillehaug: ! don't think they've commented on it but staff has indicated that they would prefer to see only one restaurant. Do you have a comment on that being you are showing two? Jim Lasher: At this point in time we would prefer to try to move forward with as much flexibility that this body could give us, and if that did include two restaurants, we would come back at that point in time with a more detailed site plan and let you.., at that time. However, we would also agree that if you pushed those two together, we could in essence construct two restaurants in one single building and ! think that's certainly a reasonable solution given what you did here with Chipotle and Wild Wings so that's a reasonable solution as well but we would like to continue looking and exploring the option of two restaurants. Thank you. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Thank you. Tjornhom: I guess I can throw my two cents in. I also actually think that it's badly needed in Chanhassen. A decent place to go work out. The water park concerns me a little bit only for the neighbors and the noise, and maybe they're too far away so it wouldn't be a problem. I don't know but I just would like someone to think about that, that at 8:00 at night maybe neighbors don't want to hear kids screaming down a slide or something. So just to take that into consideration when you are making your plans. Jim Lasher: We would propose to do a noise study if indeed that was part of the overall plan and engage someone to actually do a detailed analysis about the level of noise generated and how far it would travel. And if we did come up with a plan, that an outdoor park did make sense, we would provide some level of assurances through scientific analysis that the noise wasn't going to impact the neighbors. If it did, we would move on and do something else. Sacchet: Well I have a few comments too. First of all I think it's a great project. Really think we all welcome this type of thing to our city. ! made some notes about some of the specific things that came up in our discussion. ! think it's an excellent idea, this idea with working with school district for the water park or pool. And study the noise, if it's the water park outside. Maybe there could be some noise barriers in terms of berms, evergreens, what have you, in a nice way. ! do believe that direct access to what's currently the bank building from the road, ! agree with the comment that Commissioner Lillehaug made. ! think it's a bad idea. May as well throw that out from the beginning rather than invest planning and then find out that it's not a good idea. Sidewalks ! think are an essential thing. Really because it's connecting the trails. It's close to schools. Close to the park across Highway 5 so ! think sidewalks pretty much across the whole thing are important. ! would want to be very clear about the importance of preserving whatever trees there are in the creek area. It's an amenity to what you're building so ! think it's as much in your interest as in the city's interest to preserve that. Be careful about that. The path, to find out where it goes. It's best to cross the creek and all that. ! mean that's comes when we get in further detail. Some flexibility with the road alignment. ! think that's common sense. ! don't see an issue with that. Really the sticky issue is this thing with the restaurants and the bank. And personally ! think, ! don't think it's within the city's purview, certainly not my purview to try to dictate what should go in there. Whether it's one bank and one restaurant or two restaurants and no bank, or a combined building with two restaurants and another bank. ! mean we have tons of bank in this city but apparently there are more that want to come in. Restaurants, ! think it's a good idea. ! like to go eating out once in a while. Have some variety. And ! would say that's going to be governed by the market forces. ! mean if it's appropriate for business sense and that's for you as the developer and ultimately the people that run those businesses to decide. Not for us here. So ! would like to suggest that we just hold you to the 25 percent. And maybe with the guidance ! could see well, maybe two restaurants and no bank could be more desirable. Or one restaurant and one bank, than necessarily the two restaurants and one bank, but if it fits within the 25 percent ! think you'd be 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 fulfilling the requirement that we're trying to live by. That's my comments. Any additional ones? Slagle: I just had one last one, and that was, you touched upon the restaurants. Again just giving some guidance. ! don't know if ! would be supportive at all of seeing a drive thru. Sacchet: Yeah, good point. There is a, you'd encounter some resistance with drive thru. Lillehaug: Can I reiterate my questions and put them into comments then? Sacchet: Please. Lillehaug: As you know, you can see I'm concerned with access. Not concerned but my attention is to access so on trunk highway 5 ! would like to see, like you have proposed, a single access inbetween Galpin and Audubon. A fully developed right turn lane and match that concrete pavement on that new trunk highway 5 out there. And one access off of Coulter, like staff indicated. The drawing showing two but one access off Coulter and then all, ! think everything else is. Sacchet: Oh, you're referring to the access to water park area? Lillehaug: Right. Staff indicated, and I agree that we should only have one access off of Coulter, and ! think that's probably amenable to this. Other than that it should be good to work with the adjacent land owner to get that intersection lined up so thank you. Sacchet: Now we don't usually take comments at this stage but since this is conceptual PUD, discussion is very important so if you apparently want to add something more, go ahead. Jim Lasher: I just want to let the group know that we're prepared to live with those recommendations and believe we can move a plan forward based on these recommendations. Sacchet: Excellent. Thank you very much. Well, ! believe we made our comments. Somebody want to make a motion, which should say recommend approval. Not approve, right? Aanenson: Recommend approval, that's correct. Just for anyone struggling with the motion, we have a pretty good listing of those comments so if you wanted to just say. Sacchet: As discussed. Aanenson: Yeah, as discussed. It would be hard to frame all those but ! think we've been writing those down and certainly... 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: That will be an easy way to do it. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions 1 through 12. And ! would like to modify number 4. That the easterly access would not be allowed. And then add to 5 that no direct access and I'll just paraphrasing here but just one access off of Coulter, so it'd be deleting the accesses as shown on the layout. And ! think that is all ! have. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Aanenson: Did you want to add with comments on, ! don't know if that was mentioned or not. With comments as discussed. Lillehaug: Sure. Sacchet: With comments as discussed? Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Any of the comments that are burning enough that we want to mention them specifically? Not from your end. Yeah, in point one it says bank and we definitely want to say maximum of one bank. ! mean probably be more than enough... Lillehaug: Do we want to modify the one free standing restaurant or? Sacchet: Yeah, well ! think we should do something about that. My recommendation with that we would say 25 percent maximum as allowed within that district for the retail oriented business. Lillehaug: And not fast food as it indicates. Sacchet: Not fast food, and that we wouldn't necessarily hold it to one restaurant. That we would leave that maximum of two restaurants and one bank. Or two out of the three. ! mean we have some options there. How specific do we need to be? Personally ! would think the market forces dictate that more than our. Aanenson: Can ! just frame what ! heard you say is you're comfortable with the 25 percent. Sacchet: Right. Aanenson: Not necessarily fast food. Drive thru. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Slagle: I think it was clear. Sacchet: Pretty much definitely not. Aanenson: So again, so if they stay within that 25 percent, the menu's a little bit bigger but footprint, architectural, all those things come into play so, so you're comfortable with it. What we had talked about early on. Sacchet: So we would replace the two last bullets with 25 percent of retail oriented? Basically that could include restaurant and/or bank. Lillehaug: I think that sounds pretty good. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept PUD with the following conditions: Permitted Uses in the IOP: · Offices · Warehouses · Light Manufacturing · Health Services · Printers · Indoor Health & Recreation Clubs with snack food service · Recording Studios · Conference/Convention Center · Antennas · Parking Lots & Ramps · Signs · Day Care Center · Outdoor Health & Recreation Clubs · Research Laboratories · Hotels & Motels · Food Processing · 25 percent of site can be retail oriented but no fast food with drive thru The two proposed streets shall both be public. This will require 60 feet of dedicated right-of-way for each street. In addition, the east/west street will require a cul-de-sac turn around per City Detail Plate #5205. The connection of the north/south street to Highway 5 will require MnDot approval. Sanitary sewer and water is available to the site from Coulter Boulevard to the south. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 4. The easterly access to the proposed office and bank building will not be allowed. No direct access from any of the proposed lots to Coulter Boulevard will be allowed. The applicant will be required to provide storm water NURP ponding within the development which meets the current City SWMP requirements. The plan should accommodate storm water ponding (regional ponding where possible) sufficient to treat the water from all future impervious surfaces on the 21.7 acres to NURP standards. Staff recommends development of a landscape plan that incorporates native plants adjacent to the tributary of Bluff Creek along the western property boundary. Surface water management connection charges are presently $13,200 per acre for commercial development. These are due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 10. Prior approval from the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District is required for grading and erosion & sediment control. 11. The applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I! Construction Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 12. An erosion and sediment control plan is required. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN), 3 OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN), AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE, ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6 ACRES IN CHANHASSEN), LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL, THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS, SETTLERS WEST, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-05. Public Present: 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 N~me Address Dan & Val Tester Eldon Beckland Allan Klugman Justin Larson Dan Herbst Marty & Jerry Clark 230 Flying Cloud Drive 10 Pioneer Trail Westwood Sathre-Berquist Pemtom 18956 Dorenkemper Place, Eden Prairie Matt Saam and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: You ready for questions Kate? Aanenson: I'm sorry, yes. Sacchet: Alright, questions from staff. Who wants to start? Lillehaug: ! guess ! can if you don't want to. Anyone else? Sacchet: Grab it Steve. Lillehaug: Well, this is a big project. I'm going to start with some real easy ones at first here. Snowplowing with Eden Prairie. Does the city have a good plan to work that out? Saam: We have a plan in progress. We met again with the city on Monday of this week. As referenced in the staff report we're working on a joint powers agreement and basically the snowplowing is going to begin. This is the city border right here. Basically what we're looking at is our snowplowing will begin at this intersection, so we'll do a little of Eden Prairie and go down from there. Lillehaug: Easy enough. How about ownership of the outlots? And ! can ask that to the applicant if you don't know. Saam: Yeah, unless Kate knows, I have no information on that. Lillehaug: I'll ask that to the applicant. Let's talk about some roadway geometrics. Number one would be the alignment, a couple tight radiuses in there. There's 150 foot south of that pond. 150 foot radius and ! don't have it open but it's south of. Saam: ! know where you're talking. Lillehaug: It's south of Pond 2. I believe it's... Saam: Right here? 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: Pretty tight radius. Do we really, does the city, is their standard 180 foot minimum radius or is it 300 feet? Saam: No, our's is 180. Eden Prairie's is 300 and ! think that's referenced in the staff report in the appendices. Lillehaug: ! guess ! didn't realize Chanhassen's was so low. Do we have sight issue problems with that tight of a radius? Specifically right around Lot 18. You know we have a couple things working against us. A tight radius, narrower road. Maybe some steeper grades in there, ! don't know for sure but. Saam: Yes we do, and that is mentioned as a condition. We do have an issue with the 150 foot radius. We'd like the applicant to meet our 180 foot radius. Again as you said, especially on this site where we've allowed the houses to come closer to the street. Sight distances are only that much more important, so we feel, I mean we're 30 feet off here. When you compare it to the Eden Prairie requirement, they're 300. I think we can, they should be able to meet the 180. Lillehaug: We're okay with 50 foot right-of-way, 28 foot roadway? I think we beat that to death previously. Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Bluff delineation along the, behind Lots 29 through 37, which would be northwest side. West side. Is it delineated all the way down? Saam: I believe it is. Maybe that's a question for the applicant's engineer I believe. Lillehaug: Because they have grading right up, if it is, you know ! didn't see it specifically noted out that it is a bluff line, because if it is, then they have grading right up to the bluff. Saam: I think that is mentioned in the staff report under Lori's comments. Our Water Resource Coordinator about grading. Lillehaug: I don't think in that area. It identified a different area. Saam: Okay, maybe I'm incorrect. Lillehaug: You know it's a long report and ! don't have it memorized but ! guess we, ! think we probably need to confirm if that's a bluff or not and if it is, and they have grading proposed right up to the bluff and if it needs to stay, is it 20 feet away from the bluff or is it 30 feet? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: I'm pretty confident this was an issue that was gone back and forth and I'm pretty confident that it's been addressed. I'll let them speak to it specifically but I know Lori and Bob did spend a lot more time going back and looking at the bluff line. That was a question that was raised last time. Again I'm on page 6 of Lori's comments. I believe those are Lori' s. Erosion sediment control. Lillehaug: Page 6 ofLori's comments? Aanenson: Yeah. Lillehaug: The report's page 6? Aanenson: Yep. Lillehaug: That's 12 through 39. I guess where am I supposed to be looking? Aanenson: I'm like the third page, I don't see where it's stated that it's...because that was one of the things we worked to resolve, where the bluff impact zones. If you go to the top of page, the lots abutting the bluff impact zone. 12 through 39. And 46. It should be graded to drain away from the bluff and the bluff impact zone. The top of page 6. Lillehaug: ! must be in the wrong page 6. Aanenson: Very beginning of the staff report. Anybody else tracking with me on that? Lillehaug: Page 6? Aanenson: Yeah, top paragraph. That's where she addresses that. Sacchet: 12 through 39 and 46. Aanenson: Right, so she addresses that right there that they be graded to drain away, so we'll look at that and then bring the elevation, the footprint, that it positive drain towards the street. Lillehaug: But I'm raising a different issue here. I mean the other stance in the staff report is you can't have any grading within, it's either 20 or 30 feet of that bluff zone, but on this area between 29 and 37, if that bluff is delineated right at the back property line. Aanenson: Right, so that's in the next paragraph I believe. Saam: Yes. Commissioner Lillehaug, on condition number 7, which would be page 12. It begins, bluff areas must be preserved and then halfway down, plans should be revised to eliminate grading within the bluff impact zone on Lots 39 through 45. And now ! realize that's a different area than what you were concerned with. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: Yeah, that's a different area. Aanenson: Yeah, but the second paragraph does, you can't be grading within the 20 foot maintenance, yeah. Lillehaug: And that's easy, see this is my point though. From 39 to 40, whatever, it's easy to do it because they're about there. But on these other lots, I mean it would, I don't know how they'd get it to work. I mean, and maybe I hold off and ask the applicant on that. Sacchet: Yeah, if there's a conflict, we were expecting...and how can they accomplish that if you don't let them. Lillehaug: And that's just it. I mean we're not pointing that, I didn't see where the staff report specifically said they, you know in the other areas it says you have to stay 20, ! think it's 20 feet away from it. But here they didn't call this out. They have to stay 20 feet away from it. Aanenson: Well, you read condition 7. If you want to modify 7 to include those other lots, that would be the place to do it. Condition number 7. Lillehaug: You guys want to modify it? Aanenson: Well ! thought it had been addressed so. Lillehaug: Well I just, everywhere else they're staying 20 feet away. I'm going to move on. Aanenson: And those lots were identified as bluff on the chart. On page 10... Lillehaug: ! mean they clearly can't stay out of that bluff impact. There' s a blanket condition in here that says they need to stay out of, all grading needs to stay out of bluff impact zone, which is 20 feet from that bluff line. Aanenson: Yeah, so if you look at like Lot 35. 34-35, and they say bluff and storm also that goes back to Uli's point, there's a conflict of contradiction to try to do that storm access through the bluff. Saam: Yeah, we are going to need access down where the storm sewer pipe is going. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: Let me go on. This is a real detail thing, but condition number 18. Street cleaning, erosion control during the building time frame. Driving through Vasserman's Ridge over the winter and up until now, there's very poor erosion control so how does 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 this, how is this enforced throughout the, not the site development but the building of the homes? Is this still enforced through that whole duration? Aanenson: Yes. Saam: Yeah, during building of the homes it's through the building inspectors for the most part. During site development, it falls within the engineering inspectors on my site. Lillehaug: Alright. And now my last question, but it's a long one. Access once again and it would be off of Pioneer. ! want to comment on a few things because that will, because ! want staff and the applicant to comment on it ! guess. This is a, it's a poor, very poor location for an access point. And ! want to kind of state reasons why and they're not all specific in this report so ! want to make a record of them. Number one, there's no right turn lane going eastbound into the development. The way it looks here, three 12 foot lanes, it takes up 36 feet. It's basically eliminating the shoulders. State aid requirements, they need an 8 foot shoulder. Obvious reasons, for safety. For a shared bike lane. The left turn lane going into to the site or development, it's only 160 feet. That is, that's too short. It needs to be maximized as much as possible going back to the east. The tapers on both sides, when you're. Sacchet: Are you coming to the question? We're still in questions Steve. Lillehaug: Yes ! am. That's why ! said, ! need to make some comments on this so they can comment on every point I'm making here. Sacchet: Keep going. Aanenson: If ! can just elaborate. You can put that on the record, that's fine but we do not have the jurisdiction on that. So if you want to put it on the record that's fine, but we don't have the ability to comment since Hennepin County has the jurisdiction on that. So we cannot over ride their comments so if you want to put it on the record, that's fine. Lillehaug: Well you know, ! can whip out the comp plan here and everyone can say they don't have jurisdiction but part of the city's access management, it goes to every level of government and it starts at the city, no matter if it's a city road, county road, trunk highway, MnDot road, it starts at the city even if they don't have jurisdiction. Aanenson: Right, no I'm not disagreeing. Sacchet: We do have a responsibility because we're looking at the whole project...but keep going please. Lillehaug: I'll make it quicker. These tapers on each end, you've got 50 miles an hour traffic there. They need to be 1 to 50 tapers instead of a 1 to 30 taper and a 150 taper. What I'm getting at here is this is a very poor location for an access. ! talked to both the county and the city. The county's initial position on this was that this is being shoe 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 horned in here. Their initial indication was if they were going to take a hard line and not allow it until Eden Prairie contacted them and said this is where the intersection is going to be. So we're having to allow intersection there because this is where Eden Prairie wants it. Well this is where Chanhassen residents are going to be accessing to get out of Chanhassen's development and ! think it's very poor. It was poor planning on the Settlers Ridge Development because Eden Prairie did say they always anticipated two accesses coming out of their development, which is a good practice. And my main point is here, is we're shoe horning something in on this access point, on a county road. It's an arterial road. The ADT is about 16,000 vehicles right now and it's going to increase more than that. So we're degrading this, we're degrading the system by putting this access right here. So ! think we need to pay a lot more attention to this intersection here, so ! guess ! would like city staff and the applicant to comment on this, on all the points that ! raised here. So yeah, that wasn't a question. Sacchet: ...Kate to what you already said. Aanenson: If that's a reason for him to say to deny the subdivision, then I would say that's within your jurisdiction. You know again it's, we didn't have the approval authority on that location so you have the authority to say you don't like the subdivision SO. Sacchet: Matt, you want to add to that? Saam: Yeah Mr. Chair, I will just add. I personally called the engineer on this to see, they had a meeting with Hennepin County as ! understand to see what they came up with in terms of a right turn lane and it's because, as ! said in my opening comments, because of this bridge abutment. We just, they just can't go any wider to get a right turn lane in. Sacchet: Without widening the bridge. Saam: Correct. Correct, without widening the bridge. Lillehaug: So we get rid of the right turn lane but there's about 6 other design elements there that they can improve on and maybe they were planning on it. Saam: The 90 degree angle and intersection, and ! believe that will happen. The shoulders, correct. ! think all those issues can be addressed. However if the access would sit here, ! don't see a right turn lane going in. At least not in the near future. Something ! do want to mention, and it was in the Hennepin county letter, Pioneer Trail is planned for an upgrade in their 5 year CIP so ! would believe within 5 years if this becomes 4 lanes, this bridge is going to be widened, and at that time we get a right turn lane. My point is, this would be a temporary situation. Not the best but a temporary one. So, and the other thing you have to look at is, do we have another location? That's mentioned in the Hennepin County letter. There really isn't any other location unless we're going to deny total access. Route everybody through the existing one and now 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 start to make this intersection degrade in efficiency so it's really a tough intersection. Tough call. Sacchet: Yeah, a reasonable alternative does not exist for access to this development, that's the wording from the letter of Hennepin County Transport. And ! guess it makes it a tough situation. Thanks. Lillehaug: I'm done. Sacchet: Thank you. Alright, ! would think maybe there'd be more questions. Papke: Yeah, ! have one. Matt, could you explain the drainage down to the Hennepin County trail. ! understand there's two drain points with rip rap basins. Can you explain where the water's coming from and how much water you expect to be flowing down towards the trail. Saam: Yes. I'm sorry, that's one other change that ! should have mentioned in my opening but on the previous plans, if you remember, they showed the 2,000 foot long storm sewer going down the bluff towards a tributary of the Minnesota River. Well they have now revised that. The storm sewer still does go down the bluff, but then right here it dumps into a rip rap basin which is in the Hennepin County Regional Trailway corridor. Then there's the pipe from that rip rap basin which outlets it actually to the north where it does get a little lower ! believe. Unless that's coming back there too. But anyway, the drainage all does go down to this spot. Outlets into a rip rap basin and what drainage we're talking about is from this large pond here within the site where all of the site drainage that's captured by storm sewer goes through it. Gets treated. Then it's outletted through this storm sewer into the rip rap basin. Papke: Isn't there a second one to the southeast? You know my Sheet 3 of 14 shows a second rip rap to the southeast. Saam: Which page do you have? Papke: Page 3 of 14. Sheet 3 of 14. It looks like it drains Wetland C. Or southwest, I'm sorry. Southwest, ! apologize. Saam: Right here? Papke: Yes. Saam: Okay, yeah. That's the outlet for, as you said, Wetland C. Papke: Okay. Do we have any estimates of how much water we're going to be dumping down in that trail area? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Saam: Yes. I can pull that information for you. I don't have it off the top of my head but we have their drainage calc' s. ! have them with us so ! can get that for you. Papke: ! have a real concern about this. There's a real issue in this area with drainage that takes out this part of the trail when, already with no additional water being dumped down there. ! mean this area erodes. The Hennepin County has to come through every year and dump some more limestone in there and re-grade it and ! just have a very serious concern about how much additional water we're going to add in there and what's that going to do to the usability of that trail. Saam: I'll mention two things. This development, as with every development is required to meet their existing runoff rates for storm water leaving the site. That's basically what the ponds are for to slow down the water. Papke: Yes. Yes. Saam: So they can't increase the flow going off their site. That's one. Second one is, there was a letter from the Hennepin County Railway Corridor in your packet in which ! believe they expressed appreciation for this developer doing things to minimize the storm water going into the trail corridor. Papke: But ! wonder if they really understood how much water is being dumped in there. ! mean because like ! say, they're having to redo this every year with the existing water that's flowing in there. You know there's nowhere for the water to go. There's a drainage ditch on either side of the trail and that turns into a river when the snow thaws in the spring and ! just. Saam: I can find the amount of water for you, and maybe the applicant can add something when he gets up here. He's done the design obviously on it and knows it a little more intimately. Papke: Okay, good. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other questions? Slagle: ! just have one. Nice job by the way Matt. You found a new calling. You know it's been brought up about the intersection, and ! realize that there's not much specifically tonight that we can address on that but ! mean from your professional opinion, more to Matt, ! mean is that, and ! don't want to use the word dangerous but is that a, what are we seeing there? Are we going to see for 5 years in the interim people literally having to peel out to avoid traffic? Are we going to have people who are going westbound to take a left to go in there with, if Commissioner Lillehaug's correct, that there's not much of a shoulder. ! mean are cars going to be 4 inches away as they pass on the right, even though maybe they're not supposed to or. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Saam: ! guess I'll take the left turn one first. The lane widths do meet requirements. Commissioner Lillehaug is right about the shoulders and ! think that's something the developer can do and ! would expect the County to want that to happen. As far as the right turn into the site, of course it would be better to have one. But ! think as, if this does go in and as people learn about the access and the inadequacies coming from the west as you're going east, maybe they'll go the other 500 feet down to the existing intersection and turn in there where there is a right turn lane into the site. Remember that's the only movement that's really of concern at this intersection, at least in my opinion is the right turn in because it doesn't have the turn lane. Slagle: Although one could argue going, if you're exiting this entrance to go westbound, given again 50 miles an hour, here's what I'm getting at. As ! was thinking about the number of things that we've seen before us, at least in my 3 years, ! can't recall too many, if any, that we've had a development on what I'll call one of the busiest streets or roadways that we have in Chanhassen. Aanenson: Well ! can speak, because for example the Longacres one comes out onto 41 and that's people, there's not a break right in that street either and that's a 50, and you see people there making judgments on how fast and some of them are coming out of Westwood so that was an issue too for people is speed. You're right, it's a different, your first choice is not to come on a collector road and limit those access points because people are going faster. But we do have some that are on. Slagle: And I guess I'll finish my question but if really I think is, I mean you've just sort of added some leverage to my point because we live in Longacres. ! can't tell you the number of times where my wife and ! pull up to 41 and Longacres and she's like okay, I'm watching the right. You know after the blue car it's safe. And so what I'm just trying to ask as far as planning goes, if this is the interim solution so be it but are there other traffic considerations that we should be giving this, meaning, ! mean is there, should the city be pushing for ! don't know, a stop light. Should be pushing for signage. Should it be pushing for, ! don't know. Saam: A stop light wouldn't be warranted at that intersection. Keep in mind there will be a stop light installed further to the west at Highway 101 and Pioneer Trail next year which, as ! said the last time this was here, will provide some break in traffic hopefully. But a signal definitely wouldn't be warranted at this intersection. And as far as signage goes, will just be stop control. I don't really think there's any other thing in the way of signage that ! could think of right now. Slagle: Okay last question then, and ! think the first time you were before us, or the applicant was before us, there was, they talked about people wandering over to use the Eden Prairie access and ! think if I'm not mistaken we had some residents here from Eden Prairie voicing concern that people would indeed cut over. ! mean at some point people are going to make their own call as to which entrance or exit you use. If ! hear you right, are we, are both developments able to use either entrance or exit freely? Is that the way you see it? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: They're public streets, correct. Slagle: Okay, that's all. Sacchet: Any other questions? Bethany. Tjornhom: Maybe I'm behind in the times, ! don't know when I'm listening to everything that I've written down has all been covered it sounds like, but whatever happened to the lot size problems with Lots 21 and 24? Were they resolved? Aanenson: Is that a condition that they be modified? Tjornhom: I don't know the condition, it was in the report. Aanenson: Yeah, ! think that was, when Bob looked at that, there was a way just to shift some of those lots. So when they revise this, because there's still conditions that they still have to go through, that would have to be changed to meet that. Okay, so we still check all those if it's reported, but he felt that there was enough room and... Tjornhom: I guess that's it. Sacchet: You have questions Kurt? Papke: We're going to beat this entrance egress to death here. Matt, how, from an analysis perspective, how do the sight lines from the new entrance compare to the existing Settlers Ridge entrance, and ! ask that because ! drive this every morning and you know, ! can't count how many times I've come close to hitting somebody coming out of the existing one. Saam: Yeah, and I'm just looking at. Papke: In terms of elevations and so on. Saam: Yep. The existing Settlers Ridge drive accesses almost at the top of a curve, or at the top of a hill. Almost. It's just on the down side of it so it's best if it's at the top of the hill. You can see plainly in both directions. The driveway, or the new proposed access is farther down the other side of the hill so in one respect you can see a farther distance because it's farther away from the top of the hill, if you follow that. You can see to the top of the hill. In the other direction going west, you can see a long distance. But how they compare, that's a tough one. Papke: My concern is, most of the concerns so far have been raised about the issues with, if I'm trying to pull out onto Pioneer Trail, okay. I'm looking at it from the other perspective, that if I'm a commuter, what's the likelihood that ! can see somebody who's getting ready to pull out or has pulled out and can ! hit my brakes in time? 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Saam; Definitely, and I think that's something, it's been pointed out in the Hennepin County letter, that's something that is addressed. The sight lines are good to the west. If you're coming from the west and you're afraid somebody's going to pull out in front of you, you should be able to see them adequately. Papke: Alright. Sacchet: Actually I have some questions too. Page 4 talks about bluff management plan that would have quite a few components. The stability of the bluff. The clean-up of the discarded materials, which there seems to be an amazing collection there. Clean-up of the bluff areas. Restoration plan or reforest of severely eroded areas. That would be a requirement that the applicant would have to bring forward when it goes to council? Aanenson: Or before we sign...they bring back the plan. Sacchet: When we look at the detail? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. And that would have to be implemented at the same time as the development, is that standard? Aanenson: Yeah, and typically that's, as we have...those would be modified before it gets recorded and then we always have a pre-construction meeting too so that's part of that, to what, how they were tree fencing. There's always a walk too before grading is commenced and so that's part of that pre-con meeting. Sacchet: Now there is this issue with staff on page 5 of the staff report up there and it talks about grading. The statement that staff would encourage the developer to continue to work on minimizing the amount of grading in the rear yards of Lots 19 through 22. Then in addition we have a width, lot width, width issue with Lot 21 and 24. And staff report goes on, the applicant should be aware that the proposed retaining wall at the end of Settlers Court will not be allowed within the said right-of-way. So there's not really an issue there. And then looking further in somewhere else it actually makes a point that well maybe Settlers Court is not such a good idea. And I'd like to know if there have been discussions with the applicant about dropping Settlers Court, considering all the issues surrounding it which this ! think is even more than ! just mentioned right now. Saam: ! myself have not spoken with. Sacchet: Yeah, I'll ask that to the applicant. We can discuss that point a little further. Then the other issue that's in here is the radius of the road, which is less than 180 feet. They're around what 18. I'm thinking the documentation from the applicant it reads 150 I believe. By making that radius 180, do we know whether this still could have the same amount of lots? What kind of impact that would have? Has that been looked at? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Saam: ! haven't looked at it in that much detail. In my mind that's something the applicant should look into, but that is a possibility that they may, one solution would be to lose a lot. Sacchet: Yeah, so that, it is very conceivable that straightening out, if we insist on that straightening out to 180, that it could mean less lots. Okay. Then on the bottom of page 8, staff report says the wooded area provides excellent protection to the surrounding bluff and contains a large number of healthy and significant trees that should be preserved. Staff recommends that these trees be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Now you made in the opening comments, statement a comment that the grading was improved over the last time. The trees have improved a little, not very much. So ! would think that area there's a lot of room of improvement. You're not aware of that having been further investigated? And I'll just ask the applicant, but if you have something to add. Saam: I don't have anything to add. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: Can I comment on that? Sacchet: Yes please. Aanenson: Just because again going back to the original discussion, whether to do a PUD and go with the smaller lots based on the home size and respective, we thought would be a problem. They're within the canopy required removal area so could lots be diminished by the fact that we need a larger radius? Possibly but because they meet the canopy requirements. Sacchet: Yeah, we can't directly address it... Aanenson: Right, and certainly we're looking at that when we do the pre-con. When we walk the site and trying to save certain trees on lots and where they are in proximity to house pads, we'll look at that closely, but certainly... Sacchet: Yeah, ! mean we're not there yet. ! mean right now we're looking at this. Aanenson: Right, and that's something at a staff level, correct. Sacchet: ...plan amendment, ! mean that's where I'm coming from. And then this is more a technical question. In the conditions, condition 6 through 16 specifically there are probably about 20 occurrences of the word should, which really doesn't mean anything. ! mean if they should do something, they may not do it. So ! assume they should say shall and not should, alright. Aanenson: . . .yes. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: And then with specific question, condition 17, that's part of condition 16, right? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions ! believe. Check one more time, yes. That's it. Thank you very much. Is that it for questions? Lillehaug: ! have one more quick one. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: When we met last time, ! think we made it clear that we wanted you guys to discuss that access with the county. Or ! know at least ! did anyways, or ask you guys to. Did you guys, did staff make any specific, and the reason ! ask because Eden Prairie sat down and discussed this with the county, and kind of steered the county in one direction. Did Chanhassen do the same thing to get our two cents into it? Did our staff sit down with them or call them up or? Saam: Yeah, we attempted to contact them by phone and were unsuccessful. As ! said, we did contact the applicant's engineer who also had sat down with them. We also spoke with city of Eden Prairie who sat down with Hennepin County. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Good job filling in for Bob. Appreciate it. With that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward. See what you can present to us. Maybe you can address some of the issues we already touched on and we might have some questions for you as well. You want to state your name and address for the record. Dan Herbst: Good evening. Sacchet: Welcome back. Dan Herbst: Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, professional staff. My name is Dan Herbst with Pemtom. ! have with me this evening Justin Larson from Sathre-Berquist. On his immediate left is Allan Klugman, very experienced traffic engineer from Westwood Professional Services that was involved in our design of the access with Settlers Ridge and also has some additional schematics and any questions you want to ask him. Allan sat through all the meetings with both cities and the county. On his left is Dan Cook, a partner of mine at Pemtom. You asked some excellent questions and we're here to hopefully resolve them all. Since our last meeting with you, ! think we've made some significant progress. We've actually moved from what is normally taken care of after preliminary plat, between then and preliminary plat as it relates to access issues of the county and wetlands and many other issues and addressed them at this point so ! think we're ahead of the curve and it's because of your prompting 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 that we did that. The access issue has been approved preliminary by the county. This was an existing access. Been there for years and years. It's been a haul road. It's really the only entrance to Pioneer Trail. It has great sight distance, much better than many accesses along Pioneer Trail, but it's not perfect. And we'll go over that with you but it has preliminary approval. In fact ! did not own this property when Settlers Ridge was developed and it was the city of Eden Prairie wanted this access prior to approving Settlers Ridge, but it was not possible, so this basically is a major improvement to Settlers Ridge and to this site. But again as you pointed out, you hit some key points. If you drive up and down Pioneer Trail or 41 or 5 where ! live across from the Arboretum they're far from good accesses and until we put the heat on the county and the state to get many of these things upgraded. You know Pioneer Trail was supposed to have been upgraded years and years ago, but it will work and it will be a good access and ! want you to address all your questions with Allan. So the access issue was one you wanted us to address early. We did that and ! think we've got some good results. The park trail access, it was very important for you that we access Pioneer Trail. We have done that. It was very important to you that we access the Hennepin County Trail. We have done that. It was very important to you that we access the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area, and we have done that so ! think we've made great strides. Our original plan was 64 lots, cut back to 62 and now we're at 58, and by doing so we're able to make our wetland equations work a lot better. We also took two lots out based on your suggestion to create a private park. As you know, ! had the authority under my covenants with Settlers Ridge to add this as another addition to Settlers Ridge to the common area mix, and ! elected not to do that so ! think your suggestion to put a private park there that will, and I'll show you a little schematic of that, but we're in two school districts which we cannot change. We're in two cities which we cannot change, so ! think the location of that, we'll put a little bus shelter there. We'll have a little totlot. A little gathering space. We'll put a trail through it and that was your suggestion. ! think it was an excellent one and I'll show you a little graphic of that coming out very well. The wetland issues we made great strides, and ! say normally this is done between preliminary plat and final plat but we have met with your wetland representative. We have met with the watershed district's, the city and we made substantial improvements there and ! think everything is resolved on the wetland issue. The grading issue has improved substantially and if you want to go into that in detail, Justin can cover that. We've got a cut and fill analysis. ! think you asked for that, a little cross section. If you want to go through that we can do that in detail. The tree issue as you know we talked about it. No one is more in favor of trees, ! mean they're a benefit more to a developer and to the homeowner and to the home builder than they are to anybody, and so they're very, very important to us and we're doing everything we can here but we are putting together a very sophisticated plan here with respect to storm drainage, and I'll show you a graphic of that. You know when we are placing along the entire ridge, every place there is even assemblance of a bluff, a storm sewer system in the rear of every single home on that bluff, that captures the storm water. That creates tree removal, so we've got runoff from the deal. We have it bermed, and a swale with catch basins so we're in a king of catch-22 there to create...both sides and this will solve that issue. But it's at the expense of losing some trees. Some of the issues ! want to cover with you is in the staff report, particularly like Lot 21. This particular lot, the staff report says you want it to have 90 foot of frontage on each street. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 And I think when you look at an overall plan you've got to look at it from the big picture. We've got 58 lots here. We've probably got 1 or 2 that do not meet your total requirements of the city, and I think that is very, very unique. That lot and the adjacent lot to it, the one 24 where the trail is, meet I think all the requirements and the intent of your ordinance but obviously there's not 90 feet on each of the street frontages but the building pad is very adequate there and it is a very functional lot. And Lot 24 is the same thing. You wanted a trail access there, so to put a trail there we have to keep off of the bluff so we move up the trail. We move up a retaining wall, and that puts that lot in a little bit of jeopardy as far as the setback. But it meets all of the building requirements of a good lot and it meets the intent of your ordinance. So I want you to consider those Lots 21 and 24 as meeting the intent of your ordinance, but we're achieving some other purposes here, especially on 24 with the trail and the retaining wall. We can move that retaining wall so it's out of the right-of-way. But I really don't think that's necessary. I think everything works better if it's where it is. There's some concern with the grading and the impact of the bluff line. This area here is kind of a cross section. Basically the bluff along the regional trail is not a natural bluff. It's a man made bluff for the railroad, so here again we're trying to, they're trying to accomplish a very, very adequate pond so to do that we need to actually grade into your bluff impact zone. And also on the opposite side we're giving you a cross section into there but if you want to go into that in detail, we can show you how this cross section shows how these berms work and as they relate to the grading that's required in the back of the lots to allow this rear storm water, storm runoff to work, but again this is not a natural bluff. It's a man made bluff. To accomplish the pond that we want there, which is very over sized and meets all the requirements and to eliminate any failure of that bluff we feel that allowing us to do a little bit of grading there to accomplish some other specific goals of a good storm pond and good erosion control is worthy of your consideration. Item 11 I'll let Justin talk about that but I think one of your staff requirements is for a 4 bay but we can do that but I do not think that's a necessary item but we can go into detail on that. Lillehaug: Which one was that, excuse me? Dan Herbst: Item 11 on your staff report. There was a requirement for, you're basically asking to put a kind of a holding pond within a pond which we can do but we don't think it makes a lot of sense. Item 41 I think all of you talked about to some degree. When I was in your shoes and all my life I've been preaching for smaller streets and more curves, we would like to see that road remain with 150 feet versus 180. It slows that road down. It makes it more interesting. Slows the speed down. Creates a 25 miles an hour zone versus a 30, and we think we can move that. We can make it work but we think it's a better design right now with a 150 foot versus the 180. And again I'll leave your questions to professionals here but I think the bottom line is, this is a neighborhood you can be extremely proud of. We've accomplished almost all the goals that you sought us out to do. It's going to be a great project. I just want to go over this problem just to give you some idea. We've got a park, little gazebo there. A shelter for the kids waiting for the school bus. A trail system through there, a little totlot, a nice little gathering space. We want to do a very upscale type of entrance indicating Settlers West with stone, brick and landscaping. I think another very unique thing that is very uncommon but we've got 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 a total of 55.6 acres in this entire neighborhood. And the only part that's being developed is 23.9 acres. So 57 percent of this land is actually public or semi-public spaces, and ! think that's very unique when you look at the big picture of how this project is going to look and how it's going to feel and how it's going to work. And when you work with these kind of bluffs, some of the man made ones for the trail and the natural ones, you have to make some compromises and there's very, very few that we're asking you to make. Out of 58 lots, and ! think all and all a high quality neighborhood. We will exceed, ! indicated to you my previous presentation, all of your expectations on design, landscaping, house construction and the bottom line is it's going to be a project that you're going to look back in 2 to 3 years and be extremely proud. With that ! will open it up for questions. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant at this point? Before we go through specific technical questions. Lillehaug: Sure, ! have a quick one. ! mean it's going to be on access. One of the, one simple solution is to add shoulders where we can so we have some shoulders. Are you amenable to doing that? Dan Herbst: I'm not sure there's space there, although Allan Klugman, when you get to specifics with Allan, I'll let you ask that question. ! do not know if... Lillehaug: If possible though you'd be willing to do that? Dan Herbst: If possible, absolutely, yes. Lillehaug: Thank you. Dan Herbst: The safety is in our interest more than all of us I guess so. Slagle: ! just had one question. Mr. Herbst, is the total that you just showed us, am ! seeing 4 or 5 parking spaces on the south side of Settlers West Road? Dan Herbst: Yes. It's basically a pull off. That could be used for dropping the kids off and also for backing up for the bus stop. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: ! have a high level type of question for you too. As you already have gathered from my approach to staff, I'm curious because the staff report does make a comment about some of the problems surrounding the area of Settlers Court. And it makes comment that the applicant could delete 2 lots which would eliminate the need for Settlers Court, reducing the development costs and preserving additional tree canopies in this area. In addition it would eliminate most of the other issues that actually currently are still open. The retaining wall. At least some of the grading that is close to the bluff. Have you considered that? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Dan Herbst: Well you know, let's talk about the economics of the thing. We've taken, and you're not supposed to consider this but obviously it takes, I've already taken 4 to 6 lots out of the project. These are very, very high quality lots. $300,000-$400,000 lots. If we put the trail in, it's still going to need a retaining wall. Both the trail going to the park, and the trail going to Hennepin County, both need to be retained because of the slopes up there so we can have a trail that works. And all of those lots on that cul-de-sac are actually very, very buildable lots. And ! think they are lots that will add some creativity to housing, basically many of our subdivisions are pretty well standard footprints and you go down the street and all these houses tend to look alike. Because of the 3 car garage and the box and the 2 story type of house. ! think some of these lots will allow us to do some very creative, custom homes and these are great examples of these lots. The pad, building pads are there. ! think they meet the full intent of your ordinance and we're just asking you say if they meet the intent of the ordinance, what's the big deal with having 90 feet on 2 streets. Sacchet: Yeah, you could shift the lines certainly of the lot. ! mean there are other ways to accommodate it than giving up those lots. I'm well aware of that. Dan Herbst: Yes. Sacchet: What I'm trying to get to is you're asking us to make a comprehensive plan amendment. Dan Herbst: Correct. Sacchet: ! mean if we look at this just in terms of the letter of the ordinance, ! mean you're absolutely within your rights. However there are some other issues like the radius of that curve. Like on the site towards the trail where you're impacting the bluff area. And so there is a give and take in there that ! think from the interest of the city it is not necessarily out of reach to ask to consider to drop Settlers Court and get kind of balance it in other areas. That's why I'm kind of pushing to see whether this is at all something that you would consider. Dan Herbst: You know I think if I was in your shoes I'd say, is the best thing possible being done here? Do these lots work? And is this you know, is this a major compromise or minor? ! think my answer to that, if ! was in your shoes, it's very minor. How important is it to have 90 foot of frontage on streets on two sides or how important is it to have. Sacchet: But my concern is not, sorry but interrupting. My concern is not the frontage of those lots. ! mean they add to the picture. So does the retaining wall. However, the grading into the bluff becomes more significant. What's really becoming significant is the trees because in that area you fell short. ! mean you're saving a few additional trees but the only, and ! understand. You want to leverage, as you say they're very high quality lots. On the whole end of this cul-de-sac but by ramming in the Settlers Court 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 one, which doesn't really bring all that much. ! mean it brings 2 additional lots with a short list of more or less significant problems. In terms of accommodating the intent of the comprehensive plan, not necessarily the letter of the ordinance, trying to preserve some more of the nature there, especially since it leads into the nature area where the trail goes down there seems like possibly a balanced position to take from my vantage point. So I'd put that right out on the table for you to see what you think about that. Dan Herbst: It doesn't make any sense to me because I think if you again look at the big picture. You've got 58 lots. How many projects have you reviewed and all of your crew up there where they have this much, these few of changes to your strict requirements of your code as it relates to the trees, and as it relates to a few changes that we're asking to make on the lots. Sacchet: Now in terms of the radius of that curve, if you believe by having to straighten that out to 180, you would still be able to maintain the same number of lots? Dan Herbst: Correct, but I think it doesn't, to me it takes away from the plan. It makes it a faster street. Makes it less creative. I think it's very unique. There is a nice curve coming into the site. It's a curvilinear plan. You've got a nice bend in the street. I would actually, as I advocated before, I'd like to see smaller streets and more radius. Sacchet: And it fits the topography better doesn't it? Dan Herbst: Yes. And you know the proudest development ! have in this town is Chimo, where ! think I've told you before. I've got 22 foot right-of-way and 20 foot streets and steep slopes and curves and it's got high resale value. It's a great place to go. People drive slow. There's no speed signs. I'd like to do that every place ! develop but ! can't. Sacchet: Well I appreciate your addressing this. I was taking the temperature. I appreciate that. Is that enough for questions on a high level? Lillehaug: Can ! ask Kate something on the same note. Aanenson: Sure. Lillehaug: This isn't a PUD. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: It's a subdivision. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: So if we have sub-standard lots, you know we have to have 90 feet. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: Correct. Let me just. Lillehaug: Doesn't each one of them need a variance? Aanenson: No. Well we're getting, for example I'm not sure... That can be solved quickly by just changing the radius to making it. Lillehaug: Oh sure, that one can but now some of the other ones. ! mean don't we have to be adamant that they need to have 90 feet? Aanenson: Correct. And that ! believe can be resolved by moving some of the lot lines. This one is just a change to the radius. Lillehaug: Otherwise if the applicant chooses, then we should pursue a variance? Just for bookkeeping purposes. Aanenson: Or resolve it by meeting it. They have to meet code or you'd have to get a variance. Move it or eliminate one lot to make them all fit, right. Again... That's just a matter of tweaking this cul-de-sac a little bit. Sacchet: Since we're on clarification from staff. This is probably for you Matt. This thing with the radius of that curve. If this would be allowed at 150, would that require a variance or how would that be handled? Saam: You know that's a good question. I'm not sure if explicitedly in the code it states 180 foot horizontal radius. It does say that streets must be designed with 30 miles per hour street is what we design for. So ! guess technically yeah, it would be a deviation from our design standard. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Well we're still at applicant presentation. You brought an impressive variety of experts. Let's see whether we have some specific questions. Dan Herbst: Yeah, Justin Larson, if you want to address anything on Sathre-Berquist's part. Drainage, runoff rates, the berming, how the storm system works. You want to see more schematics from Allan Klugman, traffic engineer, we'd be happy to do that for you. Sacchet: Can you just summarize some of the highlights of those specific areas. ! think that would be a good thing. Slagle: ! have a quick question if ! may that if you can address Justin. This, what I'm going to term innovative approach to the drainage on the bluff lots. I'd like to know more about that. Justin Larson: Well let me switch to an exhibit here that we can look at together. ... board wants to follow along with me. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: Great looking set of plans by the way. Justin Larson: Thank you very much. I'm on sheet 9 of 14. I'm going to apologize right now. We...with Eden Prairie and we were on the losing end of one of the issues with the storm water. Storm water pipes in the rear of a lot of these lines. We were hoping to preserve as many trees as we possibly could along the rear of these lots here. 18 through 28, but we unfortunately had to deal and put the drainage swale in the storm water basin back there. In your plan, and my apology is, your plans don't reflect the storm water...behind Lots 28, 27, 26, and 25 but they have been added. The idea here is rationally and surgically to do the tree removal with the storm sewer back there and.., over here. And again, the change from the last time being that we had to lower this portion of the site, we did lower it considerably. You can see the lots here are basically on grade, which would leave a whole mass of trees remaining after mass grading operations, and then what we would do here again is surgically remove trees for the storm water lines behind these storm water lines and the storm water swale behind these lots. And we're doing the same back there. I think your plan shows that. Maybe it doesn't. Saam: It starts at 16, 17. Justin Larson: We actually have them going all the way back here, heading down to Lots 24 through 17 and 12. The idea again is to...water from drainage down into these bluff areas which this is most definitely eroded bluff on the site and I understand Eden Prairie has dealt with some other, they've got some experiences in which they really pushed for us to get a storm sewer in the rear of these lots. And that's what we've done. We've brought in swales and storm sewer along the entire bluff length, and you know let me just address I believe it was board member Steve Lillehaug that asked the question about the grading within the no impact bluff area. And we are doing that. However it's being done solely to facilitate the collection of the storm water through the storm water pipes and the ponds. Including this area, and this is, we are all a little confused on what item everybody was focusing on but this area.., staff identified as being able to be pulled out of that no impact zone. We do have issue with that because we really want to get this pond 2 as far as possible to give us basically a larger...for collecting virtually all the storm water that would sheet off this site, and we really want to get this pond as large as possible and...we're excavating material away from this bluff edge, which I think is actually a preferred solution, or preferred action in any event. Is removing that, which could be an unstable slope. Removing that soil from that area. I guess what I'm asking is, I'm asking the board members to kind of, I hope I'm answering your question but I'm also asking for consideration possibly allowing us to do this grading. Allowing us to keep this slope graded as we're showing here to basically give us that size of a pond. Slagle: I guess if I can follow up on that. The question specifically would be, with this approach of having the individual homes on the bluffs having this system to protect from runoff, I mean again having not seen that before in an application, is it your belief that that will handle everything short of the 100 year storm. I mean I guess I just want to understand what the potential down side to this, is there any? To these systems? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Justin Larson: Well I would say financially there's a down side to it. One thing that we, when we originally addressed this, it was this submittal to the city here, is we didn't want to put this storm water pipes in the back yards because we didn't want to grade the trees. We didn't want to remove any more trees than we had to. We felt that the trees would probably serve...purpose by stabilizing the slope. But what we're proposing here is basically a compromise solution by surgically removing certain trees and snaking that in there.., we basically accomplish... Slagle: And if ! may, Mr. Chair just one follow-up question. On the land to the south, Kate what's below there? Is that the shooting? Aanenson: That's Moon Valley, that's correct. Slagle: So at some point, if what we've heard about development, there could be something in there, is what the applicant, if ! can now jump to staff, is what they're proposing, would that be adequate in protecting potential landowners to the south and below that bluff?. Aanenson: This is all part of the Zwiers property. Mr. Herbst is developing the top part of, but the bottom part, that was one of the issues again because there was litigation way, way back on preserving that slope so that should stay in place, and that was going back to the original premise of why we wanted to split these properties instead of trying to connect a road and degradation. We felt topographically it's probably best to serve this on the top side, and the bottom side again, we had actually guided that for higher density and that...will be adequate so ! think we're treating storm water and the like separately except for the portion that will run towards the trail and down. Originally as Matt went through we talked about running the pipe in a more circuitous route down the bluff and we had concerns about that for reasons you just talked about so ! think this is a better solution. Getting it towards the trail. Looking at from a shoreland.., and managing that. Sacchet: Just to clarify, if ! heard you correctly were implying that this storm water catch is, you did that based on staff's request? Justin Larson: Along these lots. I believe both cities, Eden Prairie and Chanhassen wanted pick up points in the rear of these lots. Sacchet: Alright, just want to clarify that. Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: Can ! hit on a question with these bluffs. If you look at Lots like 29 through 36, is that indeed right at the back of the property lines...where the bluff is delineated. So there is grading along that whole entire stretch and that 20 foot setback also. On the west side there. Justin Larson: 29 through? Sacchet: 36. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Justin Larson: Yes, you can't really see it very well. We have the bluff here is delineated along basically the...line which represents a silt fence...dashed line. The bluff itself follows that same line. Lillehaug: So it's the same situation as the pond here. Justin Larson: You can see it, if you look at it close enough, to get a system of swales and storm sewer pick up lines, that's what's driving the grading right there within the no impact zone, but we are not proposing to disturb the natural bluff edge. ! think if anything we're making the situation better. Sacchet: Okay, anything else for this part? Kurt. Papke: Yeah, could you comment on the amount of water you're dumping down onto the regional trail. Justin Larson: Yes sir. We did meet with the rail authority to discuss basically getting the approvals from them to route the storm water underneath the existing trailway to the project, to off site here. Let me switch to a different sheet, ! think it might be easier to follow. This isn't the one ! want. I'm on sheet 10 of 14. We talked about this issue two different times. One, down here at the southwest...your question is basically the northeast or northwest. Papke: Well both really. ! mean there's the southeast one is where the issue is presently the worst on the trail. That's where we get the most erosion on the trail. Justin Larson: ! don't believe so because if you turn to page 10, the trail is actually 30 feet higher than our outlet pipe and that might be a little confusing there. They cut the grade in right about here, so this location...is actually 30 feet lower than the trail. There's no erosion from it that we've identified. Sacchet: What's the outlet of that basin? Justin Larson: This basin here? Sacchet: No, that one you just pointed out. That one, yes. Does it have an outlet? Justin Larson: Yes it does. It has an 18 inch. Sacchet: So that pipe is an outlet. That's not another inlet, because we... Papke: ! stand corrected. You are right. ! had this backwards. It's actually on the north side. It's right near the Pioneer Trail bridge where most of the erosion occurs. Justin Larson: Yes. I was going to give you a little bit of background here and then I'll address your question. There's a wetland right here and you probably drive by it all the 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 time. If you've noticed in recent couple of years or so, it's probably inundated with water. It has real high standing water elevation. It's not supposed to be that way. In fact there's a mitigation area kind of here ! think it's the pines portion of Settlers Ridge. Mitigation area that basically set the normal water level for this entire wetland. Sometime ago when they did improvements to Pioneer Trail, they put a force drain in there and maybe.., other utility but in doing that they destroyed the corrugated metal pipe outlet that was...as a result they had to keep the water down which happened to be causing problems for these residents. Or potential problems ! should say. This outlet, and ! don't have the exhibit here but this outlet pipe, Eden Prairie has kind of wrestled with this for some time trying to figure out what's the best solution for getting an outlet back to this wetland. But the outlet itself would drain over here onto Pioneer Trail and the thought was, it drain to that lake that's northwest ! think. Lake Riley. They believe that that will happen next, the water was basically maintaining that level by draining the Lake Riley. They commissioned SEH to do a little drainage analysis and it indeed was not going in that direction but following... So they were obviously Eden Prairie was really receptive to us coming in and providing an outlet so they don't have to do anything underneath Pioneer Trail or any of the appropriate construction activities there. What we did is we provided the outlet here, as we're showing it. The problem that happened is, in talking with the trail authority people there, the water was not going this way. It would actually sit there underneath the bridge and so within the bridge area.., and ! believe that's the area that everybody is identifying as being a problem, correct. What we're proposing there, and this is what it is probably more well received than the idea of sending it back over this way is because it... stuck under the bridge. By doing this we're actually circumventing the high point of preventing it from going this way. So instead of being, the water's stuck here, we moved the outlet down here where you have better grades. Better conveyance to get it off and away from this area. Papke: Where you actually do dump the water into the drainage ditch along the trail? Justin Larson: We do, but we're doing it so in an area that's better designed to take that water. And let me just add too that we're.., a lot of the water that would otherwise be draining into this area, a majority, vast majority. We have a storm sewer that doesn't necessarily have to go all the way here but we're picking up that.., and sending it back here. We're giving it a better place to go. Sacchet: Okay? Alright, Steve, you have something? Lillehaug: Do you want to address some access issues and shoulder issues or? Sacchet: ! guess we have a traffic expert. Thank you very much. Alright, onto the traffic. Allan Klugman: Good evening Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Again I'll reintroduce myself. My name is Allan Klugman. I'm with the firm of Westwood Professional Services. I'm a registered engineer who specializes in the field of traffic engineering. I'm certified as a professional traffic operations engineer throughout the 48 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 entire United States. We've assisted the Pemtom and Sathre-Berquist team on this project primarily really only working on the access issues dealing with Hennepin County and trying to establish that. And that's primarily what ! want to talk about tonight but ! guess being a traffic engineer I'd be remiss if! didn't comment on as many traffic points as ! could so I'd like to bring up one more item. And hopefully ! have this centered properly, this layout of the site. You know as ! sit back there and listen ! hear there's been a little bit of discussion tonight about the 150 foot radius. The 25 miles per hour design speed. We worked with that and how suitable would it be for this neighborhood, and ! think one thing ! just want to point out that ! didn't hear anyone else mention it with the various speakers tonight is just, to kind of comment and reiterate how few houses there is south of that curve. If we look where this curve is, it's on the southern curve here we have about 20 houses to the south of there. A typical trip generation, I'm sure you've seen this in other traffic studies before, is about 10 trips per house. That's total. 200 trips so that'd be in's and out's so it's about 100 people leaving houses, about 100 coming back through the course of a day, so this is truly a very, very minor volume and in no way is it any sort of collector street or thru street. It's just the very tail end heading towards the cul-de-sac so ! think as you consider the overall site design characteristics, and the suitability of that 150 foot curve, remember where it is in this development. It's not up here near the top where every car's going to bypass it so ! just wanted to point that out. Then I'll move onto the issue that ! primarily came to speak to tonight. You know in the previous discussion with the comments from staff, some from Mr. Herbst, we've ! think had a lot of answers to the questions that the various board members brought up. ! guess what I'd like to do tonight is kind of restate the issues in my own words. ! think in some sense I'll be repeating what staff has said already but if you'll indulge me I'll kind of do the whole speech that ! had. Sacchet: If you can summarize it, that's fine. Allan Klugman: Oh sure, we'll do that. You know ! think very quickly, if you move from the general concept that says for any subdivision we want to look to have neighborhood connectivity. Connect the neighborhoods. Allow for more than one access point. Certainly for emergency vehicles, and also for convenience to the residents who then have some options to going east or west. ! think it's paramount to look to connect these two neighborhoods. Our charge within the situation is to work with Hennepin County and make the access that comes out here of Settlers West as high quality as possible and of course up to Hennepin County standards so they can accept. You know nothing gets by without them accepting that so ! think all the detail questions we've heard tonight, believe me Hennepin County has asked those and then some. Before ! get into the details of the layout, ! just want to point out one thing. Again it' s the trip generation number that hasn't been specifically brought up here tonight. What we're talking about here is 58 houses, 10 trips a day. That's about 580. Let's call it 600 trips. It's about 300 in, about 300 out during the course of the day. A typical peak hour, either morning or evening is about 10 percent of the daily traffic. So we're talking about 60 cars, maybe 1 per minute. ! know there's been some discussions of right turn coming from the west going eastbound. ! think certainly you all agree that the majority of the traffic is going to 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 come to and from the east. That volume coming from the west and turning in will be very small on a daily basis, and ! think some of the general. Slagle: Say that again. Allan Klugman: Sure. You know we have about 600 cars a day, 300 in, 300 out. The vast majority of the residents, their destinations are to the east. So the major access opportunity for this site will be, you leave in the morning, you make the right turn to head easterly. That's not the only movement of course but the majority, and then when you come back you'll be coming westbound on Pioneer. You'll turn into the left turn lane to come into this site, so the right turn that we're talking about from the west where we come past the bridge and truly don't have room to develop a turn lane, that's a very small volume on a daily or peak hour basis. And ! think just for some perspective, if you can picture the bridge, and now looking the west bound direction and the street that's immediately past the bridge abutment is called Highview Drive, so now I'm heading westbound. There also is no turning into that for the right turn, so certainly in anything we work with the left turns are much more critical. We need to get them out into their own turn bay for protection to let them wait for cars to pass by while they make the turn, so we provided for left turn. The right turn treatment will be very typical of what we see at Highview and again it's in a low volume direction, so ! think that's a key point to bring out. The other thing ! just want to mention is a little bit about some of the layout details in this left turn lane. ! think you want us to be brief and I'll try to summarize. We did work this out with Hennepin County. Commissioner Lillehaug you talked about the staff meeting with the county, and ! guess that wasn't possible to occur but we did that. Phone calls, emails, layouts back and forth. We worked very diligently with them to try to establish this and. Slagle: If I can just ask a question to Commissioner Lillehaug's point. I mean do you sense a little sensitivity, and it's not so much, it's more for staff but ! think some of us would have loved to have had our staff as part of those meetings. Allan Klugman: Sure, I'll accept that and be sensitive to it. ! will even plead guilty to it. ! mean we primarily worked with Eden Prairie and they were, on this issue, and they were our conduit to Hennepin County so to the extent that we left you folks out of the loop, I'll apologize for that. ! think it's fair to say that the design decision from Hennepin County would be no different, but you know so noted. We didn't do a good job on communications. What ! want to show here, just to put a number on the table so we all know what we're talking about. A number of members, ! think Commissioner Papke brought it up, talks about the site distance that's available. What's available both for someone turning out of Settlers West, looking to the left and right, and then for someone coming along Pioneer and seeing that vehicle coming up. Pioneer Trail's a 50 miles an hour roadway right now. ! need a 500 foot sight distance to meet the county requirements for that. If we summarize and boil this all down to what do we have here. Using the scale drawings from the plan sheets from our measurements in the field and Hennepin County went up and verified this themselves, the distance that we have available is 640 feet. For a vehicle leaving Settlers West and looking to the east, and the 50 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 critical direction as Mr. Saam pointed out, to the west is no problem whatsoever. Looking to the east we have 640 feet of distance. Well within the 500 feet that ! need and in fact ! think Commissioner Papke you asked a question about current Settlement Drive. And let me point out by the way, that development is 220 houses so we have four times the traffic there. The sight distance there is measured by Hennepin County, is worst than what we'll have at Settlers West, so we have, if you combine the horizontal and vertical details, we have better sight distance here than we'll have, than currently exists at Settlement Drive so ! think that's very important. And one of the prime reasons ! believe why Hennepin County could favor this design. ! guess to summarize and close, ! know Commissioner Lillehaug you had a number of questions about radiuses, turn lanes, tapers, so forth, shoulder width. We could talk a bit about that tonight but ! think in summary what I'd like to say is you know those are typical design details. We pretty much work with that on any access permit to Hennepin County or any government agency. ! think for us and for our team our big point, our big issue at this point was kind of the major issue of does Hennepin County accept this access? Is it workable? The answer there was a definitive yes. Do we need to come back and relook at some tapers? ! think we will as part of the permit process. The question you ask about shoulder widening and is that necessary. ! mean we'll look at the exact distance from here to Settlement Drive. There's that right turn lane into Settlement Drive. We have the left turn lane coming westbound, both into Settlement, we need to then shadow that out. Start a new left turn to Settlers West. ! mean there's definitely room to do that and as part of the permit process that's when we do that level of design details so, you know ! somewhat listened when you asked Mr. Herbst about will we widen the shoulders. The answer is we have no choice if Hennepin County demands it from a design point of view. ! think when you look at the detail design, we have room if we need to widen out to fit those tapers in, in order to get back before that right turn to Settlement Drive. Then you'll fit the design detail that will work with it. ! guess just in summarizing, Hennepin County's absolutely okay with this access point and we work through the rest of the plans, you'll have a chance to see the exact details of how we do that. We could talk more about that tonight. My guess is you don't want to get into radius distance. Sacchet: ! think we have enough detail. Anybody need any more detail at this point. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Alright. Technically we're still in the applicant's presentation piece. Any further statement from your end that you'd like to add? Dan Herbst: The only thing I want to add, I forgot to mention is Chanhassen, excuse me, the Eden Prairie Planning Commission approved unanimously the staff and we're onto the City Council on May 4th SO the Eden Prairie...this is already approved so I forgot to mention that. Sacchet: Well congratulations. Thank you. Dan Herbst: Other than that we think we've got a wonderful proposal for you here and want you to favorably consider our comments. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to open a public hearing. This is a public hearing. Aanenson: It's not a public hearing but you're welcome to take, yeah. Sacchet: Oh that's right. We had a public hearing last time. Let me just ask is there anybody who'd like to comment to his, even though it's not a public hearing. If there's any new aspects that you feel needs to be brought forward from the residents, neighbors. No? Okay, that's fine. Yeah, you do have something. Why don't you step up please. Jerry Clark: My name is Jerry Clark and ! live in 18956 Dorenkemper Place in Eden Prairie and the back of our townhome that we just moved in in July faces the wetland, the intersection you're talking about. We see the pond to the right, wetlands. We also see the intersection. We walk it every day. If you're driving west over that bridge, you have a railing about this high and if you're pulling out.., you've got to have somebody coming from the west, they can't see anything above here when you pull out here because of the railing. Sacchet: Sure hope it's a fast car if it's that low, right. Jerry Clark: They don't see you guys as you're pulling out to the right...not only the distance but the height of that railing on the bridge. Sacchet: That might be something that needs to be considered in terms of sight lines too. Appreciate you bringing that up. Jerry Clark: And then we see, I know my wife and I see all the wildlife in the wetlands. We see pheasants, ducks, deer, even a coyote on the trail. On that road so the wetlands a great thing there for us. Sacchet: And ! think it will actually become bigger by what's proposed here so hopefully you get a little, maybe slightly different but more wetland. Jerry Clark: That's all I wanted to comment on that, on the railing on that intersection. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Alright. Comments, discussion. Anybody want to jump at it? Want to start Rich? Slagle: ! would like to just put on the record that this is probably, in my tenure here, the best proposal I've seen in many ways from detail to plans, to meeting our requests. ! mean this is really a first class presentation and package. Unfortunately the only thing that ! wish that we could change is the access but we can't. None of us can. This has my full support with one caveat and that is that ! hope Matt is right that in 5 years Pioneer Trail is widened and improved so the folks who purchase property here will have the benefit of a safer entrance. That's it. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Kurt, you have something? Papke: Yeah, just speaking to the trees that are being taken out that Uli was commenting to. ! did walk the property a few months ago when there was still 2 feet of snow on the ground, and it does break my heart to see how much is going to get mowed down out there. ! mean it's pristine woodland. ! appreciate how much you're conserving, although on the other hand ! think the amount of trees and woodland that's being set aside, it's questionable whether it's developable so in this particular case the statistics ! don't think necessarily tell the whole story. ! think you're building as many lots here as are humanly possible. But it's a fantastic development. ! think it will be a great asset to Chanhassen and ! support it and ! think the access is going to be less of an issue perhaps than is feared. ! think getting back to the comments from the traffic engineer concerning the sight lines and so on, ! think in fact this entrance and egress may end up being a safer one than the existing one so it will be interesting to see how it works out. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Any other comments? Discussion points. Lillehaug: I've got a couple. It's a quick question to Matt. 30 miles an hour design, not 25 miles an hour, correct? Saam: For public streets, that's what we...yes. Lillehaug: Because ! think as was just stated here a little while ago, they're looking at 25 miles an hour, that 150 foot. We're looking at a 30 miles an hour design with 180 foot. ! have to respectfully disagree with Commissioner Papke on this access point. Like ! indicated, ! have spoken with the county. Settlers Ridge, they've been out there probably 2 or 3 times making repairs in that intersection to make it better because they've had complaint after complaint on that intersection. Yes, it does have poor sight lines and that is 100 percent true. ! think we're compounding the problem here. The city's going to get calls in this intersection. You can prepare yourself for that because they will get calls from this intersection. Really the only other solution, while there are a couple solutions is send them somewhere else. Bridge over the rail bed, it's just not feasible. The other solution is send them up Settlers Ridge Drive, the existing access there. ! haven't seen the traffic numbers and ! don't know what that would do to that intersection but it's an option. ! don't know how well the county has looked at it. ! have spoken with them and they pretty much said that they haven't analyzed that intersection with compounding and putting all this traffic through there so ! don't think that has been totally investigated. It's more of Eden Prairie residents don't want for this traffic going through their neighborhood. Going through that intersection. And that's one of my biggest things here is, ! don't think we put our end of it into the county because the county has indicated that they aren't 100 percent happy with this intersection and aren't pleased with it. As a matter of fact, before Eden Prairie talked to them they were not going to allow this access to be here. That was directly from the same person that had corresponded...so it's a county road. Eden Prairie access. ! think ! voiced my concerns enough. A couple of, one of the big issues here is, is we're looking at a drawing here with proposed improvements on here. Right, a lot of these things will get taken care of in the county 53 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 permitting process but we're approving the plan right here, and like I indicated previously, I've seen some things fail when it gets to the different levels and ! want to address them now so at least we did our due diligence as much as we possibly can to prevent that from happening in the future. So ! wanted to attach on here, develop 150 tapers on each end. Maximize the length of that left turn lane. ! realize you can't get a right turn lane in there. That's all there is to it. Shoulders. To the east of Settlers West, you can develop shoulders and ! would like to make that a condition to put shoulders in there. We haven't really discussed between us about the bluff setbacks and I'd like to get a feel for what you guys are thinking. ! mean we're talking we're in the bluff encroachment area for a good point on that westerly and northerly end. ! guess when you look at overall property, quite a bit of it's bluff. Where we're impacting a pretty low, the developer is proposing to impact a pretty low percentage. ! guess ! don't have major problems with too much impacting that bluff. ! guess I'd like to just throw that out there so. It's a great project and I'm not throwing any negative things at the applicant about this intersection. Just ! have major concerns with it because ! think it was eloquently stated by the traffic engineer that a few good things about this intersection, but there's more bad things ! think so I'll leave it at that so thank you. Sacchet: Well, ! think ! made my position somewhat clear in talking with the applicant. I'm of the opinion that in terms of the access, the traffic situation, it's about as good as it can get under the circumstances. It's been studied from many different angles and it's the best we can do under the circumstances and it's supposed to get better, so I'm not hung up on that one. But what shouldn't surprise you, those of you that know me, where I'm hung up is the trees. ! do believe that you've done an excellent job as an applicant in terms of taking into consideration our concerns and everything and you've really moved in a significant way forward in accommodating what we ask for. However ! think in the area of trees, at least in terms of what I'd like to see, ! think you have not sufficiently done that. That in combination with the concerns that were raised about Settlers Court, for me to represent the interest of the city, ! feel a responsibility to push for Settlers Court to go away because by doing that you do end up preserving one significant grove of those trees, and that compared with what you're actually getting out of keeping Settlers Court is well worth it. Let me give you a little bit of framework of where I'm coming from because obviously we didn't agree on that one when we discussed it a minute ago. If you look at what you lose when you take Settlers Court out, you basically lose two lots. It happens to be two lots that have some minor issues, not big issues that can be solved. You also have an issue with Settlers Court going so close to the bluff that you have to have a retaining wall which happens to have to be in the right-of-way which is an issue with the city. That combined with the concern about grading into the bluff area, which can be quite a bit minimized too is another thing that speaks against Settlers Court, but ultimately where these are the details. If we look at the big issue, we can say well this is meeting the ordinance so where do we have a basis from the city to ask of that? And here is my answer to that question. ! mean I'm not going to belabor it. There are many instances in the comprehensive plan. One of them that is... says that the city, as a policy. This is a policy called for by the comprehensive plan, to identify significant wooded areas to protect. Preserve areas by means of development restrictions. Okay? So ! feel since you're asking for comprehensive plan amendment, there is a balancing point. And 54 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 you also have to point out, and I don't know to what extent that is necessarily 100 percent accurate, but somebody made a comment that at this point you're pretty much put in as many lots as is practically possible. Reasonable use, and we run into that all the time. Reasonable use does not mean maximum use, and ! think balancing this with the intent that's clearly stated in the comprehensive plan, with the list of issues surrounding that area of Settlers Court, and with some of the other aspects that ! think are a very reasonable request. That we allow you to have 150 foot radius. ! think it makes sense. Plus, and nobody has studied that. Nobody could give me a clear answer, but there is certainly the possibility that if we want to meet city ordinance with this radius, make it 180, you've going to potentially maybe even likely lost another lot. So ! think if we're sensitive to the topography, the need that more steep radius there makes sense. We also want to be sensitive that we can save a little more trees and solve some of these problems. Settlers Court goes away. 2 lots go away. Really only one lot goes away in the net because by straightening out that curve you'd lose another one. So what's the balance there? ! mean in terms of all the trees, the bluff impacts, the access into the nature zone that is next to it. One lot seems well worth it in terms of the position it takes so for me to support this I'd like to have Settlers Court go away. Other than that ! think it's a wonderful project. Lillehaug: Clarification Commission Sacchet. ! guess to understand your concerns with the canopy coverage. Looking at the percentages, you know they fall. Sacchet: Percentage wise they're within range. We don't have any leverage in terms of the percentage. Where we have leverage is with the comprehensive plan and the fact that they're asking a comprehensive plan amendment. There we have leverage. Once it comes to detail, they're totally within their rights. But they do ask us for some concessions like allowing them to grade in the bluff impact zone. They do ask us for a non-standard turn radius, just to mention those two. ! don't really have a problem with that. ! mean ! think that's something that ! would be willing to accommodate, but ! would expect some accommodation back like in context of Settlers Court. Slagle: ! just have a point of clarification for staff, if you can address this. Do we know the number of lots that were changed from walkout to either lookout or full ballpark, in this second? Saam: ! do not but ! bet you Justin would. Slagle: I'm looking Justin for just a ballpark. Justin Larson: I would say probably around a half dozen walkouts have switched over to either lookouts or full basements. Slagle: And the reason ! ask that is, it to me is another sign of them willing to work with US. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: And ! acknowledge that they've definitely accommodated a lot. ! mean I'm not.., as a matter of fact I'm very appreciative of that. And ! mean it's a matter of opinion. ! mean you could say that I'm going too far, and that's certainly alright but ! do feel very strongly and I'm quite convinced about my position with this. Go ahead. Tjornhom: With all due respect to, I just feel that throwing this out right now in this late stage of the game is kind of changing the rules for the developer. ! think if we seriously are going to you know talk about getting rid of these two lots, we probably should have done it an hour ago so they had a chance to. Sacchet: Oh ! did ask them about it. Tjornhom: But ! don't know if we really had a big discussion because ! think it's a big thing for a developer to all of a sudden at the end of, either the 9th or 10th hour have 2 lots taken out. ! mean it changes. Sacchet: One lot most likely. Not two. If we incorporate the idea of the turn radius, chances are it's very high that we're taking out one lot, not two. Because they would lose another lot by straightening out the curve. Most likely. Lillehaug: It is in the report Bethany. Sacchet: And it is in the report. If you look on page 11. Tjornhom: No, and ! had it marked on my report also but ! don't think we really discussed this well enough to prepare the developer to have this just kind of happen. Aanenson: ! had a question on the same lines. So when you're talking about elimination of a cul-de-sac, it's different than fixing a lot. I'm just trying to understand what you're. Sacchet: Yeah, I'm asking for the Settlers Court cul-de-sac to go away. Aanenson: So then there would be no homes there. Sacchet: Well you basically would have, you have Lot 21 and 25 and one inbetween. So Lot 21 and 25... Well no, no, no. 22 would be moving up to Settlers West Road. The road and cul-de-sac goes away. Saam: Here you can accommodate 3 lots with 90 foot of frontage. Sacchet: Yes, that's it Matt. And then further what I'm arguing is that by having to straighten out the radius from 150 to 180, chances are good that you lose a lot in that curve. Aanenson: Okay, I understand that. But I think there's some other iterations that we can look at too and that would be... moving the cul-de-sac, shortening it up on this side. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: That would help too, correct. Aanenson: I'm just saying there's some different iterations they could look at too. Sacchet: ! agree. That could be an alternative. Aanenson: Yep. But it's a goal, ! guess what I'm saying, if the goal is to save trees, if you give us that direction, ! think we can work, if your goal is to say we don't want the retaining wall. We want to preserve some trees on the end of that and then give the developer the flexibility, ! think that's where Bethany is coming from too, to say that there's that lot number. Push the houses back from that bluff like and the cul-de-sac has to meet the correct radius, that's one option that ! think we can still pursue. Like ! say, it could be a different design... And accomplishing what your goal is. Sacchet: That's a point well taken. No, I'm fine with that. Aanenson: Okay, ! just want to make sure that... Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Aanenson: So just 2 or 3 different designs... Sacchet: ! mean I'm not trying to dictate the design. What I'm asking for is for more consideration to the trees and the bluff. Justin Larson: ... if you were to eliminate those in terms of trees? Sacchet: At this point, and we really don't have, we have a very nice tree map but we don't have an indication which ones could actually lost or saved. By my estimate, basically there is this pretty large grove of trees that at this point most of them are cut. By making this change ! would think most of them could be saved. Basically what we're looking at is this area, actually you need to look at this one. Slagle: ! think Kate's, Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, ! think Kate's got it. Aanenson: Right, so ! think that you indicate.., if your direction is for the staff to work at that, whether it's shortening up the cul-de-sac or eliminating the cul-de-sac to preserve here, then ! think, and given the correct radius, ! think we can work with that. Sacchet: Right. That would be more balanced, ! agree. But it's basically those. Justin Larson: So is there a way to save the trees and keep the cul-de-sac? 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: That's what Kate is pointing out. I mean I come to the conclusion that it would mean get rid of the cul-de-sac. Now Kate's point is that it doesn't necessarily mean that. That it could be worked out differently. And that's valid. Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'll just do it quickly. You know we'll take a look at the redesign of that but you know in the scheme of things. Sacchet: It's not a big thing. Dan Herbst: It's not a big thing. If you were to look at the amount of trees that are being removed with the rear storm water drainage, it's very, very substantial. We're talking about very few trees here but we'll look at the design of that. The trees are much more positive for us than they are for anybody in this body. They're very, very important to us. Also, if we eliminate the cul-de-sac, we end up with a trail right between two lots. And ! think you're supporting 150 foot radius there is a positive thing for this plan and for the speed and for the look of this site, and I, we can jockey this plan around. We've already tried it with the 180 foot and not lose any lots so if we took the cul-de-sac out, we'll lose two beautiful lots. People love to live on cul-de-sacs as you all know, and so let us look at seeing if we can shuffle it around. Let us work with staff and do the best we can because those trees are, and ! understand your heart set and ! appreciate that. Sacchet: Yeah, that's totally balanced. Okay. Any other comments? Discussion. You wanted discussion a little more on the bluff impact. ! touched on that from my vantage point. Does anybody else want to touch on that still or are we pretty clear then? Lillehaug: Can ! ask Matt one more question on the radius. If we allow 150 foot radius, could we just mitigate that using signage to recommend a warning sign to reduce the speed. Would that be. Saam: We've done that in the past. Lillehaug: Would that be okay with the city and would you guys support that? Saam; Sure. I guess the only thing I want to say, and I'm not going to go to the grave on this, but Pleasant View is a perfect example. That road has many more curves than this, and at the last public hearing we had numerous people get up and complain about the speed so when we say that it's going to lower speed, ! wouldn't go to the grave on that so, but I'll end it there. Allan Klugman: This is a cul-de-sac versus Pleasant View is more... Saam: Correct, that's a great point. Aanenson: Not thru traffic, yeah. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: And since we're talking about it, is my assumption accurate that the 150 foot radius better follows the contours than 180 would? Saam: There could be some truth to your statement. Again though, we're not talking losing a lot as Mr. Herbst just said so we're not going to really minimize it that much. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Alright. Are we heading for a motion? Let us begin there. Who wants to make a motion? Slagle: ! recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following four motions based upon the findings of fact and the attached findings of fact and recommendations. Now Kate, do you want to do these individually? Aanenson: You can do them all as one. Slagle: All as one. A through D with C having at current count 41 conditions. And D, having 5, along with the attachments. Lillehaug: Second with a couple amendments. Slagle: Okay. Lillehaug: ! think number 3 is redundant to 2. Slagle: Yep. Lillehaug: ! guess 41, let's modify that. The plans are okay as is with 150 foot curve radius. Sacchet: Couldn't we just take it out and then it's... Lillehaug: But ! want to add something to it. But the applicant will be required to install mitigation signage for that. And ! think. Sacchet: Is that accepted? Slagle: That's accepted. Aanenson: Your approach thing. Lillehaug: Yeah, 42. I'm going to add my approach stuff. The applicant's required to add shoulders, 8 foot shoulders per state aid standards and 150 tapers on each end and lengthen the left turn out to maximize the length of it. That would be it. Sacchet: Okay, is that accepted? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Slagle: That is accepted. Sacchet: Okay, friendly amendments. Conditions 6 through 16 should say shall and not should. Condition 33 should say shall, and actually the applicant shall use Type II! silt fence. Not staff recommends. Condition 17 is part of 16, so there is no condition number 17. Are we accepting so far? Slagle: Yeah. Sacchet: Now we're getting on more slippery slopes. Condition 7. Bluff areas must be preserved. We need to do something about that if we want to allow them to put in that drainage business. Aanenson: ! would say except for those areas identified for the rear yard drainage. ! know they are shown on, if you go to the chart. Sacchet: So we could just add to that condition except for site drainage, rear yard drainage. Slagle: ! assumed it was just part of the attachments. ! mean being shown. Lillehaug: That'd be for the whole. Aanenson: Yep, site plan. The whole site plan is... Sacchet: So except as shown in the plan, which is quite a bit. Is that alright? Slagle: I'm okay with that. Sacchet: And then condition 1. The second sentence of that where it says alternatively the applicant could delete two lots which would eliminate the need for Settlers Court. The applicant shall work with staff to reduce bluff impact and tree loss caused by Settlers Court. Is that a fair statement? Is that acceptable? Okay. Which could mean losing a lot or two. Aanenson: Correct, ! think that's implied. And then just to be clear too, ! think all lots have to meet the required. Sacchet: Right, that part. Yeah, ! didn't touch that part. Aanenson: Lillehaug: Sacchet: Yeah, that's implied too. And that was a condition here somewhere here I think wasn't it? It's under 1. It's all part of 1. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Lillehaug: Oh, yep. Sacchet: ! believe that's my friendly amendments. Oh, there is another should. We're shoulding a little more in condition 3 of D. In our cover should's, that should be shall' s. Okay? Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: That's it. Slagle: Point of clarification though. In condition 1 where it says the lots in this area need to be reconfigured to assure the minimum frontage is provided. Understand that but ! don't think that's implying that there could be a loss of lots. Aanenson: No. Slagle: Understand. It's just the bluffs and the. Aanenson: Work with the Settlers Court issue may result in a loss of lots. Slagle: May. Aanenson: It may... Slagle: Okay, fair enough. And if I may, another point of clarification. On Commissioner Lillehaug's friendly amendment regarding his specific details, can we just make a point Kate, especially when this goes to council, that we refer actually to Mr., is it Klugman, his memo because in his memo he does say based on this review, the County will recommend some minor adjustments to the plan. They will not require anything of a major nature but some minor things which ! think tie along with what you recommended. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion, we have a second. We have friendly amendments. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval the following four motions based on the findings of fact in the attached findings of fact and recommendation: Ao "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate the property in the 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Bo "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District, to RSF, Single Family Residential District." 61 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 48 lots, three outlots and public right-of-way with a variance for street width, subject to the following conditions: Lot 21 must have a minimum street frontage of 90 feet on Settlers West Road and Settlers West Court. Lot 24 does not meet the minimum lot width at the 30 foot building setback line. The lots in the area need to be reconfigured to assure that the minimum frontage is provided. The applicant will work with staff to reduce bluff impact and tree loss caused by Settlers Court. The development of the property is contingent on Eden Prairie approving the subdivision within their jurisdiction. Without the road access and sewer and water service, this project would be premature. 3. Deleted. 4. The developer shall be responsible for paying park dedication fees at the time of final plat recording. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around Wetland G (if it is not mitigated). A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetlands ! and J. (Those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. Bluff areas must be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within the bluff impact zone on Lots 39 through 45. A conservation easement shall be recorded over the bluffs and bluff impact zones. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers to demarcate the bluff impact zone, except for the areas identified for site drainage as shown in the plan. The applicant shall work with City staff to develop a plan for bluff management. The plan shall include an assessment of the stability of bluff areas, an inventory of the discarded materials, a plan for the clean-up of bluff areas and a restoration plan for critical and/or severely eroded areas. The plan shall also address 62 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 reclamation of the Moon Valley site. The bluff management plan shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with subdivision construction. The lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 12 through 39 and 46 through 50) shall be graded to drain away from the bluff and bluff impact zone. In addition, a system of swales and storm sewer with surface inlets shall be installed for the rear yards of the lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 12 through 39 and 46 through 50). 10. The plans for the cross-country storm sewer on Outlot F shall be more detailed. Erosion blanket, shade tolerant seed mix and fiber rolls are recommended to promote vegetation growth and temporarily stabilize the exposed slope. Similar measures are needed shall the 20-foot maintenance access be developed. 11 To provide cost-effective sediment removal within Pond 3, a forebay shall be located at the northern end of the pond near the inlet. 12. A drainage and utility easement at least 20 feet in width shall be centered over any swales and/or storm sewer, including pond inlets and outlets. Slopes within the easements shall be gradual enough to permit access with heavy equipment. 13. Adequate, non-compacted topsoil shall be applied to a depth of at least 6 inches prior to the installation of permanent erosion control practices. 14. Silt fence is needed at the HWL of storm water ponds once the ponds are final grade and stabilized with mulch and seed or blanket and seed. 15. After excavation of slopes adjacent to bluff areas and prior to home building activities (such as excavating for foundations) the builders shall install silt fence or other perimeter control (snow fence) to protect the temporary stabilization methods and final grade elevations. 16. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas must have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 17. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 18. The total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $80,502. 19. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 20. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone. 21 Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 1/16/04, will be replaced at a ratio of2:1 diameter inches. 22. Any trees removed must either be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued. 23. Silt fence must be placed outside of the bluff impact zone boundary. 24. 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 insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 25. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved, alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 of the Minnesota Fire Code. 26. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 27. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 28. As utility service will be provided by the City of Eden Prairie, responsibility for permits and inspections of the private sewer and water services must be determined. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 29. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10- year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 30. The storm sewer must be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. 31. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 32. Because of the sensitive nature of the site, Type II! silt fence per City detail plate #5300 be used around the perimeter of the entire site. Also, remove the silt fence detail from the preliminary grading plan (sheet #8.) In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. The applicant shall be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. 33. Revise the storm sewer pipe diameter from 12-inch to 15-inch minimum. 34. Permits from the appropriate governmental agencies must be obtained including: MPCA, Watershed District, Hennepin/Carver County. 35. On the grading plan: a. Add a 4-inch perforated drain tile at street low point, 4-feet in back of curb. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. The walkout elevation of Lot 12 must be a minimum of 1.5 feet above the adjacent emergency overflow elevation. 36. Last storm structure that is road accessible prior to pond must be a 3-foot sump manhole. 37. The proposed retaining wall at the end of Settlers Court will not be allowed within the street right-of-way. Also, any retaining wall over 4-feet in height must be designed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota and it will require a building permit. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 38. Extend the 5-foot sidewalk to the south end of Settlers West Road. 39. The developer must obtain approval from Hennepin County for the City's use of the trail for maintenance access to the storm sewer. 40. The plans are okay with the 150 foot curve radius, but the applicant will be required to install mitigation signage. 41. The applicant's required to add shoulders, 8 foot shoulders per state aid standards and 150 tapers on each end and lengthen the left turn out to maximize the length of it." Do "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and alter wetlands on site, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide details on wetland mitigation for proposed impact to Wetland G. 2. Staff will field verify Wetlands I and J if the final plans involve the discharge of pretreated storm water into these basins. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The replacement plans should show fixed photo monitoring points for replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant must receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained around Wetland G (if it is not mitigated). A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetlands ! and J (those buffers considered for PVC must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet). Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Congratulations. In summary for council, as this is going to council, we really have to commend this applicant for bringing forth an excellent proposal. Of very much taking to heart recommendations that were made the first time around this came before us. The two remaining key issues that were left is the traffic situation, which is not ideal but there is no better alternative at this point. The other issue is the bluff impact and trees, which we have a little bit of range of opinions amongst commissioners with my opinion being the most extreme that ! would like to see some lots go away in order to have more trees saved around the areas of Settlers Court, which we settled that. Staff and the applicant will work together and look at that. Any of you want to add some comments for summary? Slagle: Just one quick, not so much for council but before the applicant leaves. Can we get a copy of your entrance monument, yes. Because ! want to show that to other developers. ! mean that is first class. Thank you. Sacchet: Any more comments for summary to council? No? Alright, that's it for this one. RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE. THESE CHANGES AFFECT ARTICLES I THROUGH XXXI OF THE CHAPTER AND ARE INTENDED TO UPDATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE ENTIRE ZONING ORDINANCE. Sacchet: Do we want to do the last item since Bob is not here Kate? Aanenson: We'd like to advance this. You closed the public hearing and kind of on that, the top sheet in the code amendments, we did a summary of those. Of those issues there was still some resolution that we needed to get so we kind of outlined those, and what you have is the whole Chapter 20. Sacchet: This is the whole Chapter 20, okay. What we're doing is review the proposed changes to Chapter 20 real briefly then. Alright. Aanenson: So what we did is we kind of outlined those things. For example the camping thing seemed pretty ludicrous to say you can't have a hammock and some of that stuff so we got that changed. Modified the wetland. ! mean ! can go through all these but what we did is we printed the whole ordinance and showed you those changes in all of Chapter 20. Again, we agreed to keep the 60 by 60 pad because we couldn't get concurrence on that. We did get our shoreland regs. We do currently use the 50 feet, and we think it's easier to find the ordinary high water mark as opposed to center of the creek, and sometimes that meanders and that seems to be a good indicator for us. And again we always evaluate that... What else? Retaining walls. That was that issue that we talked about. Sacchet: Yeah, how many inches is a retaining wall? 67 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: You know we kept it at 4 feet and they said they have to be engineered because we got into pretty subjective stuff and we started to think, even if you have a series of three, what it ended up being, it should probably still be engineered, so we just decided to leave it the way it was. You can always seek relief from that, but it just seemed like, yeah. You know it's a slipper slope so we just left it the way that it was. Sacchet: How about, not there was the one retaining walls less than 4 feet. Aanenson: Those do not have to be engineered. Sacchet: Yes, but they do need to have a permit? But my question is well, how many inches does it start being a retaining wall? Aanenson: Well, at 4 feet. Sacchet: How about, we had somewhere we talked about retaining walls less than 4 feet. Lillehaug: ! have that noted in a couple of my comments here. I'm sorry, ! have comments. There's some things in here that ! thought we talked about. Aanenson: Okay, let's go through them because that's kind of the summary of my points so if you want to go through, if we missed something. Lillehaug: ! know we don't have much time and it's late but I'm sorry, I've got comments. Sacchet: Well let's let Kate go through her points. Aanenson: No, I'm done. ! got all of mine. I'd like to hear from you what stuff we missed or if we need to. Slagle: What did we miss Steve? Lillehaug: ! have nothing else to do with my time. Alright, page number 6. Section 20- 73. What happened to the, that's, I'm looking back at this here too and comparing the two of what we talked about and ! mean it changed. We were talking about a 75 percent minimum requirement and that, it totally changed from what we, what ! think we previously talked about. Aanenson: Oh, well we have 75 percent in the code right now. Lillehaug: But, right now right. But we're taking it out according to this. Aanenson: Right. Right, exactly because again you can't, from state law, when it's 75 feet. What the law says right now, 75 percent you don't need a variance so if you have the 75 percent, you don't even need a variance. If you're under 75 percent, you need a 68 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 variance and what we're saying is why put someone through the process if the legal outcome is you can't stop it anyways. Sacchet: It's what's the point, yeah. Aanenson: It's what's the point. Now that would mean they'd have to meet all the impervious surface, all the setbacks. Now the one that you saw, you recommended that they don't get any relief on that so if they still need a relief on setbacks, they would still have to come before you. Sacchet: Wasn't that 75 percent though kind of put things into perspective a little bit too? mean it helps put it into perspective. Aanenson: Right, but what I'm saying is, the lot area is what it is. The only control you have is the height and bulk so if they say you know, yeah my lot's small. It's a lot of record but ! want to do a long rambler and ! need a variance for that. You can say we don't think that's appropriate. We think it should be a two story because that's the appropriate use to get the impervious surface, so that's the control you have, because you can't affect, you can't say you can't build on it because it's a lot of record. So we're saying, that point we can't argue that point. But you have control over it to say, you're going to have narrow your driveway, change the shape of the house and that's, and ultimately that one did end up on the Koehnen one. The council agreed with the Planning Commission and the neighbors did appeal it but they did grant them their approval, because they had to and. Lillehaug: I guess I just, my opinion is I'd like it to be more restrictive and then deviate from there. ! think we're actually being a lot less restrictive by this new. Aanenson: I can see where you say that but we can't stop that part of it, and I'd hate to have someone say. Lillehaug: You can try to do everything you can though. ! mean you're right. Aanenson: Yeah, you can't do anything about that though. Sacchet: But if it doesn't really have a good foundation, what's the point. Aanenson: Right. To burden you with the.., control of that part of it. Sacchet: Alright, next one. Retaining walls less than 4 feet. Same page. Section 13, next part down there. ! thought we were going to, you know ! don't, do we need a zoning compliance review for a retaining wall 4 feet high? Aanenson: The only thing they do is if they're in sometimes if they're...building permit. We would check to see what it is as far as setbacks. Sometimes they're in the utility easement. Sometimes they're put in, and we've had problems with people that are re- 69 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 grading and putting in a drainage swale. So generally what it is, it's just, and we talked about that before, that zoning. It's just a friendly kind of compliance to make sure we don't have a problem. That someone didn't alter a drainage patter, to say oh by the way. So that's what that's about Steve. Lillehaug: You know before ! go on here, with those two questions right there, it kind of defining as I'm going through here, ! thought we recommended something else. And when I'm reading in here, it's not what we recommended. Aanenson: Okay, we talked about zoning compliance. What we have to do to those. That they don't need a building permit because agricultural buildings are exempt from a building permit. An agricultural building on agricultural land, they don't require a building permit but we still check them for setbacks, so this just talks about zoning compliance. They would still check with us. We'd verify that it is a agricultural property. Tracking, do you remember that discussion? So these are ones that. Lillehaug: Am ! just remembering wrong? Sacchet: Well, we definitely had an issue that there was no bottom to this. ! mean we have fences less than 6. We have retaining walls less than 4. ! mean where, how little is a retaining wall? How little is a fence? ! mean you put some rocks around the flower bed, is that a retaining wall? You know. Aanenson: We made the determination before that we don't do that. Sacchet: Okay. Well ! know. Aanenson: If you want to put up a temporary garden fence, we don't permit that. If it' s to keep the deer out. They put it up and it goes down. Again we have criteria regarding some people that use inappropriate materials that are bothersome to the neighbors and we generally work with that, but again these are defined by the building code that don't require a permit. But what we want to have in the code to put people on notice, ! don't need a building permit. Why are you hassling me? Well, they still require some zoning or engineering. Lillehaug: But you're saying here, when you get, I'm talking specifically on retaining walls. When you put a 3 foot retaining wall up in your property, we need to bring it to you so you can review it with the zoning compliance. Aanenson: Typically it wouldn't probably go to zoning. That's probably more an engineering... Lillehaug: But I mean that's what this is saying. Aanenson: Right. Right, to make sure it's not, we would check to make sure it's not, typically we've had people put these up in, like for a fire pit that are in a tree 70 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 conservation area, so what it is just a check to make sure people know where they're putting it and that they're in compliance. Whether it's affecting a drainage or wetland, tree conservation areas, so it's just to put them on notice that. ! didn't know ! needed approval for that so here's a place in the code that we can show them. Lillehaug: Are you guys okay with that? Aanenson: That was a discussion that we had. Keefe: Greater than 1 foot and less than 4 or just how it is 6 inches. Sacchet: That's the problem we're struggling with. Aanenson: But you know what, if it's one foot and it's affecting a wetland, it's a problem. If it's one foot, so ! mean it's all... Papke: Everybody's paranoia is coming in. Correct me if I'm reading this wrong, when you start putting things in that you're not going to enforce...! know it's late but let me tell a brief story. ! was visiting my daughter in Eugene, Oregon last week. And front page of the paper there was a story about the local Planning Commission that got into deep trouble because this woman came to do a kennel in a residential area. And they said well, you know.., but the only way you get caught is if someone turns you in. And the way she read that was well geez, if you're not rigorously enforcing things, the only enforcement is somebody that's turning you in, ! can just do it. And she did. And somebody turned her in, she got caught and they're making her take out her kennel. So it happens and so ! just think there' s a lot of concern about putting something in here that' s so, most people are going to look at and go, someone's going to drag me in for going to Menard's and buying a tree ring and putting it around a tree? Lillehaug: See that's kind of my point. You know when you're in a conservation easement you have to come in here anyways. ! mean it's already covered. Sacchet: ! mean how realistic is it? ! mean that's what I'm struggling with. Papke: And if we get... Aanenson: They won't call. They're not calling now because none of these require a building permit, so the only way is if someone was to call, or if it's complaint basis, so we're trying to put into place to say there is a requirement. Some people, I'm going to Menard's this weekend. ! want to pick up a shed. Do you have standards for that? Yes we do. There's no building required under a square footage, but you have to maintain these setbacks, so we have setbacks on storage sheds. So that's the zoning compliance part of it. There's no building permit but we do check for setbacks and they'll stick it on the back part of the lot. Slagle: So if! can ask, is there a building permit required for a Sport Court? 71 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Aanenson: No. Slagle: So you literally could have your neighbor build a 25, 40 court as long as it meets setback and that's your... Aanenson: And that's why we...compliance one because we might, that's the zoning compliance. Thank you, that's exact point I'm raising because now we need to make sure that they're not increasing the impervious. That they're meeting the setbacks, so that's the check that we're trying to get in place, to put people on notice that we do check those things. Sacchet: And I totally agree with you Kate when it comes to Sport Courts, accessory structures, agricultural buildings, but even with the 3 foot retaining wall or a sizeable fence. What ! have problem with is if there's no lower limit. ! mean technically this could be a 1 inch fence or a 1 inch row of pebbles. Aanenson: Well if you want to take those two out, that's fine with me. Sacchet: If we would have, ! mean there comes a point where it becomes trivial or even ridiculous. When it's so little. So if we would have a limit, kind of quantify the lower end of it, then I'm fine with it. Aanenson: ! know but ! can't because there's too many variables. You get a drainage swale of 1 foot makes a difference. Sacchet: So we just have to trust the common sense. Aanenson: Or take those... If you want to take that retaining one out, I can live with that but ! think you might get the other one. Sacchet: Well, a 3 foot retaining wall, even 2 foot, fits in an easement. Let's say where you need city access to get to a wetland to clean it every 10 years. Papke: I trust the city's common sense. What I don't trust is people reading this and saying, this is a crock. Slagle: Do you think that's different than now? Sacchet: Now that's realistic. Lillehaug: You're right, leave it in there. Sacchet: Alright, I think we needed that. Lillehaug: Okay, sorry. I've got to go on here. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 Sacchet: Go on. Lillehaug: Okay, Sections 20-251 through 20-296. Aanenson: What page are you on Steve? Lillehaug: Jeepers you know, Bob totally lost me what he did here compared to what, he put everything in totally different orders and stuffs in here that we didn't talk about. ! mean ! don't know what he did Kate. Aanenson: ...would you just as soon wait. That's fine. I'm trying to get this moved through but ! don't want you to feel rushed if you haven't had time. Lillehaug: The problem is because when I'm going through these I'm seeing things for example home improvement trade came up, the Home Depot. It's still in here. Hours shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Well that is not what we talked about. Aanenson: Okay, we'll... Sacchet: Maybe we should table it to next time Kate. ! meant here are. Aanenson: ! don't want you to feel rushed, that's fine. Sacchet: ! mean this is significant enough that ! think we should not rush. Lillehaug: Sorry but. Aanenson: No, that's okay. Sacchet: Do we need to make a motion to table this? Aanenson: Please. Sacchet: Who makes the motion please? Slagle: So moved. Sacchet: Who makes the second please? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded to table adoption of Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 73 Planning Commission Meeting - April 20, 2004 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bethany Tjornhom noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 6, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 74