Loading...
PC 1995 04 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19, 1995 Chairman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and then made an opening statement as to the procedures of a Planning Commission meeting. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Nutting, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Mike Meyer, Bob Skubic, and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 25,304 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON 2.16 ACRE LOT, PROPERTY ZONED PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON LOT 7, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 2ND ADDITION, PAULSTARR ENTERPRISES INC., STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Do any commissioners have any questions of staff? Bob, I just have one. Does the entryway, is this for the tenants entryway also? Generous: Yes, it would be both entryways. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? David Kordonowy: I'm David Kordonowy from Steiner Development. I'm representing Paulstarr tonight. We looked at the staff report and we think it has reasonable comments and we concur with it and we'll comply with the recommendations. I really don't have anything else...thank you. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: We're open for public hearing. If you would like to come up to the podium and state your name and address and any comments. Hearing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Comments from the commissioners. Mr. Nutting. Nutting: I don't really have any comments. It looks like staff and the developer have come up with a good development. I appreciate the ability to work through some of the architectural details and to come up with something that was an enhancement from the start so I have no further comments. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: The report eludes to treating the entrances differently. Can you elaborate on that at all? Generous: To the entrance? Farmakes: This extension that comes out here. Generous: Yes. Farmakes: Do you feel that those reflect the guidelines that we talked about as far as design? I realize this is a warehouse building but we've seen these in here before. I'm wondering if something along the lines that was done with those. Kate, you remember the storage building that I'm talking about that's very typical to this that they redid the front. I think Sharmin maybe worked on it. I believe it's also over in the Lake Susan industrial area. Aanenson: I'm sorry, I don't remember. Farmakes: It's basically a rectangle and we dealt with the entrances. I believe we modified them. It was a small amount but at least it did more than just create a box. Aanenson: Right. Those would be the most similar examples that we have would be on Park Drive. Mail Source and then another one next door to that. It's rectangular in size and they did a little bit different material. Tried to vary the material and also added architectural relief by using, as Bob had them do, requested that they do some sort of entrance feature to try to break up that long line. That's what we were trying to... Farmakes: Which was just adding another brick? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 David Kordonowy: What you might not be able to quite follow, there is a relief to the entryway. Actually the relief is in about 3 feet so we highlight the entryway with a little bit of brick but also the entryway is set into the building so if you're pushing the building to have a real positive image, of how people will be coming into the building. It's a pretty stark entryway because we're using the colors of gray, almost black and white so it will really stand out and break up, it's really a pretty short building but it will break up the length. Farmakes: We've talked about these buildings before. We've talked about them on the task force on the Highway 5 issue. This is a little different animal. It's inside the industrial park. You have a storage building obviously, and I can't see a developer wanting to put much money in a building. If we look at, on Highway 41, the Mammoth building. I believe that's in Chaska I believe. I was driving by there the other day, I have a 15 year old son and he'd be the last person I'd expect to hear the comment that he made. As we drove by he said gee dad, what an ugly building. And I got to think, yeah, it's a box. And so much I guess of visual relief could be added just by adding something. Depth or extending the front out I believe is what they did on the other building. We still just have a box. It seems that the entrance feature that we're talking about or that we talk about in these guidelines is extending it out, raising it up or creating something, some visual relief. It's not an extensive use. Most buildings you can use just, what was used in Target. Something to break up the box. Two courses of black brick I'm not sure what it's called but. As far as the landscaping goes, I think it's fine. The recommendations that you've made. I have no further comments. Mancino: Bob, would you like to show the materials. Generous: Yes, sorry. The applicant did provide building materials. This is the black brick material that runs, or the accent color that they'll be using. The top part of the building is in the Sanibel rock face and then the lower part of the building would be in this medium gray color. And then I believe on the side and the rear, the predominant color then changes to the gray. That's the window area on the east and west elevations. David Kordonowy: ...colors will be used for...on both sides and then the main part of the side and back building... Mancino: Thank you. Mike, do you have any comments? Questions? Meyer: No. Mancino: Bob? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Skubic: Ah yes I do...street designated on the site plan, eventually will be the front of another office...loading dock area here... Generous: I don't know if there will ever be sufficient coverage to block all of it. I suppose they could be in halves. We are recommending that they provide an additional 4 trees. Two overstory and two evergreens. Unless you want to make a wall out there, or do some berming in there, I suppose that would help to help screen that area also. Skubic: Being that there's streets on two sides, one side has to be the back of the building. Generous: Right. And the east side is really the most important elevation than the south one. The east because that's the view from Audubon, and the south because that is their entryway. Skubic: Thank you. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: One for staff. One for the applicant. Staff, in your recommendations number 10. It says each property shall be allowed one monument sign. Now is that for the PUD in total? Generous: Yes. Conrad: But this property is one lot. Generous: Gets one monument. Correct. It's one per the site. Conrad: This property gets one. And for the applicant, well and for staff. Roof mounted equipment. Screened by walls. Point number 17 in the staff report. We're not looking at it. I don't know what it is. I don't really know what our standards are so what we do we expect the applicant to bring back? Do we have a standard for screening? Generous: Not specifically. They can use metal sided materials. The applicant had been discussing the use of ordering right from the manufacturer a panel that's applied right to the equipment itself. That would be less metallic and I wonder if Dave could provide a little more detail on that. I know the architect was discussing it with me and it was a material that would blend in with the building, but be attached right to the equipment. Mancino: It has a roof surface? Generous: Yeah. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 David Kordonowy: It's a metallic. It's a standing seam metal that would have pre-coloring. They would have some color matched to the existing building. We haven't explored it fully because we're not sure, we haven't designed the office layout so we're not sure if in fact we're putting in one unit... We really haven't gotten to that detail but we have heard that there's a nice pre- finished. We don't know if the project can support it. If it can, great. If not, we'll go back to a metal type fence curved into the roof which we've used in other applications before. But it certainly won't be a wood fence. I think that's precluded from this...so it will be a pre-finished metal. Either on the unit itself or a fence. Conrad: So our report says all roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Okay. Mancino: Actually the color will be compatible. Conrad: Yeah. I'm okay with that. Jeff, your comment on, you're not satisfied with the staff report? In terms of their recommendations to break up the front of the building. Farmakes: No, I think it should be done. Mancino: You want it to go further? Farmakes: Or relief around the door. Conrad: And you'd want some treatment to the entrance itself? Farmakes: I think, I can't remember the name of the, it was storage unit also in a very similar location. I can't remember the name of it. It was a while back but it was the same issue. They built out the entrance a little bit, moved it back or something and it enhanced the building. I mean it wasn't a major expense but it gave it some relief. Conrad: Okay, no more comments. Mancino: My comments are with Bob's. I would like to see the landscaping that is at the northern side of the property where it abuts B street and becomes the front view for Lot 4. Just to be bermed. To include some berming here for screening and I would like to see some of the deciduous vegetation replaced with coniferous so there can be some year round screening. And I think that I'd also like to change any of the recommendations when we do talk about screening, to include the adjective year round. I also agree with Jeff on the entrances. The two entrances. I looked at the other two buildings that are up in that area, the church and the National Weather Service, and I think that the quality of their architecture kind of sets the standard in this area and I 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 think that they do have a little, what do I want to say, more sophisticated architecture in their entrances so I'd like to see some adjustments. That's it. Do I have a motion? Do we have any further discussions before we entertain a motion? Any other comments? Nutting: What are we, from the discussions regarding the entryway and treatment, are we looking to direct staff? Are we looking to have staff provide some recommendations or. Mancino: We can certainly ask to see it again with staff and the applicant reviewing and I think giving them a little clearer direction with the entrances. Or we can go ahead and make a recommendation that they are to, with staff's approval, go ahead and work on the entrances. David Kordonowy: Up to this time we have brought all the preliminary views to staff. They've given us direction as to how the city wants the site to be designed and built out. We've accommodated just about every comment that they've had. Just in the last couple of days they brought up the point that they wanted to maybe see a little bit better definition of the entryway. We came up with an idea. If there's any way that we could proceed with this process and give us the flexibility working with staff, we don't see any problem with working with the staff. I think we've had good cooperation to this point so if we can continue to move the process along, we'd appreciate it. ...design in some additional features. I don't know what they are yet but we'll try to work with you on that. But I just don't want to have this thing move to another month and then lose the ability to start construction in early May. Mancino: Thank you. We appreciate your comments and the public hearing is closed so we will go ahead with our comments now. Thank you. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Site Plan #95-6 on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and Schoell & Madsen, Inc. on plans dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following, or subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report and with the following modifications. All references to, and help me out Nancy in terms of the landscaping to include the words year round. Added to those references. To add condition number 20. Recommending that staff work with the applicant to provide some berming on the north face to provide additional screening back there for the loading dock area. And I think that's it. Mancino: Can I make a friendly amendment to that? Nutting: Sure. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: And just, instead of doing number 20, add to number 7. Just add onto that, the landscaping plan for the northern strip of property that is adjacent to Street B shall be revised to include berming and additional coniferous vegetation. Nutting: Okay. And I guess I would add one additional recommendation. I would accept Nancy's revisions and then recommendation 20 that staff and the applicant work together on the treatment for the entrance to provide, if you will break up to the detail consistent with the surrounding development. Conrad: I'd second that. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Site Plan #95-6 on plans prepared by AKRW dated 3/20/95 and Schoell & Madsen, Inc. on plans dated 3/20/95 for a 25,304 square foot office/warehouse building on Lot 7, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Center 2nd Addition, subject to the following conditions: 1.The pavement sections in the parking and loading dock areas shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations from a professional soils engineer. 2.All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Design Detail (Plate No. 5207 - attached). 3.No building permits or grading may commence on the site until after the final plat has been approved and recorded and the developer of Chanhassen Business Center had executed the development contract. 4.The applicant shall submit detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year storm event to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 5.Erosion control measures such as rock construction entrances and protection around the catch basins shall be employed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook until the parking lots are paved. 6.Additional information is needed on type of processes, product commodities, height of storage, etc. to assure compliance with fire codes. 7.A minimum of 10 overstory trees are to be planted in or along the parking area. Staff is recommending an additional landscape peninsula in the northern parking lot area. Locations are to be shown on the landscape plan. Overstory trees chosen by the applicant are to be 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 from the City's Approved Tree List with a parking location designation. Perimeter plantings meet calculation requirements, but additional screening will be required in the northeast section of the site to reduce visibility of loading area from Audubon Road. Applicant shall The landscaping work with staff to revise the landscaping plan to incorporate the changes. plan for the northern strip of property that is adjacent to Street B shall be revised to include berming and additional coniferous vegetation. 8.Plant material quantities on the Landscape Schedule and the Landscape Plan differ significantly. Applicant must provide the city with revised schedule that correctly reflects quantities on Landscape Plan. 9.All free standing signs be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. 10.Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. All signs require a separate permit. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. 11.The signage will have consistency throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. 12.Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. 13.A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. 14.Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. 15.All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. 16.Revise the building entrances to project out from the building in order to improve the entrance features and break up and add relief to the large building expanse. Specifically, the block be built out from the remainder of the building facade enclosing the entry area. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 17.All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. 18.The applicant shall provide aeration/irrigation tubing in each peninsular or island type landscape area containing a tree that is less than 10 feet in width. The applicant shall install automatic irrigation in all site landscape areas. A financial security (letter of credit or cash escrow) in the amount of $17,700.00 to guarantee landscaping for the project. 19.The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 20. Staff and the applicant shall work together on the treatment for the entrance to provide detail consistent with the surrounding development. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT 36 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 35 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, HIGHLANDS AT LAKE ST. JOE, LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND SOUTH OF LAKE ST. JOE. Public Present: Name Address Loane Burau 1225 78th Street Jeanette & Jerry Boley 7414 Minnewashta Parkway Tim Braff 7410 Minnewashta Parkway Brenda Roy 7400 Minnewashta Parkway Terry Rixe 7456 Minnewashta Parkway Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Does the commissioners have any questions? What's the most current landscaping plan? What's the day of it? So that we can refer to it in our conditions. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: It'd be 9-27-93, and that's the date probably that should be in the condition. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or designee wish to address the Planning Commission? Mike Pflaum: My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm the Vice President of Lundgren Brothers Construction and I don't wish to make any type of a presentation unless the Planning Commission has specific questions that they'd like to ask of me. Mancino: Okay, is there anyone that has any questions? Doesn't seem to be at this point. Mike Pflaum: I stand ready to answer any questions. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: The public hearing is open. Does anyone wish to come up and speak about this particular project? Brenda Roy: My name is Brenda Roy. I live at 7400 Minnewashta Parkway. My question is, my home...included I believe in the development. Aanenson: This is your house right here. Brenda Roy: My house is... Aanenson: Right...this is your house. That's the back portion of the lot... Brenda Roy: What I'm wondering is, if I'm included. Is that going to affect my taxes? Aanenson: You're not included in the plat. Just the back portion of your lot is being added to the plat. Your existing home will be maintained the way it is. The area you have left is 20,000 square feet. Brenda Roy: But with the letter I just... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mike Pflaum: The legal description of her property, of her homestead would be a lot and block description with the Highlands on Lake St. Joe. The property has been incorporated in the plat split. My understanding is that that...affect whatsoever the valuation questions... Brenda Roy: That's exactly what the City Council... Mancino: Affect your property taxes. Aanenson: The best thing to do is call the Carver County Assessor. Mancino: Assessment office. Brenda Roy: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: You're welcome. Anyone else wish to make any comments or have any questions? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Any discussion? Well I guess I should ask for comments first. Bob, any comments? Skubic: I have none. Mancino: Ron. Nutting: I don't really have any comments either. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I think the variances are appropriate, if that's what they have to have. I think the intent of the 125 foot and the rationale for the wider lots are met through the pie shape that we ultimately get from these lots so I have no problem with that. For staff, Lots 5 and 6 are non, they're not riparian lot which means they can't have docks. Mancino: 3 too. Conrad: Yeah, and 3 too. And what prevents that. I don't know Kate if I really have a question. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: This is the same issue we went through with the Point at Lake Lucy. There's a significant amount of wetland before you get to the dock. First of all it's pretty cost prohibitive for an individual person to try to maintain that. They certainly have a right, if it's a riparian lot, to go through the procedures. The same with on Lake Lucy. Certainly they need a wetland alteration permit which gives us jurisdiction, review and control and at that point we would certainly work to combine the docks, if that's a request. Originally when this came through our intent was to try to not allow docks but we can't, again the DNR has some control there. But because they need a wetland alteration permit, we would work to have people combine to minimize the amount of alteration to the wetland. Conrad: So each property owner would need a wetland alteration permit? Aanenson: Correct. It would be similar to what we did on Point Lake Lucy. Mancino: And is that part of the conditions? Aanenson: There is an existing dock that we said had to come out because then, that was number 15. That's just an ordinance requirement. I didn't...but that they did need one. They would have to go through that. If you wanted to add it, just so it's on the record for edification but it would be an ordinance requirement. Conrad: How do we inform the property owners, those that buy, that they are. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. We could put it in here but there's not any more guarantee that they'd read these conditions. It's really onerous on the developer to let them know what the process would be if they were to get a dock. Mike Pflaum: Excuse me, could I address that for just a moment? Mancino: Yes, you may. Mike Pflaum: We interpreted the condition pertaining to the removal of the dock to mean that none of the lot owners that abutted Lake St. Joe should have docks, and a declaration of covenants for the subdivision prohibits docks...That then should deal with it. Aanenson: That was our original discussion too. Mancino: Thank you Mike. Conrad: That's all. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Jeff. Farmakes: No comments. I like it. Difficult piece of property. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. Mancino: I had no comments. Do I have a motion? Hempel: Excuse me...there was one error in condition number 4 regarding grading. As Kate pointed out earlier in the staff report, we are doing grading within the buffer strip. In the wetland. Condition number 4 prohibits grading within the wetland buffer strip. I suggest modifying that to the applicant shall work with staff to modify the grading plans to minimize grading adjacent to the wetland. Mancino: Thank you Dave. Conrad: What did Dave just say? Say that again Dave. It says no grading shall take place within the wetland buffer strip. Nutting: He said adjacent to. Conrad: But that can't happen anyway. Aanenson: Can I clarify that with the map here? This was a condition of the original approval too. You can't grade, you stake that, put the erosion control along the edge of the wetland. Okay. Then you're required to put a buffer strip. Either maintain what's there or go back and revegetate it. There was an area in here that they had some grading close to the edge of the wetland so there is a problem to say that they can't grade at all within that buffer strip. So what we're saying is, again you have a chance to meander that buffer strip. There's a minimum average. So what we're saying is that we're working with the applicant to minimize the grading within the buffer strip but there are areas they can. This is a caveat that says they can't at all. Certainly the intent is to minimize that. Mancino: Will we still have the required average? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: Certainly. Yeah, we're not going to vary from that. But they can go closer so what we're saying is, that language is a little bit restrictive insofar as the flexibility that the buffer strip allows. Farmakes: So you want that first sentence to be replaced by what was just stated then? Aanenson: Correct. The language that Dave just gave you. Conrad: Which we've all forgotten Dave. Farmakes: The applicant will work with staff to minimize grading within the buffer strip. Mancino: Any more discussion? Conrad: Well yeah, a little bit with Dave, as long as he brought this up. The buffer strip may vary from 0 to 20. But that is not willy nilly. Isn't that based on how we perceive that 0 to 20 should be in place, meaning there's some places where 0 is not significant. Some places where 20 is significant so do you review Dave the buffer strip and how any particular applicant has treated that? Or can they just really meander that between 0 and 20 and really it doesn't get the staff attention? Aanenson: You can ask Mr. Pflaum about that. It gets our attention. Mike Pflaum: It gets their attention. Conrad: Okay. Well maybe that's a good enough answer but tell me about that because I don't understand the process. Hempel: In certain areas it's virtually impossible to give the 20 feet or a curvalinear shoreline shapes of wetlands, depending on the road or built up grade for a lot pad but there are other areas where there's an excessive amount of room there adjacent to a wetland to make up for that...encroachment. One of the other things is the two storm water treatment ponds that you see on the plan. Those we're looking at reducing down the size of those. They were oversized originally to take a 100 year storm event. There's really no need to do that kind of...storm water quality pond...water quantity. So we're able to downsize those ponds a little bit to pull those ponds back from the wetland... So we did have a little bit of flexibility there in site grading to do that. Mancino: So he personally goes out an inspects every day and checks. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: That's what I'd expect him to do. Nothing else. Okay. I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval for the preliminary plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe as shown on the plans dated March 23, 1995 prepared by Sathre-Berquist and subject to the conditions in the staff report with the changed point number 4 that would replace the current wording and state that staff would work with the applicants to minimize grading within the wetland buffer strip. And point number 15. If the covenants, huh. Point number 15 would read as worded, with the addition that states that if the covenants allow docks, I think I'll keep it worded that way. I'm not sure. If the covenants do allow docks, the docks would need a wetland alteration permit. I don't think we can take that right away from somebody and the wording to say you can't because the covenants are restricting the developer can. We can't. That's why I think I worded it that way. That's the, Jeff did you say something? Farmakes: Didn't you mention 16 also in regards to the dating of. Aanenson: Yeah. I think we should add as per landscaping plan dated September 27, 1993. Conrad: Okay, that's kind of what I was going to say. That would be it on point number 16 per the landscape plan. End of motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second? Farmakes: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Highlands on Lake St. Joe as shown on the plans dated March 23, 1995, prepared by Sathre-Berquist, and subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2.The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1995 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Updated construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. 3.The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 The applicant shall work with staff to modify the grading plans to minimize grading 4. adjacent to the wetland. The plans shall be revised accordingly. 5.Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6.All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7.The applicant shall place a sign on barricades at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on Ridgehill Road indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. 8.The applicant/developer/property owner waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade (90-15), including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The applicant/developer/property owner waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to MS Sec. 429.081. Phase I of the development shall be assessed for 35 units and Phase II assessed for 21 units. 9.Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations of acceptance of park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees will be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $900.00 per unit. Full trail dedication fees in lieu of a trail easement. These fees are to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential rate for single family dwellings is $300.00 per unit. 10.Compliance with the city's wetland regulation include permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 11.A buffer strip shall be provided adjacent to all wetlands. The wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural wetland. The buffer strip width may vary from 10 to 30 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 20 feet. The other wetland is located on Lots 20 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 and 21, Block 2 and are classified as ag/urban. The buffer strip width may vary from 0 to 20 feet wide as long as the average buffer strip width is 10 feet. 12.Compliance with the Building Official's recommendations: a.Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspection Division. Pads that are corrected at the time streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before city acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected shall be submitted before Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. 13.Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 1. 14.The landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway shall be in compliance with the city's requirements. In addition, the requirement of one tree per lot shall be required. 15.The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed at the time of If the covenants do allow docks, the docks would need a grading within the plat. wetland alteration permit. dated September 16.The applicant shall work with staff to prepare a revise the landscaping plans 17, 1993. Landscaping needs to be added to provide screening from views of Minnewashta Parkway across from Lake St. Joe to soften the view from the homes. 17.The applicant will be responsible for a storm water quantity connection charge of $46,246.00. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OUTLOT B AND BLOCKS 5, 6, 7 OF OAK PONDS 2ND ADDITION INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OAK PONDS 4TH ADDITION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 70 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING, CARVER COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. Public Present: Name Address Beth Larson 7590 Canyon Curve Gregg Geske 7530 Canyon Curve Cindy Schallock 7501 Canyon Curve Jeff & Sherrell McCoskey 7481 Canyon Curve Sherol Howard 1005 Pontiac Lane Bunny Billison 7281 Pontiac Circle Jane Kubitz 2492 Saratoga Drive Paul ? 2219 Boulder Road Mary & Tim Anderson 7550 Canyon Curve Jack Thien 7570 Canyon Curve Greg Hromatka 7580 Canyon Curve Marion Stultz 110340 Geske Road #203, Chaska Viola Scharrer 110340 Geske Road #316, Chaska Dorothy McIntyre 110340 Geske Road #204, Chaska Albin H. Olson 406 Santa Fe Circle Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? I have one. Sharmin, one of the recommendations or one of your suggestions was to add some overstory trees on the western side. Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Will that be shown tonight by the applicant? That revision or could you show me where you mean. Al-Jaff: It would be along this area. Mancino: Okay. And the purpose that it serves is for sheltering in the summer, etc. Was there another area also that you had suggested more canopy coverage? Or was that it? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Al-Jaff: It would be the southern area of the building in general. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation at this time? Julie Frick: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Julie Frick and I'm in the Director of the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. We've been working with the city on this project for quite some time and we've brought along some of the renderings to try to comply with all of the requirements and still provide some...for the seniors in the city of Chanhassen. At this time I'll turn it over to Carol Crow from Dunbar Development who I'm working with. And also working... Mancino: Thank you. Carol Crow: Good evening. I'm Carol Crow with Dunbar Development. We've been working closely with...Carver County and Chanhassen, both the redevelopment authorities on this development. I have some renderings that show some of the changes that we have been working on as requested by the staff. One thing I would like to start out with, there is some, the layout of the building can be somewhat confusing so I'd just like to walk through that with you so you can see how the four stories of the building lay out. This is a site plan of the building. If you enter, the garage entrance to the underground parking area is off of Kerber Boulevard, which is shown here. The north side of the underground park would be the first level. Above that you have three more levels. This would be the north side here. On the west side of the building there is no housing on the first, on the parking level. On the first level that steps up to street level and then up to four levels and then down to three at the very end. We have complied with the setback requirements from Kerber Boulevard. We have pulled it back to 50 feet farther. To do that we have eliminated 7 units of housing to bring the building 10 feet back so we do have the 30 foot setback from Santa Vera Drive. Mancino: So there are a total of 63 units? Carol Crow: 63 units. We also have several computer generated drawings of what the building will look like from the neighbor's perspective. This is kind of an older photo so it doesn't show all the homes that have been developed along here but this would be Canyon Curve...our development. These various photos represent the front to side... There is approximately 400 feet distance between our property and the neighboring... Mancino: I'm sorry, what's the point of those? What are those showing me? I mean I see the overhead. Carol Crow: We're just showing you the neighbor's and perspective to our building... 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Farmakes: When you said 400 feet, from building to building or from property line to property line? Carol Crow: From our building to the neighbors. Farmakes: From structure to structure? Carol Crow: From structure to structure. Farmakes: Okay. Carol Crow: This would be more or less an aerial view of the building. These two would be aerial views. These would be views if you were standing in one of these, this house for example would be...Also the rendering in this one...this would be a perspective looking at the back of the building. This is a photograph from down the hill at Kerber Boulevard. This is another development right across the street from our site that is currently under construction. This represents or shows our building on the side in relation to the building across the street. Mancino: So we are on Kerber, where are we right now? We are on Saddlewood and Kerber? Mike Sepena: We're north of the site. At the first road that goes in...I believe it's Saddlewood... Farmakes: What is the retaining wall material again? Carol Crow: Pardon me? Farmakes: What is that material again? I don't remember. Carol Crow: I think we're looking at something like a Keystone type of block. Farmakes: So it's not flat surface. It's textured. Mancino: I'm sorry Carol, I have a question about that. Now I am to presume that on that lower left view, okay. That I am in my car, which I did this afternoon on Canyon Curve, and that's a perspective I'm going to see? Carol Crow: Actually if you were in the house. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: I don't know what to say. Only that when I sat in my car, it was a much closer feel, the land mass was, without the building on it. The land mass was much, felt much closer to me than the perspective that you're showing there. So it's just, I don't know if anyone else did that. Went to where the houses were on Canyon Curve but I felt that the perspective, it was very different than what I'm seeing. Conrad: I can relate. Skubic: I agree...seems to be much closer...illustration. Carol Crow: Excuse me, could I ask Mike Sepena with...He worked on these and he might be able to provide. Mancino: Oh, thank you. Mike Sepena: I'm not sure how much more information I can provide other than basically what we did is we plugged the whole building into the machine so we could go all the way around it and have a bunch of different views since we don't have a model here at the meeting. The view that you were asking about was this one... This view is taken, this is the pond that shows right down here. So this view is taken from over here looking in that direction. Carol Crow: So it's farther... Mike Sepena: Right. Looking across the pond at the building. That was here. This one here is taken from the road. From Kerber Boulevard looking in this direction. Then these both are similar views except with eye level up in the air... Mancino: Any commissioners have any questions, comments for Mike at this point? Farmakes: What is red is berming, is that correct? Or terra cotta color. Mancino: Julie and Carol, are you done? Carol Crow: Oh, yes. Unless... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Any other questions. Do you happen to have material samples? As to brick, the siding, etc. Carol Crow: I'm sorry, I didn't bring those with me. The exterior would be a vinyl siding and the brick would be... 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: What color vinyl siding? Carol Crow: We haven't decided on final colors but what we're showing on the scheme is... sort of a taupe. Mancino: Okay. And the brick, what? Carol Crow: A reddish brown brick. Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions? On materials or detailing. Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open it to a public hearing. Nutting moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Thank you. This is open the public hearing. Anyone who would like to come up and have comments, please do. State your name and address. Tim Anderson: Hi. My name's Tim Anderson. I live at 7550 Canyon Curve. I guess there's two items I'd like to bring up. One is one that's been brought up, is the size of the building. It is a big building. We had asked city staff and at a previous Council meeting I had asked for renderings to be made and these renderings that were made are fine except that it would have been nice if they were on a photographic type rendering... I think I agree with what Nancy was saying that, because the site is up high and it juts out from the rest of this hill, the slope, which kind of juts to the north, the filling should actually be in front or farther north than like the townhomes will be that will be constructed west of it. It really gives the appearance that it's closer than even like these rendering provide and that's because obviously you're missing, it's a computer rendering, not a photographic rendering and it's very difficult, I feel to really get a feel for what this thing's going to look like, even with what they provided tonight. I wanted to mention one other thing. A previous plan for this site, done 3 years ago, was originally planned to put about 40 apartment units up on the hill. My neighbors and I had made a video. Actually about 3 years ago in a snowstorm with 30 foot poles showing how big even a 30 foot apartment building would be on the hill and because of this and some other comments from the Council...staff, the developer decided to put townhomes on the hill. Now they're planning, this project puts 70, or excuse me, 63 units where 40 was too much before. Second item is the garage entrance onto Kerber. Myself and a lot of my neighbors have children who attend school at Chanhassen Elementary who often walk or ride their bicycles to school and we worry about having a driveway entrance from the building onto Kerber and if at all possible, could this entrance be put off of, the underground parking entrance be placed off of Santa Vera. There are no other driveway entrances north of the 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 school along the entire stretch of Kerber Boulevard. I have, I guess that's my only comments to make so thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Jack Thien: My name is Jack Thien. I live at 7570 Canyon Curve. My house, if you haven't been by there, is the sort of blue gray house. My house faces, the back of it faces directly to that hill and I do have a concern about the size of the building also because the building, I don't know, what is the height of the building itself? Mancino: Sharmin? Al-Jaff: An average of 44.75 feet. There is one side of 42 feet and another side of 46 feet so when you average those you come up with 44 feet. Mancino: So the highest is 46? Al-Jaff: Correct. Conrad: As measured from where to where? Al-Jaff: As measured from. Aanenson: Average grade. Conrad: So not the north side or not the south side, but someplace inbetween? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: So on the north side it would be. Al-Jaff: The north side is 46 feet. It is 46 feet. Mancino: I'm sorry, go ahead Jack. Jack Thien: And I wonder...my concern is the size of the building and I thought about another concern too possibly is, how many stories is this? Four stories? Four levels. Al-Jaff: Correct. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Jack Thien: And my concern is, I know myself I'm getting in my 40's and I don't get around as quickly as I used to and one of the concerns that I thought about was, you know somebody being on the fourth level, you know if an emergency does come up of some sort, how quickly are they going to be able to evacuate so that was a concern too. So it's just my hopes that we can work something out. I think we had talked one time, is there a possibility of going with the grade at all and lowering...what it is now. Al-Jaff: We looked at that. The only problem with it becomes the underground parking. Right now you need to match the grade to allow for the parking with Kerber Boulevard. And if you lower it any further, Dave can you answer that question? Hempel: I think you've addressed it pretty well Sharmin. The road does eventually...continue to bring the driveway down further. You'll have a steeper slope into the basement garage... unit down further, you push the grading closer to the pond. Mancino: What is the steepness of that right now from the lower garage level to Kerber? Hempel: I believe it's about 2% to 3%... Mancino: Okay, thank you. Jack Thien: I can't think of anything else. Oh, there was one thing. If you haven't actually viewed that hill from Canyon Curve, I certainly would hope that you would do that...because it is a different view than what the rendering is. It's up here you know as opposed to more eye level and I just hope that... Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission? Kevin Crystal: My name is Kevin Crystal. I live at 940 Saddlebrook Curve. I'd just like to repeat my opposition to the height, or their opposition to the height. It being up on a hill, that certainly would dominant the skyline for quite an area around there. Mancino: Thank you. John Linforth: Good evening. My name is John Linforth. I live at 7471 Canyon Curve and to first say that I think most of the neighbors in our neighborhood would like to have senior housing on that hillside... None of us have, that I have heard, have voiced any opposition to having any type of senior housing development put on that hill. The major opposition that I'd like to voice is the height of this building. It's opening up an interesting... This project could not be done yesterday without 70 units. Today it can be done with 63 units. So what makes sense today is 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 fairly random...that I'd like to ask the staff, where do they measure the 42 feet from the northern exposure...If I understand, the mid-point of the eaves are the measuring points on the northern exposure. From my rough estimates, the actual height of that building is over 60 feet tall. This will be a monolithic sized building, from a hillside that has no vegetation at all on it. I think if you lower this building so that it conforms with the established houses that the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen works with, it would fit in with the neighborhood. But as it is right now, it's a huge building. Mancino: Thank you. Sharmin, can you take a minute to clarify exactly where the 46 is by going to the drawing on the northern elevation. Al-Jaff: Okay we're looking from this point up to the middle of. Mancino: So from the ground level to the middle is 46? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. And in some of those peak areas, you're going to have an additional 20 feet? Al-Jaff: With the peak areas it would come up to 50 feet. I mean if you measure up to the peak, then you are at 50 feet. Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Planning Commission tonight? Sherrell McCoskey: I'm Sherrell McCoskey. I live at 7481 Canyon Curve and my concerns are too in the height of the building. Also the driveway going directly out onto Kerber Boulevard. That seems to be a dangerous proposition with all the children around. I'm concerned about the lack of landscaping. It sounded like they were just going to have sumac or something and there are some oak trees near-by and some kind of covering, even in the winter time would be kind of a nice thing. Judging from that hill, it will probably take me 25 years to grow a tree tall enough to cover up this building but maybe there's something they can do on their part in the meantime. I'm also concerned about how tall the retaining wall is. If that, do you know how tall that is? Al-Jaff: Total of 11 feet but it's going to be stepped. Sherrell McCoskey: And I guess I'd like to encourage anyone that's wondering what this is going to look like, to go see a large red apartment building by...Creek Golf Course on Valley View Road in Eden Prairie. It is just a huge, ugly building and maybe if we went with a color that was a little lighter or something, it wouldn't be such a monster sitting up on that hill. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Greg Hromatka: My name is Greg Hromatka. I live at 7580 Canyon Curve and just obviously the height is a concern. My property is directly along the one side which you have here and the...from the corner of the street, which would be Saddlebrook Curve and Kerber, it really doesn't do justice to the leveling off the hill down to the neighborhood that's directly in my back yard and all around. Another issue would be, cars are traveling away from downtown Chan on Kerber Boulevard...I feel and it's basically a blind intersection for where these cars would be pulling out. That's a real concern. That's for the kids as well as traffic... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Cindy Schallock: I'm Cindy Schallock and I live at 7501 Canyon Curve, and just two concerns. To reiterate that the size of the building, and also the driveway. You know, for someone to start at that point, I thought well we could cross the street but there isn't really any crosswalk along there. That's south of where that driveway would be and then if you have the townhomes there, that's the only crosswalk for Kerber Boulevard. Painted crosswalk on the street. So that corner is a big concern as far as traffic goes. I'm thrilled that a senior community is going in there and I hope it does go through. I'd much rather see that go through than rental townhomes... I've worked with seniors the last 12 years and, in a community quite like this, in senior housing in Minnetonka, and I'm really excited. Mancino: Appreciate your comments. Anyone else? I see more people. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Nutting moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Discussion from commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: It's an interesting problem, but I haven't been working on it for several months like city staff and the County. I'm very familiar with the area. I've lived here for a long time, close by this area and have been on the commission here when we dealt with the townhomes developed adjacent on the top of the hill here. First of all I'd like to discuss the building or the general impressions of the building, irregardless of the height. I think city staff did a wonderful job breaking up the facades. Creating textures in this building. Considering some of the problems that they had, the size of the acreage, putting up many units and trying to create something that would fit in to the residential area was a difficult assignment. They did a nice job. The materials I think are for the most part done in such a way not to be institutional but to create a residential feeling to the building. It actually looks like kind of an Italian hillside town. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Villas. Farmakes: Yeah. I would much rather live here than in the townhouses adjacent to the top of the hill. And the view from there is quite nice. One of the things that I've always been concerned about in working with that particular area. We were talking about the other development farther up the hill. There's a considerable distance that separates Saddlebrook with the top of this hill and as difficult as that may be, when communities and cities look for transition or what is the transition from one to the other, one of those criterias is distance that you use and what separates that usage. In reality, we're a block from mainstreet here. I mean it's not that far away. We're not out in the hinterlands. There's been elaborate studies done and distance and what works for this type of housing and what the major criteria is that it's within quick access to the necessities of life and the service areas. Grocery stores and shopping and so on that don't require large distances to go. Now anybody who's had kids in this city knows that you spend a tremendous time driving back and forth picking up things, dropping people off. So I think that the need for this type of thing and where it's location is, is pretty finite. That there are very few places that this can go to meet those criteria. And again, I think that they've done a very good job and it isn't often that I get into this. There's a couple of things that I would add as general comments that I would like to see. The area that it overlooks is sort of a man made or excuse me, a human made wetland area that was put together. It used to be an old cow slew that cows used to walk through. And there's a couple of ponds down there but basically it's sort of been left to go to natural grasses and so on. If some of the continuations of those natural materials, I know that the city has used boulder walls rather than Keystoning say for the water tower and where the natural glacier boulders are used. Something like that might be helpful. Also the color on the roof wasn't a big mass of black. A comment was made, maybe a gray and maybe still asphalt but maybe kind of a fake shaking creates, breaks up the light so you don't have this big mass of long similar color going through it. But the rest of it, the brick, this is far nicer than anything I've seen in Minneapolis and we're talking 20 some stories there, many of them, and in your residential areas. So just because I say Minneapolis, it doesn't mean big city. We're talking in South Minneapolis or even in the 40th Street areas you see these two bedroom ramblers going up and then you see a 23 story tower going up. I really think you've done a good job here. On the parking lot area where the entrance is off of Kerber, is that going to be some sort of gravel roof or what? Mike Sepena: The top of the deck over the underground parking? Farmakes: Right. Mike Sepena: That would be, what we're thinking of is it would just be a concrete patterning, concrete color...so it's more like. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Farmakes: So it's not for use. Mike Sepena: People can walk up there. And that garage entrance is 50 feet set back from the property line. So any cars driving out of there are going to be visible from 50 feet before they get to the property line and then of course there's a little more distance between the property line and Kerber Boulevard. Farmakes: So you then would take the railing that you have going on on the back and place that then around that. I don't see that in the drawing here. Mike Sepena: Yeah, we didn't show a railing but there would be something around there because people will be up there. Farmakes: It would be nice if that were continued throughout the building. What you have going on in the back. The landscaping is nice. I think that the neighbors' concerns about the traffic, I'd defer to the City Engineer and Public Safety on that issue. I walk several times a day up and down this road. I know going through Saddlebrook and going through New Horizon that I cross several streets going up towards downtown so I know in this particular area there really isn't any streets for a better part of a block and a half. There is the two before you get to, well Byerly's also has a skip out there in the apartment buildings but I doubt whether that's going to be a higher or envisioned as a high traffic area at all. In fact there's, they want to have fewer parking spots than what the city requires in the parking lot, and this is based on car usage. For instance the staff report on car usage that's been in a like facility. They have reduced the unit structure by a pretty significant amount. Almost 10%. I've talked enough on this so I'd like to hear what other people... Mancino: Dave, do you have any public safety issues with the driveway access onto Kerber? I mean are there things that we should look out for? I know in the initial drawings there was a, on the south side, a retaining wall. Will that still be there when we go in 50 feet instead of the 30? Hempel: It will be there proportionally but it will taper down to meeting the existing ground ...to the street. The trips generated from this type of development is far less than a rental unit or a townhome development...There's good sight visibility along Kerber Boulevard there. If there is a downfall, it's the northbound traffic...Kerber, is a down grading but it's not a very sever down grading. Less than 5%... I don't foresee it being a problem from a traffic safety standpoint. Pedestrian traffic... Mancino: And there will be stop signs coming out or prior to this sidewalk? Hempel: That's true in any case. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: And that is also the access for all trash pick-up and any sort of work that's going to be done to the building? Hempel: I'll have to defer that to the architect. Mancino: Sharmin? Al-Jaff: Would you kindly repeat the question? Mancino: Sure. Is the trash pick-up done underneath again on the ground level? Al-Jaff: Yes. The building will be provided with garbage chutes. Each level will have it's own and then the dumpsters will be inside. The garbage truck will go inside the building and pick it up. Mancino: And what about other maintenance crews that come to the building? Will they also have access to the lower level or will that be? Al-Jaff: For example? Mancino: Fixing heating or electric. Aanenson: I would think they would probably come in the front door and check in. Mancino: Okay. So they will use one of those 14 spaces. Carol Crow: Can I just...with regards to the trash... Mancino: Ron, do you have any questions? Nutting: Jeff's comments I think fairly summarize my thoughts also. The height issue is the issue of substance that I'm hearing. You've got an average of 44 or 46 on the peak. We're at 42 on the other side. If this was not a PUD, it would be at a 40 foot height requirement. Where on a PUD you have the flexibility. I'm presuming that staff looked at that in terms of the development of this site. Evaluated it. Did you come up with any options that made sense? This is what makes sense in terms of that site to mitigate the height any more in terms of the architecture? Al-Jaff: We looked at grading the site and again, we're going to have a problem with the underground parking if we grade it... One of the options is to go with a flat roof and if you look at all of Chanhassen, you have some type of architectural element to the roof and that has been 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 one of the requirements of each building that has come to Chanhassen. So other than that, no there wasn't. Nutting: Okay. I guess my thoughts on it, the difference for me is not substantial enough to, you know I wouldn't want to see a flat roof. I need to see the architectural break-up that we have and going from 40 to 44 or 46, given what we get here, which I think is, this is a nice looking project. The landscaping I guess is one issue I'm a little, looking at the maps and the renderings that we have. Did we not have a presentation just a little while back talking about the additional landscaping that was going to be incorporated into this site? Am I mixing two different? It wasn't today. Al-Jaff: I believe the additional landscaping was on the project to the west. Those were Oak Pond Addition. Nutting: Okay. I guess the only thing that I would add from the landscaping side is to the extent that staff can work with the applicant in terms of putting something in that's not 3 feet today and will take 30 years to mature but to do something to get more of an initial screening right off the bat but we're certainly not going to cover 40 feet of building but something to break up the building from the north side. I guess I don't have a problem with the driveway issue, as I listened to Dave's comments and what we have there. And the other issue, the other big issue for me is the transition issue and distance. Being a transition. It's different if you're on a level site and if you're looking up and distance seems to disappear but we do have the distance but then we also have what's allowed by ordinance and then we have the PUD and so I think it's unfortunate but I'm not convinced that I have enough information here to suggest that I can scrunch the building down to deal with the view from down below so. In general I'm in support of staff's recommendations. That's my comments. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: Yes, I have several comments. I agree with what Jeff and Ron have said and I think the idea of changing the color scheme of the roof, that that perceived height would benefit. And also perhaps more landscaping on that back side might also act to create a perceived horizon which might also lower the building so I think it might be beneficial to put some trees in the back. Some taller trees. The Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan suggests transition zones between areas of high density and low density. As has been pointed out, there's not a real good transition zone here. The Comprehensive Plan also suggests that the City provide sufficient senior housing, and there appears to have been a great deal of effort put into looking for a site for senior housing and that some of those have already been lost and if we don't move forward with this, perhaps this will pass also. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Mike. Meyer: Just maybe a question for staff. Dave. What would it do to the angle of the underground entrance if you lowered the building? How steep is it right now and how steep would it become? Hempel: This entrance is approximately about a 2% grade of the driveway. If you lower the unit...might be increased another half a percent... That type of direction, east exposure, the type of conditions we have here, I don't recommend exceeding the 2%. Meyer: Okay. So we're right about the limit that you recommend then. We could maybe drop it a couple. Okay. And then my other comments are the landscaping too. I'd like to see if we could maybe add something to help break it up a little bit more and get some coverage in the wintertime also. Other than that, it is a nice looking building. I would have liked to have seen the materials that are used for the siding. An example, and I understand you don't have those here tonight. It would have been nice to see that and it would also have been nice to see an elevation from the houses that are closest. I know the road takes a big dip but then comes back up elevation that you have the overlay on it. That's from a lot higher spot than I think than the neighbors that are closest to the building. I would have liked to have seen it from that angle but, I guess that's just a comment. Maybe something that the Council could have a chance to see before they make their decision. Mancino: Sharmin. Al-Jaff: The applicant did provide the materials at the neighborhood meeting and I believe it was an oversight on their part not to bring it today. The color was very similar to what you see at the fire station. The color of the brick. It's definitely a shade darker than what you see behind you. Meyer: Did I miss anything with the different elevations? Was there one from Canyon Curve? From the low point of Canyon Curve at the closest point. Was there? Okay. Mancino: Ladd. Conrad: I think this is a great place for senior housing and I always knew we'd have some multiple units here that when you zone something R-12, you're going to get multi-floors. There's just no doubt so I think Planning Commission, at least I have always known there's going to be some height to anything that goes on this property. A couple questions, and some of it is hard for me to understand the underground parking visually. But I'd ask staff and Kate a question. Have we applied the same landscaping standards here? Have we asked them to do the same type of landscaping as we asked for the neighbors to the west? 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: Same? Because we kept piling on more trees and more trees. So what kind of standards have we. I don't think the renditions, the renderings, anything that I've been given today really speaks very well of a landscape plan that tries to deal with the height, to be very honest. What I've seen. Maybe that's not what's in print but what I've seen is, doesn't seem to effectively deal with the height. Aanenson: Well, that's the issue right there. Based on the grades, no matter what you do, because of the height, planting something now and to get it to grow, as the neighbors all attested to, it's going to be hard to get something to grow that fast. Conrad: And so our standard for a new planting would be a 6 foot tree in height? Al-Jaff: Unless you ask for. Conrad: Unless we ask for something more. Al-Jaff: Something more. Aanenson: And the other issue Ladd on that is what we looked at with the Oak Ponds, is that the neighbors didn't want a manicured lawn all the way down, as Sharmin indicated...We thought we'd put, recommend something like sumac. Something natural. Again going back to what Jeff's comment with the boulder wall. Try to keep it a more natural feeling. Again, to kind of increase the sense of separation between the two. Conrad: And I buy that. But I also buy transition in height too. I don't buy a bush going to a 46 foot rise. Aanenson: No, no. That's what Sharmin indicated. There was additional trees in the back but what we're talking about is that other area that might be disturbed and go back and put some. Conrad: I like that. But again personally I don't, I'm just not convinced of the landscape plan on the north side, and maybe Nancy you can help me with that. You know more on our standards. And again when I'm applying our standards and precedence versus just, standards and precedence of what guide us here. The underground garage, I probably should have asked this earlier. Is there parking on top of that garage? There is no parking on top of the garage. Where, I'm just having a tough time relating to the underground and then what's. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Carol Crow: This is the surface parking here. None of this is over the underground and this again relates to an issue. We have reviewed this with the Fire Marshal and this does meet his requirements. So this would be on ground. Conrad: Okay. So the pink is. Carol Crow: This is just the surface that we were discussing. This is the part, the surface parking here. Then the underground parking is this, there are no units on this side that are over parking. The units on this side, these are actually over the parking and then the parking comes out. Farmakes: And what is shaded? Conrad: So what's shaded? Farmakes: What's shaded brown there is the upper part. Carol Crow: This would be over, yeah. Over the parking area. Farmakes: Where they would walk and where the railing question appears. Conrad: So does that mean, so there's an elevation to that. Or is that flat? Is that the same elevation as the top parking? In other words where you can. Mancino: That brown. Conrad: The brown, is that the same elevation? Carol Crow: Yes. Conrad: It just so happens that there is underground parking below that but it is the same. Okay. My two issues, I think the setbacks, I probably could have compromised on the setbacks except, or at least one of them. Maybe not out to Kerber but I think the height is a bother to me. The height, we have a standard and you've got to rationalize and justify the standard if you want to change it. And the standard is 40 feet. It's a case where, you know here's a case where we do have a standard in place, and you can slip it if you find real good rationale. Now if this is project is going to go away, I'll slip that standard. In other words, if we won't get the senior center, I will slip that standard. But in this case, the 40 foot is our standard. It is on a hill. It is probably a good reason to maintain that standard. I don't know if I'm buying much by that 4 feet difference, or 6 feet. Whatever. That's my biggest problem right now. I really don't know what I'm buying, but I do know that I don't buy slipping this standard because of the situation that this is in. I feel 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 real comfortable adhering to this zone standard. So again, I'm sort of in, I'm caught by maybe somebody who can be very persuasive or by staff or by the applicant that can say this project doesn't work any other way. Jeff, I think it is a nicely designed project and I think there's so many nice parts to it. It's just that, I really have a problem with slipping a standard that makes sense, especially where this project is. So my two problems are, I have a problem dropping that standard and I do not quite understand our landscaping to cover up the north side very well in terms of trying to solve a problem where we've spent a lot of time with previous applicants trying to screen a two story building and we probably haven't spent much time trying to screen a four story building. Mancino: Well two things that I'm hearing about size that I'm concerned with too, and a real easy solution for the City Council and the HRA to think about is buy a little more land. Conrad: Where? Mancino: Next to it. I mean that issue is gone. Al-Jaff: We don't have any additional land out there. Mancino: But from the very beginning to lower the height, you can buy more land to put it on, and that may be gone now but secondly, about the landscaping. I think because this is a PUD, that we may, the landscaping ordinance right now calls for 20% coniferous trees in this area and we could up that to 30%. And instead of a 7 foot average height, we could go for a 9 foot average height. And for the deciduous overstory trees, instead of a 2 1/2 inch caliper average, go to a 3 1/2 average caliper and therefore you will get bigger trees. Taller trees to begin with in proportion to the building. That would help. What happens with overflow parking Sharmin? We have 14 spaces for guests. What about holiday times when, whether it's Christmas, someone's birthday, family reunion, where can people park in this area? Can they park on Kerber? Can they park on Santa Vera? Where can extra people go to park? Al-Jaff: Dave. Hempel: Well on Kerber Boulevard we have limited parking I believe on north, I believe south side... One side I know has parking. Mancino: So either the east or the west side on Kerber? Hempel: Either north or south. Oh, I'm sorry. Santa Vera. Santa Vera... 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: So they could on the south side. And what about Kerber? Is there any parking on Kerber? Hempel: No, there's no parking on Kerber. Mancino: Do you feel that that will take care of the overflow parking? I mean because there's bound to be times when there are going to be more than 14 people. Al-Jaff: I believe that if it was a problem, they could also park underground. Mancino: Because some of the residents may not have cars. They could also park in the Byerly's. Aanenson: City Hall. Mancino: Or City Hall and come across if they want. I just wanted to make sure of that. Jane Kubitz: Can I say something about that Sharmin? Seniors are more apt to be going to their families rather than having their families... Mancino: Can you please come up and state your name. Jane Kubitz: My name's Jane Kubitz. I'm on the commission. I said seniors are more apt to be going to their families than having their families come to them so there shouldn't be a parking problem. Mancino: Well, I just know in my family that we have, as a family have gone to visit. Jane Kubitz: But you're not... Mancino: No, but I certainly have grandmothers and mothers that are so I'm sure that will happen. Any other discussion? Do I have a motion? Any motions? We can made friendly amendments. Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres from Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review #95-3 for a 70 unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions. 1 through 14. I'd like to add 15. That the applicant work with city staff to come up 35 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 with natural retaining wall materials and roof surface material to reduce the mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color. Perhaps asphalt shaking. Friendly amendment on the landscaping? Mancino: Oh on 16 I'll make a friendly amendment that staff work with the applicant to revise a landscaping plan per my comments earlier about conifer trees. The average height being 9 feet and that deciduous trees being 3 1/2 inch caliper. Al-Jaff: Increase the canopy coverage to 30%, you also mentioned. Mancino: What is it right now? Al-Jaff: 21. Mancino: 21? Yeah, I'd like to see it to 30. Thank you. Farmakes: And 17. The railing on the, what are we going to call that? What is that surface. The raised surface. What do we call that? Al-Jaff: Top of the entryway into the underground parking. Farmakes: Utilize the same railing features that surround the building. That's it. Mancino: Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Mancino: Any discussion? Farmakes moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval for the preliminary plat to replat 2.2 acres from Outlot B and Block 5, 6, and 7 of Oak Ponds 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1, Oak Ponds 4th Addition, and Site Plan Review #95-3 for a 70 unit senior housing building as shown on plans dated March 20, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1.The senior housing building shall conform to the design and architecture as proposed by the applicant in their attached renderings. Introduce some variation along the east and west elevations through the shape of windows and adding louvers. 2.Fire Marshal conditions: 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 a."No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be deterred after revised site plans are submitted and reviewed. b.A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. c.The driving surface over the below ground parking garage must be designed to support the weight regulations of the Fire Department aerial platform truck. Weight requirements are available from the Fire Marshal. 3.The applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event at 24 hour duration. Individual storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event between catch basin segments will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 4.Applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing landscaping and street lights and replacing any sidewalks impacted by the site construction. 5.The applicant shall provide a detailed erosion control plan in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The plan shall include rock construction entrances, erosion control fences, and revegetation schedules. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate the storm sewer improvements proposed with the site development. In addition, the plans shall maintain 7 1/2 feet of cover over the watermain along Powers Boulevard. 6.The driveway aisles should be increased to 20 foot wide, face to face of curb, with 20 foot radiuses. In addition, the driveway curb cuts will need to incorporate pedestrian ramps to facilitate the existing sidewalks on Kerber Boulevard and Santa Vera Drive. 7.The storm drainage plan shall be revised to include storm drainage improvements for the upper parking area. 8.All retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will need to be engineered per building codes. 9.Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. The applicant shall submit a letter to the City documenting that there will be no alterations to the wetland as a result of the project. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 10.Existing and proposed erosion control fence shall be shown on the grading plan. Type I erosion control fence shall be employed along the west, east and south side of the site. Type III shall be maintained along the north side of the construction limits. All erosion control measures shall be maintained until the site is fully revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 11.Construction access to the site shall be limited to the proposed curb cuts. Rock construction entrances shall be maintained until the driveways have been paved. 12.Park and trail, site plan and subdivision application, building permit, and sewer and water connection fees be waived as this is a public project. 13.The applicant shall use a mix of native prairie grasses and shrubs such as sumac rather than sod along the northern slope. 14.The building shall be relocated to be consistent with the PUD compliance table: Hard Surface Coverage 41.8% Setback From Collector 50 feet Internal Public Street 30 feet External Property Line 30 feet Internal Private Streets NA Overall Density 9.6 units 15.That the applicant work with city staff to come up with natural retaining wall materials and roof surface material to reduce the mass of the roof line, i.e. lighter color. Perhaps asphalt shaking. 16.Staff work with the applicant to revise a landscaping plan per my comments earlier about conifer trees. The average height being 9 feet and that deciduous trees being 3 1/2 inch caliper and increase the canopy coverage to 30%. 17. On top of the entryway into the underground parking utilize the same railing features that surround the building. All voted in favor, except Conrad and Mancino who opposed, and the motion carried by a vote of 4 to 2. Mancino: Ladd, would you like to give the rationale for the nay? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: Madam Chairman, I think the standard of 40 feet in height should be maintained and would hope that the City Council could look at that standard. Mancino: And the landscaping? Conrad: Huh? Mancino: And you also had addressed landscaping? Conrad: Landscaping I think you addressed in the motion. Mancino: Thank you. And this goes before City Council on May 8th. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVISION 2.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6660 POWERS BOULEVARD, GOLDEN GLOW ACRES, JAMES RAVIS. Public Present: Name Address James & Norma Ravis 6660 Powers Boulevard Bill Infanger 6740 Powers Boulevard Russell G. Kohman 6730 Powers Boulevard Bob & Lois Peterson 6650 Powers Boulevard Roy Anderson 6695 Mulberry Circle Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace Anita & Harry Murphy 1215 Lake Lucy Road Larry Kerber 6700 Powers Boulevard 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to staff? Thank you. Is the applicant here and would they like to make a presentation? Jim Ravis: I certainly think the staff. Mancino: Could you please state your name and address. Jim Ravis: Oh. My name is Jim Ravis. I live at 6660 Powers Boulevard. I'm the applicant. Staff certainly has looked at options. I don't necessarily agree that they're the best options. I think the major, key issue here is access. I'd like to...this is an aerial photograph of this property. As staff stated, I applied for access to this property through the Willow Ridge development, when that development, even before it submitted a preliminary plat. I tried to work with the city to gain access at that time. I believe the staff recommended that that access be granted. It was not. There are only a few ways you can gain access. The one through Willow Ridge is now blocked off. There's an access here between the Kohman and Infanger property and I'm sure that would make them extremely happy to work on that, although there may be an existing access there. The one that the city has proposed, I believe has all the same disadvantages as any other. One of the main points that staff made was they would lose less trees there. That is not true. You can see that there's a significant amount of mature trees in here. Those trees are now mature. There are other trees back here and at the public, there was a town meeting or whatever you would like to call it, where all the property owners and that. The gentleman who owns this property, Mr. Kerber, said he had gone out and counted them and we would definitely lose more trees by going that way. The access I'm asking for is for here. At the time that I applied for access, at the time that Willow Ridge developed, I was told I had sufficient access on my own property. I was also told that that access would remove a significant number of trees that the city did not want to let go. This is a photograph that I took off of my deck last week. That was absolutely not true. You can see the trees that were there before Willow Ridge developed. All of those trees have been removed, so I really have a hard time understanding the logic that has been given to me over the past 3 or 4 years. These are large lots. There are very few trees to be removed. I also have another two photographs. This is a photograph I took last week of Lots 3 and 4. You can see that those lots are not vegetated with a lot of trees. This is...and the other picture that I gave you, this photograph of Lot number 2 and you can also see that there's...I feel that at this point in time the only proper way to develop this property is through the private driveway. It does not preclude the staff or the other part of the development that they recommended from going in. It does not preclude these other properties to develop. There's an existing access over there. It could be, you also could convert private driveways to a U shape or semi-circular street...So I guess what I'm saying is that I feel...I was told that this was the proper access... I have provided 40 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 the staff with a written response, or the Planning Commission and City Council with a written response to the staff report. I've also provided you with a letter from the engineering firm that is helping with this development. I think those are extremely pertinent to this situation and I'm not going to read them. It will only take you a few minutes to read those letters. I do have some significant concerns about the staff report. In three areas, the preservation zone. I think that recommendation was not well thought out because it's near the homes. Those trees need thinning. I provided a picture with a letter. Those canopies on those trees are already innerlinked significantly. If the trees are not thinned, the growth will be impeded. We will not get the majestic trees that we ought to have in residential areas. I also have a significant issue with the drainage. There was two recommendations in the report provided. Staff made one. Gave no reasons for it. I don't believe at this time, and I have not been asked prior to this, to provide a drainage plan or what they've said is necessarily feasible. I've discussed it with the engineering firm. We don't know if that's the right way to propose any drainage solution. This is a significant slope on these lots. We're trying to maintain that. If you read the DNR report, we've been asked to maintain that. We provided a significant buffer zone from the wetlands. I think a preservation agreement certainly is in order there, but I think that until we arrive at a drainage solution, we need to take a look at that and then do what's right. I have some other concerns in terms of building requirements which I have outlined in my letter to you. I feel we only ought to live with one requirement, not double requirements, and those are outlined. I think one of the things that I see that's, I believe the adjacent property owners may not agree to, is all the plans for the alternate plans provided by the staff, give you a maximum housing density. I don't think that that's necessarily appropriate for every development, and I'm sure there's some property owners here tonight adjacent who may give you the same answer. What we're doing here and what we proposed I think fits in with the topology of the land and I guess what I'd like to ask is you approve the preliminary plat and I'll be happy to work with staff to try to resolve these issues on preservation zones, drainage and building requirements. Thank you. Mancino: Does the commission have any questions for Mr. Ravis? Thank you. Sharmin, have you had time to read through the Ravis' letter? Al-Jaff: One of them, yes. The Ravis' letter, yes I have. But the engineer's letter that was submitted just before the meeting, no I haven't. Jim Ravis: I apologize for that but even though my application has been here since November, I did not...until Friday...so he could not provide a response until today. Mancino: Thank you. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Farmakes moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to speak on this issue? Bill Infanger: Yes I would. I'm Bill Infanger, 6740 Powers. I'm one of the two properties most affected by this development and I concur with the city planner. If Mr. Ravis goes ahead as he plans to go ahead with this, I'm simply shut off because...local access to County Road 17, which I doubt that the County's going to approve. In addition...which I would do for the same reasons Mr. Ravis wants to do it. Mainly to profit from it. I'd move elsewhere. Concern about the condition of the area. So am I. I'd move elsewhere in Chanhassen where it was conducive but his plan essentially says, we'll make it more congested and I'll leave at my expense and I believe at the expense of the owner next to me. So it's certainly not in my interest, and I basically concur with the city planner. Mancino: Thank you. Bill Infanger: Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm the neighbor next door to him. I live at 6730 Powers Boulevard and. Mancino: And your name please. Russ Kohman: Russ Kohman. Mancino: Thank you. Russ Kohman: And I've got several pine trees that sit right on the property line, right on the edge. Yeah. Where he plans on putting the private road in and if he puts the road in through the edge, the pine trees will come down because they will not withstand it. You know if you cut to their roots, eventually they'll die and I can't afford to...I bought the land, I'm a single guy and I bought the land because I wanted to be left alone. I want to live that way. And the same as my neighbors. He bought his house. He's got a big house and a large family and he wants to be left alone. And this is, we didn't really want people building around us or right on top of us. And we didn't want no, another right-of-way coming in the back way. Or coming along side my property, reducing the value of my land and this would throw more taxes towards...eventually. Not right away. But eventually we would... Mancino: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: My name's Robert Peterson. I live at 6650 Powers Boulevard, which is the property just to the north of Mr. Ravis. I'm not here to speak against their development. I'm for 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 it. They've been good neighbors and I don't have any problem with them developing that property. I'd like to offer some suggestions however that would benefit both of us. But first, let me see if I understand Sharmin. Al-Jaff: Sharmin. Robert Peterson: I don't know if you, did you get the impression that most of us at that meeting favored this plat? Al-Jaff: No. I said there wasn't a plan that was favored by everybody. Robert Peterson: Oh, okay. I didn't hear it well, sorry. Because most of us at that meeting didn't favor that plan. My suggestion, I went back to two. Can I go over there and point? Mancino: Yes. Robert Peterson: The person that builds a house on this lot, well first of all when we moved in here a long time ago, the house was oriented towards the views. The major view which is this way towards the wetland and towards Lake Lucy, you can see sometimes. Now anybody building a house here blocks that view. I understand how that can happen. I feel that the Ravis' could re- locate these two lines, forcing this person to build farther to the south. That would help me some but it would do something for the Ravis property. Right on this line here is where the grades starts to drop down quite a bit. If that line were moved to the south, this property would become a walkout lot which is more valuable than, otherwise it's flat. It takes a little property away from the other two but they're still well above the minimum. They're still about 20,000 feet...I'd like to see if this plat goes ahead to discuss forcing this person here to build at least 55 feet away from that line. Naturally I'm selfish but that's my interest so I can maintain that view without looking at that edge of this house here as much. And actually...the view. Second part of this is, it's unusual to have the back of a house facing the front of a house. That's pretty unusual. We have the same situation here too. I just have some suggestions on the layout here to be considered that would help my property and the Ravis property. That was my major concern is the view of my house. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Larry Kerber: My name's Larry Kerber. I own the property directly north, 6700 Powers Boulevard. The largest piece. Also the piece they have the whole road proposed on. I have no intention of giving up a half acre of my land so people behind me, to the south of me can develop. It also turns all my property around from the way it lays naturally. I have all walkouts now to the west. That road would turn everything around. It would also take out about 180 of my trees that 43 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 were planted on the west side of my property. So I'm sure there's a solution for this but I don't think we've maybe looked at all the options. I definitely don't, yeah this one gives me 9 lots. 9 little slivered lots that are totally reversed from the way I think they should be and the way the land lays but I'm sure there's a solution but I am not in favor of this one here. But I do think Mr. Ravis should be allowed to develop. At some point he bought his place. I know he bought additional property 5 years ago, I'm sure to develop. He bought out the back of the two lots, or one of the lots of the people who were just up here. At some point he did a subdivision to get that property of his and again when Lundgren came in, they told him he could develop without access through there so I feel there's an ordinance in the city for four houses to a private driveway. I don't know if he meets all the conditions but I think he should be allowed to develop without me developing. I don't know why I should, why this development should be contingent on me and Bob Peterson and everyone else splitting their lots up even if they don't want to. So I think he should develop as long as his plan is legal and meets all the specs of the city. Mancino: Thank you. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, maybe I could address a couple of points here that are coming out of public comment. First of all staff did go through and develop all the documents for developing the neighborhood. One of the major concerns we had was access onto Powers Boulevard. That is an arterial street. It's a County Road. It's not, they have jurisdiction with regards to access points. As Mr. Kerber has indicated, he didn't want to see his property develop in this fashion because it changes the lots Mr. Kerber has envisioned and developing his access points off of Powers Boulevard. I don't believe that will be allowed through the County. ...to look at at trying to group neighborhoods as a whole to make it work from a public street standpoint. To include public improvements. Sewer and water, storm sewer and yet give some flexibility on these parcels when it comes to developing it...all that coming at once in order for this to work. On the other hand we didn't want to see each individual property owner coming in with a private driveway proposal out onto Powers Boulevard. Mancino: So with what we're seeing as Option E, the chain of events, which one does have to come in first? Hempel: The neighborhood puts together to petition the city to do a 429 project which is an assessable project, then it would be in the hands of the City Council to determine whether they want to proceed with conducting the feasibility study and then ordering the improvement at that point. It would probably take close to 50% of the benefitting property owners. Mancino: To do that, thank you. Mr. Kohman, you wanted to come up? Thank you. Russ Kohman: I'm not too good on words. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else? Robert Peterson: As it relates to most of us that have about an acre maybe, or right at that, that are left over, except for Larry Kerber, we could get one more lot out of our property and it would work fine. I've gone through the numbers and I don't know if the rest of them have but you take your acre...cut it in half, pay for a city road, pay for the sewer and the assessments and the development and all of that, there's no profit to be had in making one more lot out of your property. Believe me there isn't. I can show you the numbers. There's no big advantage for me to cut my ground in half, and I bet everybody else would say the same thing. To get one more lot. It doesn't work. I'm talking about a selling price of $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 on a lot. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Bill Infanger: Just one clarification. I don't necessarily oppose Mr. Ravis' development. I just oppose his development if it cuts me off from doing exactly the same thing. Mr. Peterson's comments are apropos. We've also gone through a cost analysis to see if in fact it could be profitable and the answer might be, no. Not right now, but maybe later on. What I don't want is a situation where because of what happens now, I can't develop later on. Thank you. Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Ron. Nutting: This one's messy. At this point I am in support of staff's recommendation to deny. I'm not in any position to develop or to lay this thing out property. There needs to be more work done. I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the development because we're not talking about moving this one forward. I'm not sure what can be done. Any time you have this many property owners in a competing interest, you're either at each other's throats or you come to some accommodation that isn't going to work for everybody. So I guess I'm, at this point I think there needs to be some more interaction between staff and the developer as well as continued communications to see if we can come up with something that makes this work. I guess Dave's comments sway me a bit in terms of the access onto Powers. Diane's not here anymore but I'm echoing Diane's comments from the past. From a public safety perspective and the private drives. I think this is a real problem area for future development so that's all I have right now. Mancino: Thanks. Ladd. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: It's the Planning Commission's job to make sure that areas develop properly. It's the planning staff's job to do that likewise. The plan before us tonight does not do that. It just doesn't and because it doesn't, and because it forces individual development which is really not what we're about, I think this has to be turned down. This is not, the design in front of us, and I'm not talking about Option A thru E. There may be others. But what we see tonight is not the solution, and what we see tonight is not the way we can really develop one parcel at the expense of others. It's poor planning. Mancino: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: Nothing to add. No comments. Mancino: Mike. Meyer: No comments. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I agree with what Ron and Ladd have said. Mancino: Thank you. Do I have a motion? Nutting: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Nutting moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-22, for Golden Glow Acres for 4 single family lots as shown in the plans dated November 18, 1994 for the reasons as outlined in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 35.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED NORTH OF KINGS ROAD AND WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, HARSTAD COMPANIES. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Public Present: Name Address Bill Munig 6850 Stratford Blvd. Linda Scott 4031 Kings Road Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Keith Bedford 3961 Stratford Ridge Janet Carlson 4141 Kings Road Margie Borris 4071 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? Conrad: Kate, on page 11 of the staff report. Starting halfway down. Those two paragraphs unfortunately, and then the next one saying Harstad. Maybe I read those out of context but I couldn't tell, it sort of sounded like you were saying some negative things but I think you've solved them, but I don't know. What do those two paragraphs mean? Aanenson: Can I be perfectly honest with you? I was at a conference when this was prepared and two reports got pulled in here and it's very ambiguous, and I'm not sure what it means either. It was a later date. I know what, and the applicant is aware what we've negotiated and that is an 8 acre plus park. They are obligated to dedicate a portion of that. The City will be, we've agreed on a price, purchasing the rest of that and my understanding as far as the trail fees is that they will be as per city ordinance at the rate in force. I'm not sure how the rest of that got pulled into that report and I apologize. Mancino: My only other question is, the woodland management plan. I just want to make sure in preparation for the tree preservation ordinance that we have, that streetscape is not included in that percentage of canopy coverage. Aanenson: We've always included it. Mancino: Have you always included it? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Mancino: Well that was one of the, towards the end of the task force is, you know if a parcel like this had two collectors, etc, then all of the trees would be on the streetscape and not inside the 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 development so we wanted to make sure that that did not happen. A portion of it could be used as streetscape but if you could go back and look at that with the applicant. Aanenson: Sure. I think we did put in here too, if you go back into the text of the report, we did put 2 trees per lot is one of the things we're recommending. If you don't do the, on the page here. Page 4. What we're requiring. A minimum of 112 trees be required for replacement and 2 trees per lot should be required. Mancino: But, just so you know, that the intent of the tree preservation ordinance wasn't to use that percentage of canopy coverage in streetscape but within the interior of the subdivisions. Aanenson: I think in this one, I think we have sufficient that with the streetscape, we're still seeing a 112 trees. Dividing those out, 2 trees per lot. I think that we still have quite a bit of replacement, not just in streetscape. Mancino: Thank you. Did the applicant wish to address the Planning Commission? Paul Harstad: Madam Chairman, Commissioners and staff. My name is Paul Harstad of Harstad Companies. Nice to see you again. I think we all hope that this is the last time that we're before this body for this project, and I guess I'd like to address just a few of the issues in the staff report. For the most part there's no question in my mind that we've made very significant progress and we're very hopeful that things will get approved. Certainly at least that they'll get voted on tonight and that we'll be able to construct the project yet this year. One question, if I may ask staff. Kate, off the top of my head, when was the Woodland Management Plan put into effect? Or if someone could tell me. Aanenson: When you came through on your first plat that was, that condition was still there when you did your tree survey so that's been a requirement with the original plat that came through. Paul Harstad: So the Woodland Management Plan was a requirement of the original plat, one year ago? Aanenson: Correct. Paul Harstad: Okay. Alright. As far as the wetlands go, in fact we have already had a professional delineator come out there. I certainly thought that the city received this letter but perhaps they didn't and I can give you a copy of it right now. It's from the firm called Sound Enviro Solutions and it was done last year. So I hope that will help clarify the wetlands issue. Another issue is access to the ponds. Recommendation number 1 on page 15. I don't think this is 48 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 a real big issue but it relates to the ponding. Halfway through item number 1 on page 15, under recommendations it says, maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. That certainly makes sense. I certainly understand why the city would require that. The largest pond is going to be essentially on the border between the park and those lots. The lots that are the farther east. So the westerly most portion of the park and easterly most portion of the lots. I guess it's our request, if it's not unreasonable, that access be through the city park. Mancino: Dave, can you speak to that? Or do you feel comfortable making a decision on the spot? Hempel: I can address that... As Mr. Harstad indicated, the pond is located in that vicinity. There's also additional storm sewer lines that go along the common property line which will have to be, may have to be maintained in the future as well. That's why the condition's kind of put in. As far as accessing the pond, you could go through the park property. We have to get some discharge points where the pipes outlet into the pond. Those will be over to the side of the park so maybe it's just as easy to go through between the houses versus going all the way around the park property than going through a couple of properties to get to that same point. So that's why the condition's in there. Paul Harstad: Fair enough. If there's a storm water pipe that runs between lots or what not, obviously we would provide that easement. That's really not a big issue. A larger issue is item number, let me be sure here. Number 17. On page 17. I'll read it for the public record. The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road, approximately 10 acres, and the City's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. I've had conversations with staff and in fact today on the telephone with the City Manager, Mr. Ashworth, regarding this clause and I want to refer back to some written correspondence on three different occasions letters from Harstad Companies dated February 14th, March 7th and again April 5, all of 1995. I think we made it expressly clear that Harstad Companies does not intend to pay for any improvements upon the plat which benefit properties not on the plat. I don't think that there's anything unreasonable about that. We're more than happy to build and pay for lift stations that serve only our property. Now I also told Mr. Ashworth today on the phone that if we're talking about a small dollar amount, and I guess I wasn't necessarily prepared to say what that is but, if we were talking about a small dollar amount, we would not intend to rock the boat. In the meantime he asked me that I do a little more research to determine how much additional cost we're talking about, and I spoke with our engineer, who's opinion I have a lot of confidence in, and he told me that adding capacity to this lift station to serve an additional 10 acres would more or less double the size of the lift station, because as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Hempel but as I understand it, it's currently serving about 17 lots and odds are pretty good that if it were to serve an additional 10 acres, that means it would serve an additional, conservatively an additional 20 lots. Okay. So 49 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 a conservative estimate would suggest that we're going to double the capacity of that lift station. In addition to that, that would add the cost of more grinder pumps, and it might also mean that the forcemain pipeline would go from, I believe it's currently 2 inches, without having done a lot of research, our engineer thought it might very well go to 4 inches. The point of this is that his conservative estimate is that that would add approximately $40,000.00 to the cost of the lift station. Now that's by no means a real accurate number but it is on the conservative side. And when I spoke with staff and Mr. Ashworth today about, forgetting about it if it's not a significant number, I meant it. But $20,000.00 or more is definitely a significant number and we do not intend to pay for additional capacity to a lift station. I can't imagine how that could be considered unreasonable or why the staff would even think that we'd be willing to do that after detailed written correspondence. The fourth and final item that I have to talk about is simply to clarify some wording, so at this point I'd like to turn to page 11, item number 3 of the staff report. This may or may not be considered controversial. It's just that we want to be sure that the wording is understood. These improvements generally, well you can read but I'd better read it out loud for the public record. In assuming ownership of the park, the City would accept the responsibility for it's portion of public improvements. These improvements generally include street and curb construction and utility costs, (sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer). More specifically the city would pay for it's half of the street and associated curb, a water and sewer unit to accommodate any future hook-up, and storm water costs. Now depending on how you read that, that could say two things. For the sake of clarity I would like to suggest that that be read to more or less follow the reasoning in a letter that we had sent to the City dated March 7th, where I'll read it out loud. First page, item number 2. The city, these are points that we sent to the city. Asked them to confirm or contest. This paragraph reads. The City agrees to pay for 50% of the cost of constructing that portion of Kings Road and it's underlying improvements which abut the proposed park as shown on the concept plan. These improvements include grading all phases of street construction, including curb, and all sanitary sewer and watermain improvements. It goes on from there but that's jest of it. Now the whole reason that we've been here for 2 years, in addition to the previous developer having been here for a year, is because the City has to understand that locating that park in the southeast quadrant of the project costs the developer a lot of money. Now perhaps you recall the last plat we submitted which you denied, where the park was shown over on the southwest portion of the property, and you had that odd curve to Kings Road. Well that was to relay a point. It wasn't so we could spend an extra $5,000.00 on engineering plans. It was to get across the point to the City that if the park is on the east side, there are significantly more costs incurred. If the park were located over on the southwest side of the project, the developer probably could not be held responsible for constructing the curb and street to serve a park on the southwest side. Nor would there be any need whatsoever for watermain and sewer to serve that park, unless it was one little hook-up. But if the city wants the park on the southeast portion of the project, then they have to share the cost of Kings Road and the underlying improvements. Now I think that staff and the developer are in agreement with that but I raise this point now to make that issue very clear. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Paul Harstad: If there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Mancino: Any questions? Any comments? Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: It's now open for a public hearing. Those who wish to speak, please do so. One at a time. Sue Morgan: Good evening Commissioners. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road, and I was kind of excited to be here tonight. Excited to pick up my plat. I guess we're part of the reservation, and I guess...In general I'm very excited about the plat. I think that the city and Harstad's have accomplished a lot in the last 2 years. It's nice to see that the park's on...Minnewashta Parkway...there's one area that raises a concern for us as property owners along Kings Road and that is that we now have storm water runoff running through our property. Back in May of '94, I sent a letter to Kate, City Council members, the Commission and also to Harstad in regards to our concern for the drainage from the north of Kings Road running across our property into Lake St. Joe. At that time, being as naive as I was, I expected some guarantee that that would never happen but I've learned that there are no guarantees in life. But I also did not receive a response to this letter. So in my mind this was a moot point. It wasn't an issue. Back in June, June 15, '94, it's the white pages on there. These are copies of conversations I had with Mr. Hempel. I think...regards to drainage from the pond that's going to be established north of Kings Road and there is going to be runoff the west...towards the east and under Kings Road and going through Outlot A. And I think that the third page of that...I had starred. Hempel, that will eliminate your current drainage situation that you have right through your property. Sue Morgan. Okay, so that will be closed off prior to construction and Mr. Hempel... So in my mind I guess we would not have any runoff across our property. Now...plat, if you look at your drainage, in the staff report on page 6. Second paragraph. If the adjacent property owners on the south side of Kings Road, (Morgan/Scott) are willing to grant the City a drainage and utility easement, the City will grant the applicant, which is Harstad, to install the storm sewer from Kings Road down to Lake St. Joe. If the City is not granted a drainage and utility easement, then the pond will have to be enlarged. The water quality pond will be required to maintain a pre-developed runoff rate on site for a 100 year event. This means the runoff will continue to drain underneath Kings Road, through the Morgan/Scott parcel to Lake St. Joe as it exists with pre-development conditions. So basically in my mind what this says is that, come hell or high water, they're putting drainage across 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 my property, whether or not we give them an easement or not. Right now if you travel down Kings Road there is drainage from a field that's been vacant for 10 years and we have this little creek that trickles down. We put a walkway across it and we have a path through the woods and that wetland is not a problem for us. The wildlife comes through there...and we have no problem with that. You put 52 homes on the north side of Kings Road, sure there will be a storm water pond which will hold the runoff but there hasn't been any proof yet that the drainage from those ponds is free of chemicals. Free of salt. Free of whatever. In our minds this is going to devalue our property. If you look at the grading sheet as a part of the packet I gave you, it shows you approximately the area in which that drainage will flow. Right now our lot is...if we ever decided to subdivide. We would then have a city easement down the middle of our property and we would not be able to build. Towards the back of the packet that I gave you, there's a letter, August 17th from our attorney to the city, Kate Aanenson. This letter was originally intended to...right-of-way or easement along Kings Road with it being encroached by the city. We were afraid that our trees were going to be taken along the road. This road is going to be put in or developed so we had our attorney look into it. And this does, this statement in this letter does also cover the easement, or it means seeking of an easement for that drainage project on here. And if the city, we would like it if the city would approach us directly rather than kind of...and come to us directly and we could discuss this. The last page, the blue page of the packet...to the City of Chanhassen and probably to Mr. Harstad. That we would be interested in discussing this easement. I'm not real excited about it but I know that compromises have to be made along the way and we're willing to compromise...but I would like to do it on a one to one and... Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Margie Borris: My name is Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. My property is the one just as the road goes into the development. Just to the west of that and there is where the row of 10 mature red cedar trees are. I'm glad to hear that we're trying to address that, what they're going to do with those trees because it does take many, many years for them to grow a foot, much less to the height where they are. Also in the park property, there are two existing cedar trees that are over 100 years old. I don't know what you can do with those but I hope you can find something. Mr. Harstad was also talking about having to pay some nominal fees for some things. On some very, I did some number crunching before I came here. It was my understanding from previous conversations that the minimum lots would be running around $85,000.00. If you take 47 lots by the minimum amount of dollars, you're talking $4 million, less $5,000.00. If you take 42 lots at that, then you're going over to $4,420,000.00. If he's going to put houses on those and if you take oh say 40 of the houses at $225,000.00, which is pretty average for that neighborhood and sell them at $325,000.00, we're talking thousands. We're looking at between $11 million and $13 million. For him to worry about $20,000.00 for some little...pipes or whatever, seems a little bit nominal to me. Okay. I was not sure on that little plat that you 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 showed before, how far exactly we're developing Kings Road. Were you developing it to the intersection? Past the intersection? Where were you developing it to? Aanenson: It tapers down after that first lot past. It's pretty much to. Margie Borris: Then that's where those cedar trees are and that's also where our driveway is and our entrance onto that. Yes I'm considerably interested in why nobody has addressed any of the owners of Kings Road as to our easements that we have given to the people that live along Kings Road and to the people of Victoria that live on Kings Road also. It has never been, I don't have a copy of this report. It has never been clarified how people who live on Kings Road during this development are going to be able to access their homes. How are they going to access, you know what's it going to do to the utilities. We have underground electrical that goes across Kings Road. Now something's going to happen to our electrical somewhere along the line. Nobody's told us what we're going to do. Are we going to be out of electricity for a day, two weeks, what? How are you going to get from our property to where we're going to have to leave our cars because we can't drive on this road? We have several very ill, elderly people that live along Kings Road in the curve area of Victoria. My mom, who is hopefully going to go into the senior development, so she won't have to walk so far, but there are these little other things that have not really been explained to the rest of us. It took a lot longer to get Minnewashta Parkway done than it was anticipated so we don't even have any ideas...inconveniences are going to be going. Yes, there is probably no way to get past this development. I wish the park were at that 10 acres instead of the 8 acres it's now down to, and I understand the developer wanting to develop that front part because it's much more valuable for him to sell. Irregardless that it's much more logical as a park. Quick easy access if we have the front there. Again the easement. Again the trees and I'm sorry, I think as nice a gentleman as he is, he can afford to absorb a lot more of these costs than he's coming across with. And also, it's going to be in 3 years he'll be able to develop those other lots, as I understand it, which means they're what? Going to make Kings Road bigger through there and add sewer and water down that section or does the sewer and water stop at that intersection? Mancino: I'm going to have Mr. Hempel answer a lot of your questions. Hempel: With regards to the sewer service to Kings Road, west of Country Oaks Road, which is the intersection proposed there. That would not be installed until the developer wishes to proceed with Phase II or the neighbors petition the city to do a project for it. Mr. Carlson sells his property some day or wishes to, it's going to take a combination. It's going to take at least one or a combination of things to happen...without that road being upgraded to a full city street and utilities extended... 53 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Margie Borris: But he was talking about this 10 acre potential development that may adjoin, I wasn't sure what that was to mean. Hempel: What staff has to look to the future for, is potentially another 10 acres, based on aerial maps...serviced by the sewer line so we have to size the utilities for the ultimate service for that area. So we project about another 10 acres, potentially could develop out there some day. Margie Borris: Well I can take 2 of those acres right off because we have 2 acres and you tried to...we have absolutely no intention of it. One of those private drives to get to it, that we talked about earlier tonight. Hempel: We understand that but we have to...in case you have to leave the property some day for whatever reason...Somebody some day in the future may decide to. Moving onto a couple of the other points with regards to the cedar trees. I believe the new roadway, Kings Road...developer, actually the outside to just utilize a part of the existing Kings Road. The grades from Kings Road have been matched very closely so it's not going to require additional grading outside of your property. Margie Borris: I'm talking about right across where according to some of the papers I have, I do own, it's just according to the newest survey. Every time there's a new survey we lose some property. We've lost 16, or 8 feet on one side of us. 9 feet on another side of us and now we're losing 33 feet on the front of us. So every time there's a survey, I lose land without having to, but my taxes don't change. In fact they go up, you know. That's what I'm saying is there's been no communication. I thought they were my trees. I started cleaning out underneath them and taking care of them since 1986, because I thought they were my trees. According to my survey, that's what it showed, etc. According to the latest refinancing in 1993, it shows my easement from the front I think is 33 feet. According to this survey it says something like 10 or 12. Mancino: I have a feeling that you should be coming into the City Hall and talking with Kate, etc, with your survey in hand. Margie Borris: I'll again have to do it anyway. Mancino: That would be a good idea. Dave logistically, as far as Kings Road, when that's under construction, how do the current homeowners, property owners get in and out? Electricity? Hempel: Sure. Unfortunately the Minnewashta Parkway residents have had a bad experiences out there over the last 2 years with that upgrade of Minnewashta Parkway. This project is not anywhere to the scale of that project. Most likely there would be temporary access roads 54 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 provided. We get into those type of details more as we get closer to final plat but the actual construction of the street...provide an alternative access road... Margie Borris: And the trees that I was referring to, the 10 trees, of cedar trees that were private property, are on the north side of the building before you get to the fence. Because we thought was the property line all these years. So those were the trees to be moved. I also know, because of the type of soil that it takes to grow them in, it needs to be something similar to what it is. Pretty clayish. I have no idea. I'm sure you're going to have to grade something there...certain requirements. And the University of Minnesota has been very informative on... Mancino: Thank you. Margie Borris: That's it. Mancino: Did you get all your questions answered? Margie Borris: Except for the easements...said he's going to talk to us. What's going to be done about that, etc. Janet Carlson: Hi. I'm Janet Carlson and I live at 4141 Kings Road. I guess hearing some things tonight kind of make me wonder what they're going to force us to do. In 3 years time you want to develop the rest of that, is this what you're saying? Hempel: No, point of clarification. We've given a timeframe for the developer to subdivide those lots into a number of lots, in his preliminary plat. After that time if the zoning laws change and requires larger lots or whatever, he has to. Janet Carlson: Okay. So you're not going to make us pay...That's all I wanted to make sure. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Linda Scott: Hi. I'm Linda Scott. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I think that the plan that is here is a good plan. We have, Sue and I have been in here several times and spoke our thoughts on the project and I guess I want to clarify with everybody here, or find out if it's true or not, with the things that we have resolved in the past are still resolved with this new plat. We did some extensive discussions about our trees. Cedar trees on the north side of our property, which are on Kings Road, and my understanding at this point is that they would be outside of the silt fence, so that they would be protected. I hope I'm understanding that correctly. Mancino: Is that correct Dave? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Hempel: I don't have a grading plan in front of me. Aanenson: That was our understanding when Loucks did it before. The gentleman that did the original design work and had a meeting out there in the neighborhood and staked. We all physically looked at the trees appeared on that side. That is certainly I think, as Dave indicated when we get to that level of detail, I think there needs to be a meeting out there. The concern still seems to me, is how do we save the root zone. That's what, I think you hadn't quite resolved that yet because we were digging, the trench was so deep. We were concerned about, the trees did fall on your property but what was the risk during construction and how can we mitigate that and I think that's something that we're still working to make sure that good construction techniques are used and I think Dave had indicated that during the creek construction, that those are issues we try to work through. But my understanding is that, based on where the stakes that Loucks had put out there, that yes. The trees were on your property. Mancino: And we also could make it as a condition that once the grading for the Kings Road has been clarified, final, etc, that there is a meeting with the city and the neighbors on Kings Road to go over that and to let them know exactly where the grading will be. Where silt fences will go up, etc. Aanenson: How they get access during the construction period, sure. Mancino: To have a neighborhood meeting. Linda Scott: Also another issue, what I think I'm understanding is at this point that the cost for the road is being shared by the city and the developer and that at this point it's not proposed to be an assessed project. Hempel: That's correct. Linda Scott: And then of course my selfish interest has to do with the proposal and the easement through the property. As Sue mentioned, we are willing to discuss it. We would like to discuss it one on one and to us it was kind of a shock in the staff report because our understanding had been that it would be routed through Outlot A and now that has changed, and I have concerns as to what that will do. Not that we are planning to subdivide our property but we do have 8 acres and at some point in time, if it's likely to happen, I'm not sure what that easement does to the amount of lots that our property can be subdivided to. It could have a significant impact as far as we're concerned so we'd certainly like to keep that in mind ourselves. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: Can we just make a clarification on that too. I think Dave pointed out in his staff report, that was an option. I mean we're not telling you you have to do that. Dave's indicated that they have an option. It's the developer's obligation to resolve this problem so we've pointed out the two options. Hempel: Let we show on the overhead why my thoughts have changed from the original concept. Minnewashta Parkway, when that gets upgraded, will have some storm sewer in it. However. Or I'm sorry, Kings Road. Thank you. This pond also...for a majority of the development from going into the storm ponds. The storm pond that would treat that water for nutrients, sediments and, to pipe it into Kings Road, all the way back down to this location involves probably anywhere from $12,000.00 to $15,000.00 worth of storm sewer. On top of that, this water from Kings Road will still have to be pre-treated before it discharges into Lake St. Joe. What that involved is creating a larger, and another water quality treatment down by Lake St. Joe adjacent to it's wetland. And since this is the natural runoff as it currently exists today, through the Morgan/Scott parcel and down to Lake St. Joe, we felt that that option, or that condition should remain or another option would be to pipe it all to the water's edge and eliminate the current drainage ditch through the parcel. There's two options there. This area here, we are limited in how much room to build that water quality pond. If we're just treating the water from Kings Road, that little bit from the park, that pond can be very small. But we have to include additional runoff from this pond will be significantly larger. Mancino: If you pipe it down to the Lake St. Joe, through the easement that they would grant, you would have to clear through there. Put a big pipe in and then it would. Hempel: Small pipe through. About a 12 or 15 inch pipe only. Clear a path of 15 feet, maybe 20 at the most. Small pieces of equipment to do that, and restore that area... Margie Borris: A question....this one here? This is the tiles. Now when they come in there and start excavating, is that going to tear up this tile? Hempel: Yes it will. The tiles that currently drain across Kings Road to Lake St. Joe. Margie Borris: Yeah. Hempel: The pond and new storm sewer system that's incorporated with this development will do the same thing as that drain tile. Sue Morgan: But it will be carrying with it runoff from 52 houses. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Hempel: Not 52. Maybe 30. Some of the runoff from these yards go towards Victoria to this wetland area here. Sue Morgan: So it will carrying with it, runoff of fertilizers, pesticides, things like that. Hempel: Similar if the property would have been an agricultural use. Sue Morgan: But is hasn't been for many years. Margie Borris: What has happened is all the animal life has migrated this way to this little waterway, to this little, and there's a little tree area down here right before you get to the lake and honest to God, I kid you not, we've got deer in our yard all the time now because there's no longer, everything's pushing this way. Once you start coming in here with this, what is it going to do to them again. Plus their property. Hempel: This storm sewer line down through the property to St. Joe should have no affect on wildlife migration. It will be covered up and revegetated. Margie Borris: Yeah while they're tearing it... Hempel: Initially...regrowth. Revegetating. Mancino: Thank you. Thank you Dave. Linda Scott: As I mentioned, we are willing to negotiate on this item. We don't feel very well educated about it at this point in terms of what it would do for the value of our property one way or the other. And if it only costs $15,000.00 plus something different with a pond to change it, that may not be a significant amount compared to what it might do to our property. Anyways, those are my comments. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Daniel: Hi. My name is Daniel...and I'm legal counsel for Harstad Companies. I guess I just wanted to point out, I think both sides have come a long ways on this. I wasn't involved for the whole two years but I think they've finally come to a resolution which I think accommodates everybody's grounds. There's always fine points that have to be tuned up as things go into the final plat, etc. I think the key part of it is the Outlot B where I think it's my understanding is the 3 years and Harstad Companies is fine with that. They'll develop that into 7 lots I think is what's anticipated. And the only other comment that I would make is just briefly on this lift station issue again. It's $20,000.00 and I don't think Harstad's are going to make $11 million off this property. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Nowhere near that. But beyond that, it just doesn't make sense to have them expend $20,000.00- $30,000.00 for something which may come and which, if it does, it's somebody else's benefit and I think it's properly assessable to them if that other 10 acres or 8 acres develops, that's where this cost belongs. Mancino: Thank you. Dave. Hempel: Madam Chairperson, I can address that. I meant to get up when Mr. Harstad was up here but, Mr. Harstad can certainly petition the City to do this project and put in the lift station and assess the benefitting area for it. It's certainly an option. The other option is to go ahead and put the lift station in. I don't want to get into specifically this item of the lift station but a lift station takes a certain size manhole structure, or for fitting of the pumps and so forth. Additional pumps can be added to service that line in the future so the additional installation of a lift station, which is required to service Mr. Harstad's development, probably is of the 75%-80% of the cost of that lift station where an additional 20% would come in and support maybe a little bit larger forcemain leaving the lift station or extra depth to the lift station or additional grinder pump and an additional grinder pump can always be added in the future. Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? Can we have a motion to close the public hearing? Meyer moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Commissioners. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no further comments. Other than procedural, which we can discuss later. I support the staff recommendation as amended by Kate. Mancino: Thank you. Bob. Skubic: I have no comments. Mancino: Ron? Nutting: I'm not sure I understand that all of the issues are resolved. The red cedars. The easement issues. Dave, can you explain for me where the cost is going to lie for the easement to come through the Scott/Morgan property if we run everything through to St. Joe. Hempel: Currently there's no assessments proposed for the upgrade of Kings Road for providing sewer and water, for storm drainage improvements. All the parcels adjacent to Kings Road are 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 going to benefit from it. All the parcels on the south side of the road are paying nothing for those improvements. So the options out there, right now the storm water currently drains through the Morgan/Scott parcel, from a portion of that subdivision. Nutting: As it now stands, which is not developed. Hempel: As it now stands...That would be an option. We could leave it as it exists today. What that would involve is enlarging the current storm pond, or proposed storm pond for this development. We think a better solution to it would be to try to work with the homeowner there, to get an easement, extend that storm sewer down to Lake St. Joe. Eliminate the erosion problem that's probably going to drain through the property and clean it up in general. The city's not looking to pay for an easement though when it directly benefits this property. And there's costs associated with extending storm sewer through their property as well that the City's Surface Water Management Plan would be contributing to, is listed on the overall plan as a component to be installed at some point. Nutting: That cost would be the city's and not the developers? Hempel: That's correct. Nutting: Okay. So the homeowners benefit from the improvements but they also, with the construction of an easement through their property, will lose future development potential surrounding that easement within, what are the requirements? Hempel: The area where the storm water drainage goes underneath the road is a pretty steep ravine that drops off of Kings Road. There would have to be substantial filling to make that a buildable lot. It would also tend to re-direct that drainage that currently goes through the parcel now. There's probably room on each side of the ravine to subdivide and put a house pad on it but to put it directly on top of a ravine wouldn't be very feasible. Or cost effective. Nutting: What are the setback requirements for that type of easement? Hempel: You can build right up to the edge. Nutting: You can build right up to the edge. Hempel: The easement width that we would be requesting on this would be 20 feet wide. Nutting: Well, I'm in favor of moving this forward but I think there's some open issues that need some resolution and obviously I think there needs to be some discussions between staff and the 60 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 property owners to bring some resolution to this easement issue. I sense there's a differing of opinion there that's, at this point in time I don't think we're on the same wave length in terms of the cost of that easement. And I would also support the additional recommendation as proposed. I think Nancy you mentioned that earlier in terms of the construction of the road and getting together and meeting with the affected property owners regarding access issues and utilities and so forth. I guess the lift station issue is less of a concern for me Dave, I guess after hearing Dave's recent comments and I think it sounds like the developer has some option there to petition the city on that. There does seem to be a difference in opinion as to what the ultimate cost to the developer would be and I guess I would also support staff and developer interaction on that point to see if they can't come to some solution, short of what the options would be for that so. Those are all my comments at this point. Mancino: Mike, any comments? Meyer: Not... Mancino: Ladd? Conrad: My two points are the same that Ron just brought up, and I'm still a little vague on that, and I'll take up 30 seconds just to ask Dave is, on point number 17 on the lift station Dave. The City is saying we'd pay up to a maximum of 50%, and basically the intent is to compensate for the parcels, the usage that are not part of the applicant's project. Is that the intent? Hempel: Ah, no. Commissioner Ladd, the intent of condition number 17 is to pay 50% on the telemetry system. That is a radial system that communicates to one central location and tells us if that lift station is operating properly or not. Conrad: Okay. Hempel: That, we have a funding mechanism to take the funds out. That's built into all our lift stations... Conrad: Okay. So then what you are asking the developer to do is to pay for over sizing the lift station? Period. Hempel: Or he petitions. Conrad: Or petitions, okay. I get it. And then back to the drainage from our pond. The pond that, the point that you've made Dave is that the post drainage will be no more, the post development drainage will be no more than the pre-development drainage. Therefore there's no 61 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 more going through the property to the south. There's no more water going through the property to the south. On the south side of Kings Road than before. Hempel: The velocity of the water will be maintained. The volume of water will increase, as you add impervious surface, streets and so forth, but it's released at the same rate so it doesn't cause flooding problems upstream. It doesn't cause erosion problems downstream. It's the same velocity. Mancino: What does it do to Lake St. Joe? Hempel: Lake St. Joe is a large enough body of water that's already been pre-treated. The volumes that you'd see from these developments that occur on Lundgrens to the south and this one to the north. It's been modeled as a part of our Surface Water Management Plan and culverts in the Minnewashta Parkway project put in sized them to accommodate developments. Conrad: So we have more water moving off site, and we're saying it's the developer's problem. Hempel: The ordinance, the old ordinance used to require all developments to pond on site. Maintaining the pre-development runoff rate. Okay, now that we've adopted the Surface Water Management Plan, the SWMP plan as we call it, we have integral components of trunk storm sewer systems to minimize these ponding areas all over the city. This situation, we can put this trunk storm sewer in now and pay for it through the Surface Water Management Funds, or delay it until further development occurs on Kings Road. Have it done as a part as development occurs. Similar to what this developer is providing their own storm sewer system, or storm sewer ponds. At their own cost but they are benefitting from it. Conrad: And it's your assumption that this, your recommendation. It's not a financial hardship to the Morgan property. Hempel: With regards to granting. Conrad: You've solved the quality. You solved the quantity. You solved the quality, but have we solved any financial harm to the Morgan property? Under any of the options that you've given the developer. Hempel: The actual harm is. Conrad: Meaning they can't develop it the way they may like to. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Hempel: Given the topography out there, there's a natural drainage or the sharp ravines and so forth. There'd be a lot of filling involved to make that a developable piece. I mean this would be the location for a property line to exists and their setbacks would be off of that natural drainage ravine. Nutting: You're saying the property owners are getting benefit at no cost... Hempel: We're upgrading Kings Road and utility services... It's something that we can also explore further as we get closer to final plat approval and actual construction plans. There may be another option. Conrad: So when you said, I think you used the word sheet drainage across the Morgan property. It's not sheet, or did I misread that? Hempel: I don't believe it was sheet drainage because there is a culvert underneath Kings Road that takes the drainage from the north side and brings it through the Morgan/Scott parcel. Conrad: Now there's, in our recommendations. Number 1 is the one that relates to the drainage Dave? Hempel: I don't believe we made it as a condition of approval on here. We just wanted to give the option on how to deal with storm drainage...staff report itself. Nutting: The option is to whom? Conrad: The option is the developer's. Mancino: No, the option is the Morgan's and Scott's. Aanenson: It doesn't have to go through the Morgan property. That's why we laid out two options. Mancino: I mean they can say no. Aanenson: Obviously we're going to sit down and... Mancino: Maybe that should be put in as a condition that the parties need to get together. Hempel: Either option though eventually has the storm water go through, either versus an open channel as exists today, or through a pipe system. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad: And neither affects quality. Do either of those options give us better quality? Water quality. Hempel: No... Piping it I suppose would give us better water quality...I have not seen the ditch. I can't say... Conrad: A ditch just sounds like this is not the way to solve our water problems. Okay. No more questions. Mancino: I have none. Do I have a motion? Conrad: I will move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat #93- 11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1995 and subject to the conditions of the staff report with the following changes. Point number 21. The park size acreage is 8+ and with other, staff will have to divide that between dedication and purchase. Under trail. Aanenson: As per city ordinance. Conrad: Okay. Under trail we're adding the words, as per city ordinance. Under point number 23. We're adding a point that says, preservation of the existing red cedars. Red cedars? Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: What are we saying about the preservation of the existing red cedars? Aanenson: Approve a management plan that they include that preservation through relocation of the red cedars. Preservation through the relocation. Conrad: Thank you Kate. Why don't you make this motion. Okay, you're going to have to fabricate the rest of those words, but I'm sure you can do that. We would, I would add point number 27 that would require staff to meet with the neighbors to review the construction plans and the impact on trees along Kings Road prior to. Aanenson: Final plat. Conrad: Thank you. Final plat. That's my motion. Mancino: Do I hear a second? 64 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Meyer: Second. Conrad moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #93-11 to subdivide 35.83 acres into 45 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans dated April 7, 1995, and subject to the following conditions: 1.Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities and street within all public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. Maintenance access routes shall be provided to all storm water ponding. The routes are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of- way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. 2.All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 3.All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 4.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR, and comply with their conditions of approval. 5.The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 6.Storm drainage discharge from the site shall maintain the pre-developed runoff conditions. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for a 10 year and 100 year storm event of a 24 hour duration. Water quality and quantity ponding calculations shall be submitted in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve. 7.The applicant shall have soil borings performed on the site and submit a soils report to the City for review prior to issuance of building permits. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 8.Lot 32, Block 3 shall take direct access from Country Oaks Lane and not Kings Road unless Kings Road has been upgraded to City standards. 9.A report or letter of clarification prepared by a qualified wetland delineator shall be submitted to the city documenting the location and integrity of all wetlands on the site. If there are wetlands on the site, they shall be staked, surveyed and included on the grading and drainage plan. In addition, a buffer strip shall be incorporated by city ordinance. 10.The proposed development shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees of $22,040.00 and $54,549.00 respectively. SWMP water quality and quantity connection fees may be credited/reduced depending on the applicant's contribution to on-site storm drainage improvements according to the City's SWMP design parameters. 11.Storm drainage from the southwest portion of the site shall be evaluated for pre and post development conditions. The City shall determine, based on the amount of impervious surface contributing to the wetlands located in the southwest portion of the site, whether or not a sediment basin will be required to pre-treat runoff prior to discharging runoff into the wetlands. 12.Outlot A shall be dedicated to the city by warranty deed for construction of a sediment basin and parkland. 13.Staff recommends granting a variance to the city's ordinance regarding street grades. Street grades on Kings Road shall be permitted up to 10%. 14.The existing structures on the site shall be razed within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate permits for demolition of all structures, wells and septic systems. 15.Detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be required by the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits on Lots 4 through 8, Block 3. 16.All private driveways shall be built in accordance to the City's Ordinance No. 209. 17.The lift station shall be designed to accommodate future development south of Kings Road (approximately 10 acres) and the city's telemetry system. The City will be responsible for up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of the telemetry system. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 18.The applicant shall include with the street construction a drain tile system behind the curbs on all lots which do not directly abut a wetland or storm drainage pond. The drain tile system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City standards and detail plates. 19.Erosion control fence adjacent to all wetland areas shall be the City's Type III. Erosion control fence on the entire site shall be maintained by the applicant until the entire site has been revegetated and removal is authorized by the City. 20.Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac on White Oak Lane and a "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" sign indicating that . Park 21. The plat shall include an 8+ acre park at the northwest intersection of where Kings Road currently is located and Minnewashta Parkway. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication and purchase. This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. A purchase agreement shall be negotiated by the city contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit shall be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail Acceptance of full trail dedication fees in force upon building permit application as per city ordinance. 22.The applicant shall escrow with the city their fair share of the costs to extend Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road or a conveyance placed on the deed of Outlot B that these future lots will be responsible for 50% of the costs to upgrade Kings Road west of Country Oaks Road. 23.A woodland management plan shall be prepared as per city ordinance Section 18.61(d). Prior to final plat approval, tree conservation easements shall be developed between staff and the The woodland management plan shall also include the preservation through applicant. relocation of the red cedar trees. 24.Within 3 years after final plat approval, Outlot B must be subdivided consistent with the approved plat. After that time, Outlot B will be subject to the city ordinances in effect. 25.All parkland shall be designated as an outlot on the final plat. 26.Street names are subject to review and approval by Public Safety prior to final plat approval. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 27.Staff and the neighborhood shall meet prior to final plat approval to review the construction plans and the impact to the trees. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Mancino: The By-laws. Are they different than they were? Aanenson: No. The changes that were made at the beginning of the year that we started at 7:00 and we moved up the last item. I thought we moved that to 10:30 or 10:00. Maybe 10:30. Mancino: I think we said 10:30. Aanenson: Yeah, we moved them both a half hour. And then we also changed the other one to say that the first meeting in April... Mancino: Okay. Do we vote on this? All those in favor of adopting the new Planning Commission By-laws signify by saying aye. The Planning Commission voted in favor unanimously to adopt the Planning Commission By-laws as presented by staff. Mancino: Let's elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Let's wait for Jeff to come in and take nominations. Aanenson: While we're waiting, we do have 9 nominees or candidates for the open Planning Commission seat. Next meeting, we're going to try to come back on the transition zones... We took off the Powers Place. We do have another plat on so it will be a full agenda. I think if we have 9 people, we give them each 10 minutes, it's going to take you an hour and a half. So what my suggestion would be, I think it'd be nice for our two new members too if we, we've got a van now. To take an opportunity to maybe spend an hour and drive and look at a couple projects and talk about what we're doing and then is it working and some of those sorts of things and then come back and spend an hour and a half interviewing. If we start at 7:00, we'll try to get you out of here by 9:30. Does that work? It's an off meeting next Wednesday, but take an hour to go look at some things and then come back and have the interviews set up. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: What's the date next Wednesday? Aanenson: The 26th. Mancino: The 26th. April 26th. How does that work with you Mike? Meyer: It would work just fine for me. Mancino: Did you hear that Jeff? Farmakes: This is for interviewing? Mancino: Interviewing on the next Wednesday, the 26th and then for about an hour and a half, and then going out via. Aanenson: I thought we would drive first while it's light out. Mancino: Oh, that's a good idea... Aanenson: We drive for an hour and then come back and interview for an hour and a half. Mancino: So it'd be 2 1/2 hours. We'd start at 7:00 and be done by 9:30. Aanenson: Yeah. Mancino: Does that work with you? Aanenson: We have 9 people applying. And what Council would like to do is have, there's one opening, is have 2 more than there's openings. So you'd pass 3 names forward. Mancino: Wouldn't we still select one. Aanenson: You select three. You can rate them or whatever you want to do, sure. But they would like to have 2 more than there is openings, so that would be 3. Mancino: What about next Wednesday for you? Does that work for you from 7:00 to 9:30? Conrad: I guess so. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Nutting: For the additional money, sure. Mancino: I was going to say, can we have snacks? Aanenson: ...because the next one's full and this is kind of a busier agenda so. Nutting: Can we cater Leeann Chin's on the van? Aanenson: We can do something, sure. Conrad: Is that the time to talk about Planning Commission. Aanenson: I'll talk to you then. While we're driving, sure. Mancino: So what are we going to talk about? Conrad: Chairman, you are in charge. My hope would be that we could talk a little bit to staff about Planning Commission responsibilities. Maybe what we laid out last meeting. It's going to be slipped forever because our Planning Commission meetings are packed but I think it's real relevant that staff gives a presentation to Planning Commission specifically for the new commissioners and then it's a good refresher for us to just know what our charter is. What our responsibilities are. What our legal direction is, and I ask Kate to give us some very direct criticisms of how maybe we should change. Mancino: My only question to that is, should we wait until the last person comes on. Do that all at once. Conrad: That might be. That might be possible. Mancino: Well one of the mandates of being a good Planning Commissioner is to come next Wednesday so. Interview... Aanenson: I'll send you out a notice just to remind you and try to put an idea of, I'll send you the resumes ahead of time... Mancino: So when will that person, I mean will City Council act right away? Aanenson: I don't know. That's why I'd like, then we still have to get on the Council agenda so that's why I think the sooner we can respond, then they have an opportunity to put it on one of their work sessions. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: So if we go to, by the end of May, get to their agenda. Okay. Any nominations for Chair and Vice Chair? Farmakes: I'll nominate Nancy as Chair. And Mr. Nutting as Vice Chair. Mancino: Any other nominations for Chair and Vice Chair? Nutting: I concur with the nomination of Nancy for Chair. Aanenson: I'm reading your By-laws here. It says you have to nominate but then it says, this shall be done by secret ballot. Farmakes: Nominating? Aanenson: No, voting. Mancino: Any other nominations? Conrad: There are no more nominations. If there aren't any more nominations, then it's not a secret. Aanenson: No, no, no. The voting. Mancino: Yeah, but why would the voting be secret. Conrad: Yeah. If there's only one alternative. If you get some blank pieces of paper Kate. Aanenson: That's fine. I'm just reading your By-laws. Mancino: Well as Chair, we're not going to go by the By-laws. Aanenson: Well you know what... Nutting: We can waive the By-laws. Aanenson: The Commission may suspend any of it's rules by unanimous vote... Mancino: Do I have a motion to suspend secret balloting. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to suspend the By-laws relating to voting for Chair and Vice Chair by secret ballot. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to appoint Nancy Mancino as Chair and Ron Nutting as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CITY COUNCIL UPDATES: Aanenson: The last City Council meeting in April. They approved the Chan Business Center,the preliminary plat, and final plat will be going to their next meeting. And Oak Ponds, obviously they approved that. Both of those were tabled because they did not have, you needed a majority of the members present and they only had 3 people present... Mancino: Any other? Aanenson: That was it as far as Planning Commission's. Mancino: Okay. And are you going to let us know about Toronto. Your trip and your flight. Aanenson: Yes. I'd like to do that, maybe when we're driving that'd be a good opportunity... (There was an informal discussion between the City Planner and the Planning Commission regarding the applicants and the interviewing procedures at this point.) Farmakes: This is open discussion here? One of the things that reading the Minutes of the last meeting, and looking at the By-laws here, it really doesn't address the issue of conflict of interest. And discussing this with the Council members, that the city in general I think should take a look, and at least our commission should take a look at the issue of conflict of interests when we conduct hearings. Make recommendations about the issue of personal benefit and how that interplays with the traditional sense of voting. It seemed to point out a glaring problem in our system when, the attorney at the Council level looked into this, came back and said, well there's nothing. As I understood his ruling, there's nothing in your rules that says that this is wrong. But I think, on a street level, on the citizen level. If someone benefits from a ruling, and they're conducting that hearing, one has to call into question that issue and I think we owe it to the people of this city that that shouldn't be an issue. Aanenson: The Council did draft a new. Mancino: Didn't they have a Code of Ethics? 72 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Aanenson: I'll send that out with this new. Yeah, in reading through that, that's why I pulled out of one. I didn't have anything financial but there was a relationship there and I just didn't want it to be the appearance that I was... Farmakes: They seemed to side step the issue though, and leave it more open ended. That's why. Mancino: Did you see the new? Aanenson: I think if you read through the new one, I think it speaks pretty clearly to that issue... Farmakes: They didn't ask me my opinions on it. Aanenson: Well I think if you get it and then maybe we should discuss it again. Farmakes: Yeah. Well it probably is also a good educational thing when we're discussing these issues... The other issue is the procedural issue that we had here again tonight. Where these open disagreements on issues where you neither have a chance to respond and report nor, you know it's sort of a running dialogue that takes place. Fortunately he only had 3 or 4 points...but it really puts us in a disadvantage to try and. The first one that comes to my mind is to table this because it's still in discussion and if. Aanenson: Part of that's their strategy to make it look like they haven't had a chance to respond when it's more in fact they have, and part of it's strategy. Farmakes: And that's what I'm saying. Should that forum be, should this forum be a place for strategy ploys in regards to positioning of negotiation, if they're still taking place. Aanenson: I would just go back to, you know you should ask us anytime to stop and say, staff are you comfortable? Is there an issue that's unresolved? Farmakes: In particular, if the city's still in a negotiation situation for some financial matters, we shouldn't be making any comments at all. Mancino: When he said, during the second one, and my final, and I thought just let him continue with his final ones. Third year and then it's over. Instead of having him come back up again. Resolving those three issues of the conditions. I mean you don't know which way it's going to play. Aanenson: Which one are you talking about? 73 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 1995 Mancino: Harstad. Isn't that who you were talking about?.. Aanenson: Oh! Let's do the Minutes. I think that was one thing you left off. Just so you don't forget. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 5, 1995 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 74