Loading...
12-15-93 Agenda and Packet FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1993, 6:00 P.M. _ CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE (Light dinner will be provided) 6:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER OLD BUSINESS Highway 5 Corridor Study - Discussion (please bring your draft document) NEW BUSINESS Interview Planning Commission Applicants 8:30 Robert Jones 8:45 Mary Labatt 9:00 Wayne Olson 9:15 Robert Smithburg 9:30 Ron Nutting 9:45 Dana Muller APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 17, 1993 CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. •Ima• ••••• •••• .•••• • emu, mme APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION DATE: //��>�; :`. /� COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: 91.1,04),A7L 71/3? 55%L ALTERNATE: / /9-/JD Pec,Pi'.47/c?/.) ('6,,41 01,s5/em) NAME: RC BE.d2 T ( JCA/c=5 BIRTHDATE (optional) : ///4/5-c-- ADDRESS: `77-)7 f/-'04./ ". 7 ''/L- CITY: Cf//°f71/J7g/✓ ZIP: 353/7 HOME PHONE: 934- O WORK PHONE: y` - 7 7-1- HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: �f.�NNi4/"C /lam HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS EGREES, IF ANY: 146-11 g CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment/� as well. ) 4/f_Gu'T .5Ai_ Ih G - y�f+,e_s • %'/'A �CLFF /aCArIs /Jcr)���6i✓771Z Sc�vLi6� Oe FxTe�C!L �s�CDG-'eTS ,SCS O 7 eeo0Gg E/e reie C'c i4/t,Le-5.4LE, s x,11 /2 i2 -57797e5 ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) /,//777' 0E7- REASONS 'REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION\AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: TZ' C7/-'f)iMIA5 zJ v ) /9 /5/A/Co A L'>�i� �/ 17 / C L,) h./kC Tv eCR?c 7/71 '/, it(77/#2 r /ISG T O,t I-V /,v /l7 lI C'/ L4/'�'✓/ .i c//- /,71/ /7�'L-3/f.G-t' Lr✓,7 �5 e)/77//iv T(/ A/ q/641 / h14`%/c 4Y5 /Jou -/� /,`'i��'L� /:�'� /�' (? t, D,P 7E 77 ��is /5 in^ J ze)6'`y e f- ,�ck.,-,//1/e. /66frip /nV �C'%/,� ✓/),rte IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY / TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT INTHEEVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. _ - SIGNATURE CLINICAL PHARMACY ANA TEL Nov 29 '93 11 : 32 No .CiCJF . 07 — tplu N r f► C I1RP Ef. i — mt. O I Zo . . -7: . , -- f AL* 7JAATs L o IIZATuDATR (option•1) s \)131N ADpitP4s t`S O CITY s, 61 CV\\ liP(S ii 50O kolas _Q 3 S-3o woo nowsi ^3 W O Row Low SAYS You Brisk( A RiMZDl$t 07 08A1(7.5AlWr( S ?pc- S *ipxs07 LEYML or iDVCATZom ATTAINED, ?Los DitiRZEB, z7 Amyl - ...--/L...--Lc&RXS. d'b >c-='-' nc ?- \ (\N:nr\a*aae - o 1XPLOYK*NTi (Stats position, suploysr a briar assoriptiOn of d iss. If with present omp1oyOr for only a short tills, list ���,�, privi us employment ss yell• ) clinic .L • • • .• ock • -• i • Q`t"`^``'J4 S i�(Y�6rttM;c, €Lt tut - . i\tr\" 0.2u.4-S - .. ,. uLY- • ;In _ . cSr-ICE' - Ao IV*TIII AND AMILIATIONse (Inoludi elective otfioss, honors and rs oO itioAs rsosivsd, if atiy.) la_+ 'd ."\- ^S RAlsO)l FOR SEEKING TRIO P0$ITIOki AND YOUR QUALIFICATION., iN __ {` iH._,,.. \\.0._ F. -,,,5,5_€&_ .4 ,t ,4,..,.. UJQ SIS: \- b� c-���a ictl-ess._ ei c ;oc„S_ w,k bc,._ o,, cve _ „.,„ 44n0.-k- , * our c . ,,,,,i ,41--- ....,,s4, 4 -' V-r f 1 � � l�, `,� *.:. • � . — .. `c17.. .�: I _:L 1% . - ( -_10.D�C . �r� _.8a� 4 II /MUM THIO APPLICATION, Y VMDIR1TkWD TEAT A CO)O UTICU T 07 XV TI ,IIN NLROY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL DE VOLVED, AND I AM P P rD TO )Latta svax A CO)WYTXLMT IM T8i MUT I AM APPOINTED TO T OVI °OXXISSION. Alekdo a *.#20..ILIJ is i• :.';' ', 7. I N wr N. rt a APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION DATE: f Z `1/q3 COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: -p L Pr.i ns r,� G `;ti� ,tip S ,J r-1 ALTERNATE: _ NAME: U\----) BIRTHDATE (optional) : 0-6-A / ADDRESS:CTZC- �R�7DLct��co lc ( Izp;SITY: �++�. r.i ZIP: HOME PHONE: L(%-• I O`c'� "(7- WORK PHONE: `- 1 /?. 6 S HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATIO ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: I7 , < L M E AJ C `4 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment as well. ) - — clz t1/4- ,-D cam/ 1/4tS-rj 1C ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A CO11M MENT IN THEVE I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. ( /� v c^ C.1 RECEIVED I GNAIIURE NOV 2 9 1993 CITY OF CHANFASSLAy yPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION DATE: /O . COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: /a/AA-1A"/"' 6 ALTERNATE: NAME: / a 6 C"QCT .1i,+ /7I-10 u26 BIRTHDATE (optional) : 6 ' 3- 1c° ADDRESS:g657 44j/AA(/.41S. 6e. A-4 CITY: '1.1-4 ZIP: 55317 HOME PHONE: 93Y- V q 4g 16 ') WORK PHONE: X16 - 0 3 1 b � .oprr • HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: 3 N/LS HIGHESST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: U AcH o F A 11_7 s D CSL SEE , .' A L J-T/c. &-- Se-t. CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment as well. ) Q/2 }-r i o•u 3 frJog:rN w e--sr ,41,2c!..J Es , g u z c A- iec ¢T QA -1S A.jPAA-1 ,,,t,t-rtQ,� 71-111eu61-1oW? A.)LOA .SYS-revs—\ ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (In ludo electiv offices, hor anr recognitions received, if any. ) A ss1 -1 .a.)-r - onP .� CHAD uL . �4/1z' A) .ktl�,Cou S Sc Kvr.�f ,tJ�,(6/-(/' 2 Kfao/) �lecul� Ax),D REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: <7"1-4a''14.43"-'<.1 / E'"p A di v b /4'+ A ,e'40'/4 /E 4C.e •A4.,./d., 'J A./I rrl PO A--r /9/,‘,7 0/yrs Aru 46- AkPTiNG AiLI Li t---S 8y /4' Com/A,'SSicr1 OF- 41,-/Asre-0,5 /C f'S//ieK.rrS / s /4r/ „v✓e-1-7.ntw7 ,,. oug Qv t 2dc (. 6RD1,07' 4A-rust . 1 /4/n AWA1[(c d i 114E= fig oEtC.t S Civc6;4ALS A,v,0 / an4C tj �fNC' ,Q S/-6ESS4-FE-L. A .aJEE-D ZO / 1,(7i 4P/4'T F /�! /Cr Nd Jit a Equi-rAac.0 5occl7/oNS ,,c/va.uate DE=v6.74 ar°e/n PJT CI-1- 4,11-14s.rEi IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMITMENT N THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. SIGNATURE . ICEIVEC OST 2 5 1993 CITY 01 (%FhAw HASSFP. t__-O,E--__- 1...:7:52 Ire TO 59O7O7_9 F.02 — FWOH CITY OF CHANHASSEN 12.96. 1993 12124 P. 2 i • g141 caloaBsiWi • D $ • ll . • :.* ' -3 ., • , 7-- 6-- 1.--- Tive • •Rt cL-opsoacz, A1411 - Tit illt oN 3.-� c-. 1:►0 ktJG . IZITNDATp (optional) t R1i� •1s9 #D1 Ra1s:, L• '-i Cw.RA4 Fpsk coLo14, CZz Cl4,1, 6,Q SIP: S17 - , E0141 orae 3t-i-1`lt�. two= It : Y?-'t-l3-1 X `_O t ROW Loan NAVI YOU AEEE A RESIDENT 07 ttasp4I 4 1lr- 4 _ Eu4RZtr LSVIL OF EDUCATION ATT XID, PLMDIORsss, IF UTI R�'Pt - UN kvS.t- TN c- l.>vv_.:-..-.,- .‘,..k C.-L-On. (. p C.c-a T's ( nA3 , Z?ff..h �p el ikail . A, \ tri JS�xiSS Dt i 2 AT U c>P t.7 ZXPLOYXRNT* (State position, emiloysr & brief description of utiss. it with present employer top only a short time, list Pr , iota► smploysant as v.11. )eirooftvdriL - .ACT • 'TM ABTA AFFILIAT=ops: (Include .l otive offices, honors and r410- •a- itions r.osived, if any.) r, a ' • -L (- C tet= _g .K- • _OR /.-.3t • : .._r :,lc� .' I 1 _ f/ A)A L-tom • • % TS ' y 4I.r. _ n.: e_, .. 1 RE140B FOR SEBRING TRIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: I: .. .,,,... 1 1 , IN, . IL NO THIS APPLICATION, I d.NDERs TEAT A 0030tITXZWZ OF NY _' • ROY, I rriasBT AND warm'?ATIWr LL DE INVOLVED, AND I AX PRE D TO MAX! 3008 A OONKITXZWT IN 3171124T I AK APPOINTED TO TEN , Vs oo)0(Issloa. Fti -- r---8 SIG I T j . . l . **SEND*** DEC:-08-1993 15:52 FROM TO 99375739 P.03 Attachment to Application For Chanhassen Planning Commission Current Employment Financial Management Consultant (SelflEmploved)-- January 1992 - Present Provide financial management consulting services to clients in a variety of industries. Primary business focus is providing contract Chief Financial Officer services to financially troubled or turnaround stage companies. Secondary business focus is studies demonstrating the economic impact of business operations on the local and state economy. Previous employers: Golden Valley Health Center-- Chief Financial Officer Trammell Crow Company -- Financial Manager KPMG Peat Marwick -- Financial Management Consultant Reasons for Seeking this Position and Your Qualifications My family has lived in Chanhassen for the past four and one-half years. The City has experienced great change and significant new development during this time. 1 would like to play a more active role with the City in the planning process for new development that will meet the needs of the residents and businesses of Chanhassen. My qualifications for serving on the Planning Commission include my eight years of business consulting services and my four years of senior financial management positions for various companies. Through these experiences, I have been involved with numerous projects to determine the market and financial feasibility of new business ventures as well as their potential economic impact on the local and state economies. I believe that these experiences will enable me to provide meaningful input to the planning process for the City of Chanhassen. RECEIVED 1993 / APPLICATION FOR CHANHASSEN COMMISSION C11 Y DATE: ,2/5/C-1?-) / COMMISSION APPLYING FOR: /QIQI'11-1 T9� (Cw0 i , rW\ ALTERNATE: 11 NAME: 22/40( A6/2/er^ BIRTHDATE (optional) : 9- /Z-5 ADDRESS L C 119‘4/0/0 � '� CITY: �J?�a/�-7,4S-5 ei'ZIP: HOME PHONE: �'yp-6Y a 9 WORK PHONE: 723--73 HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF CHANHASSEN?: Lf yr c HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION ATTAINED, PLUS DEGREES, IF ANY: CURRENT EMPLOYMENT: (State position, employer & brief description of duties. If with present employer for only a short time, list previous employment as well . ) _ ,S-c-/7� e"y77)l/c7/6c--(rA to r c re e mot Il ` cif)/ ACTIVITIES AND AFFILIATIONS: (Include elective offices, honors and recognitions received, if any. ) REASONS FOR SEEKING THIS POSITION AND YOUR QUALIFICATIONS: /14 cl cLs r/ G n cL c,c r?"1 'lot( y (r,„/ r A /j acv • y C / 3C A� IN FILING THIS APPLICATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT A COMMITMENT OF MY TIME, ENERGY, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION WILL BE INVOLVED, AND I AM PREPARED TO MAKE SUCH A COMMI ENT IN THE EVENT I AM APPOINTED TO THE ABOVE COMMISSION. --/Z; GNATURE r CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, and Jeff Farmakes MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Nancy Mancino STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO A SLNGLE FAMILY PARCEL ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF LAKE LUCY. THE PARCEL IS A PENINSULA IN LAKE LUCY, MARK AND KATHY SANDA. Public Present: Name Address Mark & Kathy Sanda 1685 Steller Court Ken Adolf Schoell and Madsen Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Eric Rivkin 1695 Steller Court John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road Jack Lowry 1665 Steller Court Sandy & Robert Kendall 1645 Lake Lucy Road Phil & Kim Thiesse 1675 Steller Court Jill Willis 1571 Lake Lucy Road Julie Farmakes 7100 Utica Lane Donn Andrus 449 Pleasant View Pat O'Dell Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Bill Lambrecht 6990 Utica Lane Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli called the public hearing to order. 1 Mark Sanda: First of all I appreciate the opportunity to get up in front of you folks and just tell you a couple of things and I want to be respectful of your time tonight and I hope other people that come up and have comments are as well. As we mentioned, our goal is to receive approval for our plans to improve and upgrade an existing driveway to provide access to our peninsula property. My name's Mark Sanda and that's my wife Kathy and we're here representing ourselves. We're not a development company or anything. We purchased our lot about 7 years ago. Built our home on Steller Court...mentioned in the plan there 6 1/2 years ago. I thought a little history would be important as to why we ended up owning the peninsula. It really was an issue of preserving our view. When we became aware that the same owner of that property, who was an absentee owner, was the person who sold the property north of Lake Lucy Road to allow the Centex development. We became kind of concerned about what might eventually happen to that property so we went into negotiations with that party and purchased the peninsula in the summer of '89. We thought that perhaps one day we might build a home out there but we didn't give it a lot of thought. But in the intervening 4 years the peninsula's really kind of become a financial burden to us and somewhat of a policing burden. There's, we have evidence of a fair amount of unauthorized trespassing out there. We've granted access to some of our neighbors but we know there's people out there who litter and that type of thing so we decided to put the peninsula on the market and as you might guess, anyone's interested in acquiring the property wants to know what the access situation is. So we determined after some time that we had to carry through with this process and that's what's motivating us behind all this. Well, whatever we decide to do, we...decide to build our home out there or whatever but no matter what happens we're either going to have to view what happens out there or we're going to be a part of it because — we're not planning on leaving the area. So we're very concerned ourselves about what happens to this particular piece of property. So then back to the goal. We just want permission to upgrade a driveway that's existed. We're going to show in our plan here that a — driveway has existed there for many decades and it's supported by aerial photographs that were taken. We currently use quite a portion of that driveway to provide access to the peninsula which we just sort of enjoy for recreational reasons. We drive a tractor out there to haul out fallen logs to supply us with firewood and so we've done a little maintenance on it to keep it up to shape for driving a small tractor out there. The portion that's adjacent to Lake Lucy Road is in somewhat of a state of disrepair and when Lake Lucy Road was paved 7 years ago. Some of you might recall the road was raised up about 10 feet and at that time it made the access a little more difficult to get down onto that driveway and the absentee owner had never raised an issue with the city and so it has kind of become clogged up with some scrub trees so that's a portion that would need to be spruced up a little bit. We've hired the engineering firm of Schoell and Madsen because of their experience of projects of this type. To draw up a driveway design plan for us which Mr. Ken Adolf is here to share with you and as it was stated before, we've been working with the DNR and the city since day one on this process because we wanted to do it right. It was mentioned there's 2/10 of an acre of wetland to be filled. Our plan, as you will see, calls for over 3/10 of an acre to be mitigated or recreated which we're going to do on our lot as part of this. We're going to move the appropriate trees and plant growth as the DNR rules require and we want to meet the regulations every step of the way. We had one little misstep in this whole situation. We 2 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 had a misunderstanding that kind of arose that led us to believe we might be able to pursue a subdivision out there. And an ad got drawn up with our real estate agent that indicated that and our thinking was, well let's just see what that might do to the value of the property in some people's eye. But we got that straighten out with the city rather quickly and it caused some undue alarm with people and it's an unfortunate incident but the bottom line is, the driveway plan that we are submitting is for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and city code says that you can only have one homesite serving a driveway of that width. So we know the concern of a lot of people is what's going to happen out there and when you see the details _ you see it just does not seem practical to do anything any wider than that. I don't know who could afford to do anything any wider than that so that hopefully takes care of that issue. We've tried to be wide open on this whole process since the beginning. We've contacted the property owners immediately adjacent to the driveway. Jill Willis, Sandy and Robert Kendall, Phil and Kim Thiesse and then ourselves are the property owners involved and I know all those people are here tonight so I hope they choose to say something. Some of them have given you written opinions of this. We've also talked to those people that have a view of the peninsula. And in addition to that, we met with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, which is the group that represents all of the owners of lakeshore property on Lake Lucy. We supplied for the committee a fair number of letters from some of our neighbors that have indicated their support of the project. In the way it's designed here. There may be some people that will choose to speak tonight and I know there's going to be a letter read by the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. And in what I think is a very magnanimous gesture, we've received tentative permission from Jill Willis to have a cross access easement for the very beginning portion of the driveway which is adjacent to Lake Lucy. And when we get into the plan you'll see why that is a gesture that will help eliminate some of the impact at the beginning of the driveway. It has to do with where the city dumped dirt when they built the road up. It's basically taking advantage of what they had put there. So to summarize, while we recognize everyone is not exactly thrilled with the reality of further development in the city, we ask them to consider the fact that this driveway is being improved under strict adherence to all State and City environmental codes and that one homesite limitation should help maintain the special type of feeling that exists in that part of the city that all of us that live there like. And with that, thanks for your time and I'll turn it over to Ken. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair, members of the Council. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen, consulting engineering firm in Minnetonka. I've got some boards that provide a detail on the, first of all on the existing conditions. Hopefully this will clarify some of the previous presentations. The alteration for a wetland alteration permits really are for restoring a driveway that has existed over 30 years. I have an aerial photo from 1962 on here which _ clearly shows the driveway as it approaches the peninsula. The driveway is fairly well defined on this area. This is Lake Lucy Road up in this area. This is the southerly wetland crossing and the most critical one. The existing previous driveway, the center line is 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 indicated by the dark...kind of meanders in and out of this 33 foot wide strip of property that extends north to Lake Lucy Road that was really intended to be the access. This matches up at this point over here in this being the peninsula at this point. This is Lake Lucy Road. The two wetlands that were discussed, the northerly wetland and...edges are defined with the green lines. The southerly wetland is also defined by the green line. The southerly wetland is actually part of the Lake Lucy complex and is affected by the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Lucy, which is 956.1. The DNR prohibits any filling below that elevation. There's a strip of property which is where the old driveway was that comes across like this which is above elevation 956.1. And that's a strip within which the new driveway has to be contained. Right at the curve there's actually a break in the 956.1. Right now there's...in there. And at this point it's necessary to make that crossing with a bridge. The second plan shows the proposed driveway...and it has been realigned to stay within the 33 foot strip except right immediately south of Lake Lucy Road where it's necessary to do some filling and was moved from one side so that all of the filling outside of the 33 foot strip was now on the east side. It was decided to stay within that access strip until...Lot 4 which was owned by the Sanda's and then it naturally goes outside of the strip and of course easements will be provided for the access. Again, the bridge we're showing in this location. Application has been made to the DNR for the wetland alteration permits. And actually in that application we had requested that some very minor filling be allowed below the 956.1 elevation to allow for a shorter but wider bridge and bigger approaches to the bridge. Building a bridge right on a curve is difficult and the intent is that this would allow truck access both for construction vehicles during the home construction and also... The driveway varies in width from 10 feet where there really are heavy restrictions and then as we get into the area where we're restricted by the filling...8 feet and there's a couple of different sections that are proposed depending on... strip that's available...There's a culvert that's proposed in this general location to convey the drainage that's going to cross Lake Lucy Road as it does right now. Then we're showing another...culvert in that wetland. That concludes my presentation. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Batzli: What sort of materials is the bridge construction out of? Ken Adolf: The final design of the bridge has not been done. There's been some preliminary investigation. One of the bridges that we did look at is a pre-fabricated bridge of steel construction. Made of cortin steel which is the weathering steel that turns kind of a coppertone color and that particular bridge would have a timber deck. Batzli: It does have a timber deck? Ken Adolf: Yes. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: What kind of footings or pilings do you end up needing for a bridge like that? Ken Adolf: Again, the final design hasn't been done so we haven't done the soil borings but soil borings would have to be done on either end to determine the type of support that would be necessary for the bridge. We're anticipating that would require pilings of some type. Those would be either steel or timber: Conrad: Where's the wetland that you're filling in? Ken Adolf: It shows up better on this drawing. There's actually two wetlands. The northerly wetland sort of all in that stretch and then the southerly wetland, there's a stretch up here and through here that we would be altering. Conrad: That's in the 33 foot area? Ken Adolf: In the north area it is. In the south area it's actually in the Lot 4 which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. It's a lot there. A residential lot. Conrad: What are you doing in the mitigated area? — Ken Adolf: The mitigation is proposed in this area. What you get is on Lot 4. The lot owned by Mr. and Mrs. Sanda. The...mitigation area would be excavated down to the...6 to 12 inches...adjacent wetland and then the wetland soils that are salvaged...from the wetland to be altered would be placed and spread in here. The details of that still need to be worked out with the DNR... Ledvina: Mr. Chair? Batzli: Yeah. Ledvina: For the northern wetland area. If the driveway were to follow the existing path, would it be necessary to do a mitigation? Would that represent a filling process in that area? To follow the alignment of the existing path there. Ken Adolf: The existing driveway goes through the same wetlands so there would be alteration required there as well. Ledvina: So either way that's. Ken Adolf: That's right. This area it was important to move it within the 33 feet. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: Right. What I'm trying to ascertain is that you're not just moving it to the, to within the 30 foot strip of property and when in fact there may be an opportunity to relocate it further to the south and not have that wetland alteration necessary. But that's not the case? Ken Adolf: That's right. Batzli: Okay, thank you. I'd like to open the meeting up for public comment. If you'd like to address the commission, please feel free to do so. Please come up to the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. I could tell you kind of wanted to stay back there didn't you? Joe Morin: My name's Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. And I'm representing the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and what we have is a position statement that we would like to hand out to the members of the commission and for the staff here. This is a short statement and I'll just read it for the benefit of everyone else also. There's a background statement that basically says that the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association met on November 10, 1993 to discuss the Sanda's proposal. 8 of the 16 to 18 families comprising the association were represented. During the meeting Joe Morin, that's myself, was elected to represent the position of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association at this meeting. I'd also like to reserve the right to represent myself a little bit later but right now I'm just speaking for the Homeowners Association. The position statement reads, the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association does not oppose the Sanda's plan to provide driveway access for a single family dwelling. It is our understanding that this would be a permit for an 8 to 10 foot wide driveway and that city and DNR ordinances prohibit the development of more than one dwelling under these conditions. We trust that the city and the DNR would strictly enforce this regulation should any further request be made to develop another dwelling on this property. We are also deeply concerned about the possibility of pollution of Lake Lucy and expect that the development of a single family dwelling would be done in strict compliance with regulations governing installation of septic systems and other sources of pollution. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe Morin: That's the statement. Subsequent to this meeting I also contacted Brian Tichy and Ted Coey who are members of the Association and they also concurred with our position statement. Thank you. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property is adjacent to the Lot 4 where the mitigation site is and I'm also in direct view of the island and the entire 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 wetland. I have presented before you a letter of concerns that I collected signatures with. People that are also directly adjacent to the property...lakeshore owners or in direct view of the...and we share certain concerns. We're not, the first thing that we want to make you aware. My qualifications here are that, as you know I'm a strong advocate for environmental protection and I make every effort to keep up with issues and details pertaining to wetland _ protection. I just want to make sure that the concern that I had comply with the regulations and the ordinance. I'm sure that compliance will...and I'm glad to see that the Sanda's really care and I'm sure that conditions will...but I just wanted to make sure that they're laid out, present to you information that I found out that may fall through the cracks so that the conditions were laid out in detail to meet the requirements in the ordinance. Point number 1, and I'll just go through them briefly. There's only one page of them and I'll just explain briefly what... We agree with the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association position. I'm also a member. I'm separating myself. Giving my own personal opinions. That the driveway be designed for access for a single building site only. We'd like to know, as Joe had also mentioned, if there's any way to impose a current restriction to a one resident access. Point number 2. The DNR had given me some information that you see on page 3. These are the, for the last 20 years the high water elevations that were taken by the DNR for the Watershed — District. These do not mean that these are the highest water levels but these are the only ones that have been recorded by the...agencies that happened to be there at that time. Some of these readings were taken on the ice. Some are taken in the middle of summer and !all. But nonetheless, it is a valid statement to say that water level frequently reaches or exceeds flood elevation of 957, which is almost a foot over the ordinary high water mark. And given antidotes by certain lakeshore residents, it's quite possible that water levels have exceed those that are on record. The second and fourth page I show a map of the Lake Lucy...watershed that I got from the Watershed District. They have over a 10:1 surface water watershed surface to surface water ratio in a relatively undeveloped area right now so surface water runoff, no matter how many retention ponds or holding ponds we have, in a year like we had this year, every retention pond is full. Every sub-retention pond is full that feeds into Lake Lucy is full. And with development that goes in in the future, this ordinary high water mark...may change higher in upper directions. And obviously nobody's done any analysis of any future projections of what Lake Lucy could be like in a full development scenario but if this driveway happens to be at this elevation of 957, right now it appears that frequent flooding will occur over the top of that driveway. Portions of it. I don't know what kind of stipulations these conditions have to say about this and I trust the Sanda's and their engineer to engineer it properly and to meet that. What the data shows. But I just wanted to bring it to the attention of you so it can be questioned and dealt with. And the third point...Lake Association worry about pollution. So our lake advisor, Dale Hogan, I talked to him, described the plan to him and to use a Class V fill in the course of the driveway could have adverse ecological effects resulting from...erosion. Class V gravel will be subject to spring thaw and full saturation making it soft and usually subject to heavy erosion. Runoff from the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 clay rich Class V can cause water quality problems in the wetland. This is where water fowl, I had flocks of egrets and great blue herons feeding in these very wetlands that we're traversing with this driveway and there's small fish and aquatic organisms which depend on the water quality that exists there now to survive and...to resurface Class V with bituminous asphalt which has petroleum and oil runoff which can also pollute the water. After consulting with Dale Hogan, we believe that the driveway design in sections E and F may be the least detrimental to the wetland and he said it was an excellent design. I concur with that. He suggested that the design be incorporated wherever possible. By using the narrower design. It's 8 feet instead of 10 feet and you also reduce the mitigation area acquired and maybe even eliminate it. Point number 4. We heard from Ken Adolf... Batzli: Excuse me. On the one I'm looking at. Maybe I'm looking at this wrong. Are you suggesting that, my section E and F shows an 8 inch thick concrete plank. Is that what you have for section E and F? Are you suggesting that they pour concrete over the entire length of the driveway for 8 feet of concrete? Eric Rivkin: Other than the bridge. Batzli: 8 feet wide? Eric Rivkin: Just in the wetland portion. Batzli: Just in the wetland portion. Eric Rivkin: In the Class A wetland portion. Not the upland. Just the part that's sitting in the water...edge of wetland to edge of wetland minus the bridge. And the bridge pilings. Or whatever support you need for that. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Eric Rivkin: The wood decking or pilings treated with...or creosol or other petroleum products should be prohibited. Dale Hogan said, and I've seen a lot of evidence of this... articles from people that arsenic compounds will leech into the water. The comments made by Jo Ann Olsen a number of years ago when I had applied for a wetland alteration permit for a dock through this same wetland. She also uncovered evidence so it may be in the city file, but it's very well documented that tar oils from creosol timbers are definite pollution hazards. So we just suggest that only bridge materials with proven environmental safety — records be permitted. Number 5. Any upland mitigation...which there be none but if there is one, there is an outlet for a continuously running spring. I didn't see it on the plan. Nobody talked about it so I'm just bringing it to your attention. I'm sure the Sanda's...It does flow 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 year round and should be left open. Number 6. The road south...should be prohibited since there are no buffer strips in ponding areas...To insure education and...enforcement by _ subsequent homeowners, this restriction should be written into the property deed as a condition. It is well documented that serious water quality and ecological damage in wetlands and other bodies of water can occur from this type of runoff. There was an article in the Tribune 2 weeks ago about the de-icing salts from the airport polluting the Mississippi River. Also south from going to stagnant type water wetlands...project to be a salt water marsh and have devastating effects. A textured concrete driveway similar to the one in section E may not be an unreasonable alternative. It's just a suggestion but maybe there's something better. I don't know but the concern for pollution is there. Since purple loosestrife, it's very well documented that the DNR, in their brochures and the studies that they've done that came out in my wetland alteration permit. I was...spoils from my digging a channel that had to be disposed of in a manner in a condition for my permit to be buried on the upland areas in a sufficient depth that the seeds would not germinate. One plant generates millions and millions of seeds and it's proven through studies...very well documented that when you disturb the soil, even if it's just a few plants, that it's guaranteed the wild proliferation of purple loosestrife. And I'd like that addressed. The existing...and I'm glad to hear...mentioned about the pilings and taking borings and all that to ensure that that will be taken care of but I am just mentioning it here. And just for your information Mr. Adolf, that we had done a survey where we drilled holes in the lake every 200 feet and just a few feet from that bridge...we found 17 feet of muck underneath there. Dale Hogan has done an analysis of that...call him and ask him what the verdict is...and you have signatures on the next page of several homeowners. The ones that are starred there are adjacent to this property. Thank you very much. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? John Waldron: I am John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road...Our house is situation we have an unobstructed view of the island and my wife and I, Mariellen would like to go on record that we do not have any problem with the Sanda's developing the property they own for this purpose. We feel that between the record that Chanhassen has on wetlands and the _ DNR, that the process will take care of problems going through and hopefully we have enough government already in our lives and that it would be too cumbersome for a private individual's use...property. Thanks. Batzli: Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission? Jack Lowry: My name is Jack Lowry. I live at 1665 Steller Court. I'm a neighbor of the Sanda's and I'd like to go on record as saying that my wife, Jackie and I totally support the project. In our association the Sanda's are professional in everything they do and will do 9 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 nothing but good for the community... Batzli: Thank you. Sandy Kendall: I'm Sandy Kendall. My husband Bob. We just moved into 1645 Lake Lucy Road. This is our first Council meeting and I apologize I didn't make enough copies of these for everybody but I'll give you. We sort of found about this after the fact. We bought the house in June. We just moved in 2 weeks ago but basically I think...We're the new people in the neighborhood having purchased the home at 1645 Lake Lucy Road in June and just having moved into the house 2 weeks ago. We were unaware and uninformed about the access and driveway that borders our property to the east until a short time ago...did tell us about it and for the record, we're not really opposed to it either. We just are, well we bought our home for one very important reason. The lot and it's setting. We're both appraisers and even...we overpaid for the house which was built in the 1960's but we wanted the lot for it's serene setting and it's well developed trees. So the thing I gave showed some pictures of these trees that are like 30 to 100 feet tall and they border the property on the east, which borders this proposed driveway. That's our concern for this issue. Is our trees on that side of the property. We would request that these trees, their diameter of the drip lines be drawn on the engineering map for this project and we would want some type of guarantee that these trees not be harmed in any way. They're both our privacy and our beauty. The willows were one big reason why Bob wanted to buy the property. They're trunks are like this. They're just huge. Trees this large are almost irreplaceable taking scores of years to grow this large. They were a very big reason why we bought the property so for us their value is extremely great. We would also want to be assured of adequate drainage if this project were implemented so as not to endanger these huge trees. The wildlife in the area is another reason we purchased the home. We love the deer and the birds and the other creatures that live in the area. In fact, seeing 2 deer in the back yard actually made us decide to write the purchase agreement the next day. And the many months between the first time we saw the house until we decided to purchase it, any potential development around us was extremely important. Only when we found out that what we thought was the neighboring property, which was purchased by Jill Willis now. We didn't know about the driveway. Did we actually, when we found out that that property had been sold to a single buyer rather than to something that would be developed, did we actually pursue buying the property. We would therefore be vehemently opposed to any type of development on the peninsula other than for a single family home and respectfully but strongly urge a permanent prohibition against any other type of development. A city street along the east side of our property would not only reduce it's appeal and value but would have been enough to keep us from ever having bought the property ourselves. We feel sort of that we're being caught in the middle of something about which we weren't informed that could affect our property value both visually and monetarily. For this reason we don't feel that our requests are unrealistic because we do not 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 want the very reasons we bought this property to be violated. We are also concerned about erosion control and use of only natural and natural looking material to be used if any driveway were put in. We don't want our lot to become a mosquito infested drainage hole. Nor do we want to look at anything other than something that will keep with the natural appeal of the lot when we bought it. Again, we want the guarantee that the huge willow and evergreen trees that border our lot on the east side would be in no way harmed or killed. We consider them to be of incalculable value to us. They could not be replanted and grown again to their present size perhaps for what remains of our lifetimes. The great value we put on — this lot is in very large part due to their size and health and border. In the 4 months during which we were redecorating our house before moving in, we have found the city of Chanhassen to be very conscientious about the community and the proper ways in which they want it to grow and be established. We do appreciate the fact that they seem to want things to be done correctly and hope that the city would in this same way be concerned about this proposed project and wetland agreement. For this reason we have signed a letter with some of our neighbors that outline some of the important factors in this project's potential development and the prohibition of any development other than for a single family home. And we would respectfully request that the city have as much concern in consideration for our invaluable large and beautiful trees along this border which again is in large part the reason why we bought the house on this lot. As they do in every other aspect of the city's code requirements. Sorry I had to read this but I didn't bring enough copies. Batzli: Okay. Bob Kendall: I just have a few concerns on the side of my property there. Where the roots are, the forester came out and we met with the forester and he said that the willows were _ strong but I'd to have that at least known to me on paper that they're not going to get hurt. The other problem is there's a storm sewer that comes off my property that drains right to this line of where this road tapers down on the east side. I'd like to have it at least in the plan where I can see that there's going to be proper drainage. As you can see in these photos with the evergreens. There's a whole line of 30 feet evergreens but if they get improper drainage and get soaked, those trees will die and I'd just like to get some sort of contour lines and drainage and ditching and proper culvert. And I also wondered, if we get all the snow, is all this going to be able to handle the proper drainage on it. That's all I have to say. Batzli: Let me ask a question. You're concerned about the roots of your trees that currently extend over the property line and are under the current driveway? Bob Kendall: The canopies of the trees go into the slope...of the tapering line probably 15 to 20 feet. But as that storm sewer also, as Mr. Waldorf brought up. That there should be a culvert in there. Beyond that, I'm just trying to get a picture that I have current drainage 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 after that point also. Because there's no slopes and I don't have any grades on that plan that I've seen. Not to say that these won't be addressed later on though. Batzli: Okay. Dave do you, can you comment at all on the drainage right there? Hempel: It appears by that drawing that was brought in by the applicant, where the green line on that does show a culvert to maintain the neighborhood drainage that are through the properties...neighborhood drainage through there. The pictures were interesting that were submitted there shows that there is quite a bit of water that goes through there in both the street and the adjacent property on the other side of the street. So it's very important that they maintain that drainage. Batzli: Well assuming that we approve this tonight, what would the city need to make sure that the drainage is being maintained in that area? Are you going to require some sort of - additional grading/construction plans or how are you going to be able to tell? Hempel: We would require some minor modifications to the grading plan to denote the type, size and elevation of the storm sewer pipe proposed in the roadway to make sure that it is set at the proper elevation to maintain the drainage. Batzli: Do we need some sort of condition that says that? Hempel: It might be helpful to expand an existing condition or add a condition to that effect, yes. Batzli: Okay. Bob Kendall: Mind if I say one other thing? The culvert that's in his drawing there is beyond my property line about I would say 100 feet which would mean all this would have to drain beyond my property line and continue down another 100 feet before the other proposed culvert which you are asking be put in. Batzli: Okay. Sandy Kendall: I don't know what impact Jill Willis' agreement to allow an access farther east. I mean...help to us you know because the way it is, well it wouldn't come so close. I don't know what impact that would have by putting the road further east rather than where it's actually shown. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I'm not tracking. Can you point to the map and tell me what you're saying. Sandy Kendall: The way this is shown, the road as it sits is kind of like this. She giving them an access would enable us. This is actually a steeper part and this is actually a flatter part. By putting it over here rather than in here, that would of course lessen our concern greatly for our trees because all of a sudden the drip line is not as threatening to these trees that run all along here. I mean they're just big monster trees. But now that's what's happened. That wasn't a factor. Batzli: If yoflip the maps there. The one behind the one you're pointing to. I think that shows where the proposed driveway's going to go. So you want it to go even further east there? Sandy Kendall: Well the Sanda's, when you talk to, maybe you can help me out here. You wanted it, you told me that if I asked the Sanda's if our trees would be in danger. At first they said no. Then they said well, if Jill gives us the access, you know then they probably wouldn't be. In other words, if they didn't, if she didn't give them that you know there would be some...to our trees and that's something that just happened I guess over the last day? You know Jill actually gave them that access...in here but that's very important to us of course because we're concerned about our big trees. Bob Kendall: I have one other thing. Here's the culvert that's proposed. Sandy Kendall: Thank you. Bob Kendall: ...but my storm sewer's here. As those pictures show, there's a gully already performed that cuts through here but I'm also concerned from this point on where all these spruce trees are. Is there going to be proper drainage from this point on with that. Because if I'm getting a lot of, you know this is the west side. It's not going to get the snow. It melts. It's going to puddle. I don't want a lot of excess water. That's my main concern is to keep the water off the roots. Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission? Phil Thiesse: I was asked to clarify one point. Batzli: You're? Phil Thiesse: Oh I'm sorry...My name is Phil Thiesse. I live at 1075 Miller Court. Our 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 property borders the driveway that would be proposed and my wife and I feel that if the Corps of Engineers and the DNR are happy with the way it's being developed, then we're satisfied with that. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission before we let the applicant have his one shot at rebuttal here? Mark Sanda: No. Ken, were you going to address a couple things that were brought up about the drainage? Ken Adolf: I can address those. Mark Sanda: Okay. I just wanted to mention that in talking to some people about this and someone picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. We had talked to a property owner, a farmer in southwestern Carver County and on an informal, non-binding basis, verbal basis, we've talked about him selling us some of his property. It's when this gentlemen decides he's going to hang up his plow and sell some of his property so we really can't say if that's going to be the next year, 2 years, 3 years but we suspect it's something like that. It's certainly nothing that's going to happen on an eminent basis and I just wanted to clarify that because some people picked up on the fact that we said we're not going anywhere. And never say never but there's nothing eminently in the works at all. Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Ken Adolf: Yes, Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen again. I'd just like to clarify a couple of the issues. First of all regarding the connection point to Lake Lucy Road. When Lake Lucy Road was reconstructed, somewhat of a post was actually placed and this driveway actually is in the exact same location. The approach was ended kind of abruptly and it really drops off and it's too narrow and too steep so it's necessary to widen it out and then expand the slope to the south that's a reasonable grade. Regarding the drainage in this area. The culvert is shown going under the proposed road embankment. You can sense that there was some concern about what happens inbetween the existing culvert that goes under Lake Lucy Road and the proposed culvert. Obviously that's on private property and there's no...any easement. That runoff will continue to run just as it has been all these years. There's several different driveway sections that were proposed depending on the restrictions with the strip of property that...956.1 elevation and the most restrictive area in order to elevate the road up to the 957 elevation, which is the 100 year flood elevation was necessary to raise it with 8 inch concrete planks because if this wasn't enough width to do it with an embankment. So that's why those concrete planks were proposed. Obviously that's a very, very expensive option and in the other areas where there isn't enough space...propose which is still I think all of this 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 fill is enveloped by a geotextile fabric...and prevent it from migrating. I'd be happy to address any other questions that you might have. Batzli: We may have a question when we discuss it among ourselves here. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, I have a question right now. Batzli: Oh okay. Never mind. There is a question now. Ledvina: As it related to the water elevations of Lake Lucy. What would happen. I understand that the elevation of the roadway is going to be essentially 957. Is that correct? Ken Adolf: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. And where the roadway is under water for extended periods of time during flooding. What happens in that instance? How does that person gain access to the property? Ken Adolf: Well, it would ideal if the road elevation could be raised more but because the strip of property that we have to work with is so narrow, after you start raising the road and provide the width of the driveway, the fill starts to extend out beyond that 956.1 line so some of the areas it is up to that elevation. The aggregate that we're proposing to use is crushed limestone which does not have the clay material in it that was referred to in the Hoben report. So that is a more stable aggregate than a sand and gravel type Class V. Ledvina: That's in sections where? Ken Adolf: Well it's in sections, really all of the sections. Ledvina: Well the Class V does have a clay or a heavy soil as a binder for the aggregate, is that right? Ken Adolf: The crushed limestone is fine crushed limestone. Ledvina: But Class V as a MnDot specification has a clay type soil as a binder for the aggregate, silt and clay. Ken Adolf: Yeah. What we've shown on a detail is crushed limestone. Represent crushed limestone. Ledvina: Okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Did you have anything else Matt? Ledvina: No, that's it. Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Let the record reflect that Jeff is not voting on this matter. Matt, let's start with you. Ledvina: Okay. I guess I want to thank the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association for their comments. We appreciate their review of the plan and I think it's good to see that involvement and their concerns being raised. I think that the comments made by I believe Mr. Rivkin. He presented a 8 point letter regarding some of the issues as it relates to the construction of this driveway. I think that some of these things are certainly warranted in terms of their being addressed. I would say that we would want to try to utilize bridge materials that don't...ability of leeching contaminates. I think that a textured concrete driveway is a good idea to improve the slip resistance of those concrete plank sections. I think if that's the case, perhaps there will be less salt or whatever that would be necessary under icy conditions...I guess I looked at the pre-fabricated bridge and I see that it has a width of 16 feet. I thought that being somewhat odd since we're looking at an 8 foot section and then all of a sudden we're going way out to 16 feet. I don't know necessarily why that is and I've walked the proposed route and it is 8 and 10 feet wide. I think that if we did go to 16 feet there, there'd be quite a bit of fill that would be necessary to make that, provide that construction. So Dave, have you looked at that at all? Dave? Hempel: Yes. There's a couple points. First of all because of the curvature of the roadway there, the additional width is needed as a grid surface. In addition to that I believe with the curve and larger vehicles, such as moving trucks, emergency vehicle would need the additional room in that area. Ledvina: Well I can understand you wanting to provide that but if you've got an 8 foot — section and you're saying you need a 16 foot section for trucks and such, what happens for access throughout the 8 foot section in the road? Mark Sanda: There's no curve. It's just straight. It's when a truck angles, you know they have to make a wide turn. And that's the whole idea. You need the 16 foot width for the wide turn in making the curve. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: Well what kind of trucks are going to be making that turn? Batzli: Moving van. Ledvina: Okay. First of all, is it possible to get a cement truck down an 8 foot cross section? Ken Adolf: The alignment is designed to accommodate cement trucks or small moving vans...and if this bridge happened to be on the street section, it could be 8 or 10 feet wide as well. Because it's on the curve and because the approaches are so restrictive that the width of the bridge actually has to be looked at as part of the turning movement of a vehicle. When you've got something like this, the bumpers when they turn can actually overhang the curb...and when you've got a bridge with...just need more width. Ledvina: Will a cement truck be able to traverse that 8 foot section? Ken Adolf: Yes. Ledvina: It will be? Okay. Alright. I think that if it's possible, if you looked at, took another look at the width requirements. If it's possible to reduce that width I would like to see that because I think again there would be a lot of additional work that would be necessary in preparing the entrance and the exit if you will for the bridge. And that was the extent of my comments at this point. Batzli: Did you have any thoughts on requiring spoils from purple loosestrife or anything about the peat base? You seemed to, I know you have a lot of background in grading and moving stuff around. Is that going to be a problem with all this muck underneath? Ledvina: Well I don't think that will be a problem because you have a geotextile that will be used as a foundation for the actual road bed. It's almost like floating a driveway essentially over the peat. So that shouldn't be a problem for the kind of construction that they're looking at here and for the duty that would be involved. So that's one thing. As far as the = purple loosestrife, I don't know about that issue but it seems reasonable to me and I've seen it done many other times where spoils or excavation materials from one part of a wetland alteration be used in providing a seed bed for mitigated areas. So I don't know whether the purple loosestrife issue is real significant in that regard. Batzli: Well we have in the past on some occasions where they've disturbed areas with purple loosestrife that, since we're trying to eradicate it by hand mostly, since if you disturb it, it may be a good time to get rid of some of it. So one of the proposals Mr. Rivkin had 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 was that he be required, to the extent they disturb purple loosestrife areas, to dispose of it upland. Burying it. I'm just trying to get kind of a feel for. Ledvina: Well if that is the case, where we know that there is purple loosestrife in that area, that would seem to make sense but I don't know that that's been documented. I mean that there's actually that weed in the area that's being. Batzli: Disturbed. Ledvina: Yeah. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: I think the comments from the pros and the cons are all excellent tonight. And I think the responses that I've heard are good from Dave. I think what we want to do, beyond what was really listed here but to make sure that the City Engineer does review the drainage so we do preserve or we don't have any negative impact on the trees on the property line. And I think Mr. Rivkin brought up some extremely valid points. Points 3 thru 7. I think we do have a great, this is a real sensitive area. We are in a wetland. Or close to it and it's going to go under water it appears so I think we really do have to take some steps in this permitting process to make sure that the right things are done. I'm not sure exactly what those are. I guess in a lot of cases I wish staff would get a chance to review some of these things before hand so we could ask them questions rather than just spur of the moment responses. But right now I'm comfortable with granting the permit. I'm comfortable with the staff report. I've put two footnotes on this. Two additional points and one is talking about the drainage so that we can maintain the trees. And also that staff takes a real good look at Mr. Rivkin's points 3 thru 7 because I think they're extremely valid. There's no doubt about purple loosestrife. No doubt. If it's there, it has to be treated. And I don't know what governs that and if it's our permit that does it, then the permit should have it in it. Period. If it's controlled by somebody else, then we don't need it but these are extremely good points. I don't care where they are right now. I'm not going to, if I make the motion, I'm not going to detail these. I just want to make sure that staff reviews these points and make sure that they're taken care of in some way. That's the end of my comments. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Joe. Scott: I'm in favor of the development or proposed development. Just a question. I've got some additional conditions that I wanted to add and they involve specifically your area Dave. I have concern about the treatment of the timberton bridge section and my assumption is that you have access to information on appropriate materials and what I'd like to see is that any 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 sort of a bridge section be approved by our engineering staff for the purpose of making sure that environmentally friendly materials are there. Same thing is true of the road bed if you will. Utilizing a crushed limestone aggregate which is non, you're talking about sort of a heavy clay...material that we don't want in the wetland area. Ledvina: Right. Scott: Does that matter if we're using some sort of a geotextile base? Ledvina: Well that will help it from actually migrating through the soil but for runoff purposes that will help. Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see a grading plan submitted to the engineering department for their approval to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. Seeing that they're satisfactory. I have no further comments Mr. Chairman. Batzli: Okay, thank you. To just run over a couple comments and then I'd like to kind of give a more global answer to at least one of new residents here. I think purple loosestrife to the extent it's going to be disturbed, needs to be disposed of properly so I'd agree with that condition. I think condition 4 should be changed to read the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from applying the salts and de-icing chemicals to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetland area. Unless the applicant or future homeowner comes in here and convinces us or the Council that this won't harm the wetland. I don't know of anything that says applying the kind of salt and de-icing chemicals or something like this could possibly help the wetlands so I think that needs to be prohibited. I agree with Joe's comment. We should have the materials of the bridge submitted to make sure that they're environmentally friendly and I agreed with Ladd regarding having the drainage reviewed by city engineering to make sure it's not going to adversely affect the neighboring land owners. And finally, just for the new resident's benefit. I think you'll find, I hope you find that Chanhassen is at the forefront of trying to maintain and protect it's wetlands. We were one of the first communities to have a real strong wetland protection ordinance in place and the State in fact comes to us for a lot of input. I think Paul and/or former city planner Jo Ann Olsen has worked with the State on some of their wetland protection kind of programs. We also have a surface water committee that looks at _ improving water quality throughout the city. In fact on your water bill you may notice a little tax on there. That's where that's going so hopefully you'll find that we care a lot about this and we're taking it seriously and looking at it very carefully. But thank you for coming in. Those are my comments. Unless there's other comments, would someone like to make a motion? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Scott: I would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion which is the approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93-4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993 with the following conditions. Conditions number 1, 2 and 3 would remain as stated in the staff report. Number 4 will be changed to read, the applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using de-icing chemicals for application to the driveway in order to protect the quality of the water running into the wetlands. Condition number 5 should be changed to read, the applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to the engineering department for approval. And a note on that is to make sure that the aggregate that's used is of a type that will not have silt or heavy clays running off it. Or leeching. Conditions number 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 remain as proposed. Condition number 11 shall read, the bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Number 12 added. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. And that's it unless there's some other, some things that I've perhaps missed. Batzli: Is there a second for discussion purposes? Conrad: I second. Batzli: Discussion. Did you mention anything about loosestrife in your motion? Scott: That would work well as condition number 13. How would you like that to read? Batzli: In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed, what are we calling it, road. Such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly in the upland area. Do we want to exactly tell them how it should be done? Al-Jaff: I spoke with Ceil Strauss this morning. She's...a condition of their permitting procedure. They will take care of it. Batzli: Okay. So what our condition will read is, instead of that would read, purple loosestrife shall be disposed of in accordance with, is she DNR? Al-Jaff: Yes. Batzli: DNR standards. Ladd, did you have an additional condition regarding drainage? Conrad: They're all taken care of. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I'd like to propose that in your amendment to the de-icing chemicals, we say salt and/or de-icing chemicals. Scott: Sure, that's fine. Batzli: I don't know is, I assume salt's considered a de-icing chemical but we might as well say it. Scott: Oh yeah, and salt and de-icing chemicals. Batzli: Okay. Any other discussion? Scott moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #93-4 as shown on the plans dated November 8, 1993, with the following conditions: 1. The mitigation area is intended to be similar to the existing basins and therefore, should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the existing basins. We recommend that the mitigation area be subcut to a depth of 6-12 inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basins should then be lined with 6-12 inches of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation within the mitigation areas. Mitigation basins should be designed with irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Side slopes should be no steeper than 5:1; side slopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on-site soils demonstrate significant permeability, consideration should be given to lining mitigation areas with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basins with organic soils. 2. Notification should be made to the Corps to verify coverage under their nationwide Section 404 permit. 3. A protected waters permit must be authorized by the DNR before the project can proceed. 4. The applicant or future landowner shall be prohibited from using salt or de-icing chemicals applied to the driveway in order to protect the quality of water running into the wetland areas. 5. The applicant shall submit a driveway design section through the wetland area to 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the engineering department for approval. 6. The applicant shall obtain a cross access easement from neighboring properties where the driveway encroaches. 7. All retaining walls over 4 feet in height require a building permit. 8. The driveway will service one single family home. Only one residence will be permitted on the peninsula. 9. The wetland alteration permit will expire after one year from the date of City Council approval unless substantial construction on the driveway has taken place. 10. The applicant shall be responsible for all attorney fees associated with reviewing and recording this application. 11. The bridge section shall be built to a 9 ton design and made of materials which will not leech pollutants into the wetland or lake areas when emersed. The bridge section design shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 12. A grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineering Department to maintain the existing neighborhood drainage patterns. 13. In the event purple loosestrife areas are disturbed during construction of the proposed driveway, such purple loosestrife shall be disposed of properly according to DNR standards. All voted in favor, except Jeff Farmakes who did not vote, and the motion carried unanimously. Batzli: Thank you very much everyone for coming in. When does this go to City Council? - Al-Jaff: The 13th of December. (The Planning Commission took a short break at this point in the meeting.) 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE 80.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD AND PRELIMINARY _ PLAT PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE 80.8 ACRES INTO 134 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 7 OUTLOTS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 AND WEST OF LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DOLEJSI AND ROGERS PROPERTY, LUNDGREN BROS. Batzli: Paul, as a technical matter. Is this a public hearing? Krauss: I believe technically you continued that from last time. Batzli: We closed the public hearing but we continued the issue. Krauss: You continued the item. Batzli: Okay. Well, okay. I'm going to run it like a public hearing. Public Present: Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. John Uban Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban • Lydia Ardoyno 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Del Smith 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Russ Frederick 540 Lyman Blvd. Jamie Heilicher 9280 Kiowa Trail Eldon Berkland 9261 Kiowa Trail Hallie Bershow 9271 Kiowa Trail Pat Swenson 9015 Lake Riley Blvd. Don Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. _ Craig & Kate Halverson 9283 Kiowa Trail Fred Amrhein 9350 Kiowa Trail Robert L. Eickholt 9390 Kiowa Trail Larry Klein 9170 Great Plains Blvd. Gary Skalberg 510 Lyman Blvd. Jean Christensen 360 Deerfoot Trail Eunice Kottke 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Peter Pemrick 9251 Kiowa Trail Richard D. Olin 9125 Lake Riley Blvd. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Batzli: Have you had an opportunity to review the letter dated today, 17 November from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban? Generous: No. Batzli: No, you haven't had an opportunity to review that? Do you have a copy of it? Krauss: We were given that at the start of the meeting tonight. Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to address the commission? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd. The items that we have submitted to you in written form from Dahlgren, - Shardlow and Uban pertain to issues of the outstanding issues in our mind. I believe all of those issues, other than what the new items that were in the staff report this time, are pretty much the same issues that existed last time we appeared before you. We believe that staff has done an excellent job in discussing the PUD questions that were raised at the last meeting by the Planning Commission. That staff has pointed their amendment to the staff report and those portions are underlined as it relates to the findings criteria of the planned unit development and we are prepared this evening to embellish upon those further if the Planning Commission finds that the findings of the staff are not sufficient for them to support this PUD. Mr. John Uban of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban will address for you the matters that are in writing and as I said, were pretty much the same matters that we discussed last time with a few new twists and they're addressed in also the new items that were in the staff report submitted to you recently. Both John and I are available for questions from the Planning Commission and the public if there as well but I'll let Mr. Uban address those issues. John Uban: May I use the overhead projector? Batzli: Yes. John Uban: We did hand out at the beginning of the meeting a letter just for your record but I would like to go through the issues. They're just I think 5. To review. Under the recommendations that staff has created, number 5 pertains to parks or park trails. And we agreed to do that. This is a park issue so it's probably one that you won't really consider. Just for your information. We're asking that those trails that they're asking us to build should be credited against the trail fee that we're required to pay. It seems only fair to do 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 that. Number 17 though, here we are talking about I think it's a neighborhood issue. What has really started as a neighborhood issue and that is, the different ways that this subdivision can access the adjacent neighborhoods and there are two issues were discussed. One was a connection to Kiowa and the other was the Lake Riley Blvd. We had always planned, because we understood staff wanted us to connect to Kiowa and we have developed our plans to do that. And as we have found out at the last meeting, that there was a strong concern about that and we're quite willing to have the cul-de-sac if it doesn't eliminate a lot or something in the process. The other issue that came up that we didn't really plan for was a requested connection to Lake Riley Blvd. In here it is to shorten a single loaded cul-de-sac. In other words, it goes along the lakeshore. In other words lots on one side. Normally you'd say, well can we do this but the problem really is that we lose a lot. This edge of the subdivision looks out over Lake Riley. Has some of our best lots and we really need to have some really good lots to help us absorb some of the costs of the other parts of the subdivision or large lots that we're creating to buffer our development from Highway 101 for instance. So it needs to be balanced. When we lose one of our very big lots, it becomes a great concern...and we don't think there's a strong need for it considering that even if it was built, the remaining cul-de-sac is still at least a quarter mile long. That the efficiency of the Fire Department in my opinion is not strongly enhanced. It only is enhanced for a section of the... road between Lyman and this entrance. And the rest of it will still have the same perceived problems of snow storage, parking, turn arounds and so forth that we have. And so we really — believe that this particular connection is not strongly needed. We're caught in a sense of different neighborhood concerns and different city requirements in developing this particular subdivision considering these two connections. So what we would like to do is try to cooperate with both neighborhoods and not have either connection. That would be just fine with us. You do have two good connections up on Lyman Blvd and the whole subdivision loops through and connects. The other option to us obviously would be that we would just continue with the plan that we did prepare with that anticipated access to the south. Number 18 then. Leaving that access...at this point. Is the consideration of the 50 foot right-of-way. We still believe that this is an attribute that is important to us. It does help us consolidate the grading and utilities that run from the street. The street size is the same as a standard street size and the right-of-way is 50 feet instead of 60. The design is curvalinear and it's _ specifically done to help create a little more intimate atmosphere on the streets. There's a desire for 60 foot right-of-way. The standard setback which is 30 feet. One way to accommodate the 60 foot obviously is to make a 5 foot shorter setback. Since neither one seems to be accessible from different...from staff, that we want you to help us resolve that and we think maybe one compromise might be a 50 foot right-of-way but with an additional utility easement to allow flexibility for utilities along the edge and then still keep our 30 foot setback. That would keep the physical plan the same but would allow for utilities or for public safety. To have more flexibility in maintaining their right-of-way that they desire with the 60 foot right-of-way. So this 50 foot with a 5 foot utility easement on either side may 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 work out as a reasonable compromise in this case. The continuation of required dedication for Lyman Blvd in addition to what we've already shown as dedication continues to add more and more right-of-way to our formula of how much of this property is being construed as right-of-way and it's already very large and we showed some of those numbers to you last time. That it has a fairly large component of right-of-way dedication. And what that does is it technically makes their lot smaller so enlarging right-of-way of interior streets. Adding more right-of-way to the perimeter in essence continues to shrink technically the amount of land that goes into our lots. And we're really talking about where should this land be. Should we have it in right-of-way or should it be in a lot. But the physical plan, exactly where the streets will be, exactly where the homes will be is a very good plan and that's what we want to pursue. And what we're asking for is for you to consider in our PUD application and subdivision is this need for flexibility in how we technically address these issues but giving us the ability to be efficient. To create a good subdivision. Good design that addresses many hard issues on all it's perimeters. And to consolidate in the interior. And this is a very reasonable request I believe. Item number 26 is fairly simple. That we had talked about a date for a cut off for doing grading and erosion control and so forth as November 15th. It still says October 31st and I think this is okay with your staff. And number 32 is an additional request. This is one of the new ones. That more trails and sidewalks be built in the subdivision to continue giving access to other neighborhoods at Bandimere Park. We've already agreed to one connection through and it seems like, and it's not very specific that even more is being asked. We think that we've done quite a bit. We have a road system that's really designed to keep cars parked in the driveways as most subdivisions are designed with curvalinear standard width and in most subdivisions, and certainly in the subdivisions that are around this site. Most people do their bicycling and so forth on the edge of the street and get to the park. And so we're making the connection for the trail from Lake Riley Blvd but then it enters the street system and I think at this point, the way we have it designed and splitting up the different roads so people go out in different directions, minimal traffic is created and the roads as used in a typical subdivision in a suburban area. It will work very well. And the need for additional trail or sidewalk we don't think is necessary here. The other thing that we're finding, that Lundgren Bros finds when they talk to their customers, and where do you or what qualities do you want in your lot. That when it comes to bringing a sidewalk or something they have to maintain again in their front yard, these are some of the things they've left the inner city for. Because they didn't want to shovel sidewalks. They have a bigger driveway now and that seems to be enough for them and this is one thing they tend to choose otherwise. Other than the ones that might have a sidewalk. So we'd like not to add that as an additional burden to the subdivision. To summarize, we're really here trying to cooperate with the neighborhood. To all their concerns. We're trying to dedicate as much park, as much right-of-way as we possibly can. Cooperate in all reasonable fashions but we're getting squished. We've tried to look at all the options. We end up losing lots if we make absolutely all these concessions. And we start 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 losing affordability of the subdivision. Lundgren Bros and Terry can speak a little more to this. It's important that they have a diversity of product in the sense that it all can't be the high end buildings in the woods. We need diverse but very good quality neighborhoods. — And this is not low end by any means but it is part of a variety of neighborhoods that Lundgren is trying to create. One in which should have reasonable costs. Good design and a variety of lots. Some large...and some smaller where people don't have to maintain as large a lot. So it matches a broad spectrum of customer needs. So we hope you consider these things and we would like to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would other members of the commission like to see Terry give us more background on why this should be rezoned a PUD? Any thoughts on that? Scott: No. — Batzli: You don't want to see it more? Ladd? Conrad: That's up to Terry. Batzli: Okay. — Farmakes: I agree with Ladd. Batzli: Okay, Matt. Ledvina: That's the proposer's option certainly. — Batzli: Okay. Well he basically asked us if we wanted to see more so that's why I'm asking the question. Ledvina: Well, I don't need to see any more. Batzli: Okay. I was asking the fellow commissioners whether they wanted to see more background as to why this should be rezoned PUD and the underwhelming response I got was that, that's at your option so I think the answer was no, at least at this time. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Yes please. Lydia Ardoyno: Lydia Ardoyno, 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Before I have a couple comments — but first I'd like to get a clarification of just exactly where this road is going to come in to Lake Riley from that cul-de-sac. If it's going to come in. I'm not, one of the issues we discussed was safety and I'm trying to measure the level of safety and what we perceive it to 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 be and what you perceive it to be. Hempel: It would be at this location here where the proposed cul-de-sac is on the drawing. Lydia Ardoyno: And where's Lake Riley? Hempel: Lake Riley Blvd is right here. — Scott: Is there any way that the residents who live on Lake Riley Blvd can get a fix as to where that's coming out because I know that there's probably some people who, there's probably 3 or 4 people here today who think that that cul-de-sac is coming right in front of their house. And based upon that diagram and anything that we've received, I don't think any of the residents have a clue. Unfortunately, neither do I. — Generous: I have an approximate address. It's somewhere around 9131 or 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Scott: How much of a swing is that as far as residences? Lydia Ardoyno: My question is, how many homes are there between Lyman Blvd and the cul-de-sac on Lake Riley? Generous: You mean at the end of the road? Lydia Ardoyno: From Lyman to the cul-de-sac. I'm guessing there's a dozen. — Batzli: Are you asking for information on how many there are going north to south until you hit the proposed road? — Lydia Ardoyno: I think so. Batzli: Now, I hate to either ask this question but do you live on Lake Riley Blvd? Lydia Ardoyno: Yeah. I just gave you. — Batzli: Okay. Okay. So I mean I'll ask you. How many do you think there are? I mean between there. Lydia Ardoyno: ...I'd say there's a dozen but I'm guessing because I don't know where this cul-de-sac's going to be at some point. 28 — Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Well let's assume it comes out right at the southeastern corner of the property there. Say about a dozen because I don't know that our people have gone out and actually physically counted. So you'll probably have as good information. Lydia Ardoyno: Well again, I'm only guessing where the cul-de-sac is...No one knows for sure where that cul-de-sac's going to be. Batzli: No, but I'm saying assume it comes out right at the southeastern, the southern most boundary. Lydia Ardoyno: About 8 then? 8 homes. Resident: There's 8 to the corner of that... Lydia Ardoyno: So there's 8 homes. Is that kind of a general consensus? There's 8?... Okay, let me go on. Batzli: Please, I mean get to your point. Lydia Ardoyno: My point is that I'm trying to measure the safety issue from a rational — viewpoint and I live further down so I mean it doesn't...coming in if it doesn't impact me one way or the other, but it seems to me like it has a lot to do about opening up that and it doesn't seem to be there's going to be very much increase in the safety of the residents on Lake Riley because you've got 2 or 3 that are right there where Lyman is and that's, you know unless a tree happens to fall right there, which may happen or may not happen, so you've got 2 or 3 that it isn't going to make much difference here because they're right on Lyman and then you've got another maybe 5 or 6 that are going to be in that area between where the cul-de-sac is and Lyman Blvd and then the rest of us are still in the same situation we've always been in. So it just seems like it's a lot of to do being made about the safety when you try to measure exactly what is the benefit, there doesn't seem to be very much benefit to very many people. And those 5 or 6 all are opposed to the opening anyhow and the rest of us that are down there, it's all going to be the same thing. No sidewalks. Narrow roads. Everyone's looking out for the kids on the bicycles and we're all, that's fine. We're willing to live with that so I don't understand why everyone thinks it's going to be such an increase in our safety to put that roadway in...maybe I'm missing something. Scott: I think I know one of the, I was one of the people who would like to see the connection and generally speaking, the comments that we get on developments from the Fire Marshal are primarily just make sure there's enough fire hydrants and the streets are labeled accordingly and that's usually about all we get. This is the first development where there 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 was a paragraph that stated something to the effect that in a relative recent past there have been a number of fires in that area and because of the one access point, that they felt that the safety of the residents was compromised and also the lack of water. And then from doing some other research on my part, from what I understand to fight a fire in that particular area you need at least 3 vehicles. And if you also add to that another public safety, you could have a half a dozen vehicles down there and if this happens to be during the winter where you have access restricted even further. So I was impressed by the fact that the Fire Marshal took the time to cite that. Because he normally does not get very excited about these things. He keeps it fairly straight. Lydia Ardoyno: Sure. We were all impressed by that but the fact of the matter is, he's only talking about 8 homes that are going to get an improvement. The rest of us it's still the same thing. Scott: No. Conrad: No, no, no. That's not true. Lydia Ardoyno: It's the same thing for that stretch of road. The only situation that changes it is if something has to happen. A tree falls on that little section of the road. Conrad: That's the point. Lydia Ardoyno: Then you get to come through, all through the Lundgren Bros development but it's a very narrow piece, very narrow. It's not even, I don't know. How many yards, a few yards up there. I just, it seems like a lot for a little in my opinion. Batzli: Okay. Well, thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir. One of you two sirs. Del Smith: I'm Del Smith. I'm at 9051 Lake Riley Blvd and I guess I also have some questions on the validity of the safety issue. I think it was told last meeting, one of our residents did speak to whomever, fire chief or whoever and as you recall they indicated that there really wasn't an issue from a safety standpoint. That they could go either way on it. I'd re, you know you get down to the end of the cul-de-sac, whether there's a connection there or not, whether it really benefits anybody. I guess I have a real hard time with that. Whether the trucks are down there, and to get back and forth from the end of that cul-de-sac isn't going to be any easier no matter whether there's an access there or not. So I guess I'd like to really have you look at that issue. Any other traditional traffic that's on Lake Riley Blvd, if you've driven it, no matter what end you're on, it's narrow. And with kids it's even, you've 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 got to really watch it so we're real concerned about additional traffic. I guess I just wanted to remind you too that there is a petition signed by probably about 90% of the residents against having this connection made so I just wanted to remind you of that. Batzli: Thank you. Farmakes: Can I ask a question of staff. One of the comments I asked last meeting was a response on that letter. The resident came up and talked about the fire chief. The letter I had in my packet c::ntradicted that and what we say from the resident, as far as I know is the resident's interpretation. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong but it was in conflict with what I had in my packet. Did you get a response at all in that regard? Generous: No we didn't. Krauss: We've had no further clarification. We have a written letter that was given to us by the Fire Marshal. He had told us that he was going to sit down with the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief and review the matter. This did not originate with us. This is not a made up issue. This is an issue that came about based upon his fighting 3 fires in the neighborhood. And he has not deviated from that. Farmakes: So the position that we have here currently is the most updated position, is that correct? Krauss: That's the one... Batzli: Okay. Yes sir. Russ Frederick. I'm Russ Frederick. I live at 540 Lyman Blvd. In conjunction with this safety factor, I'm right across the road to the north. My house burned in March. I'm on a dead end. It's a 60 foot right-of-way. And there is a factor on your narrow roads. It's not a developed road it's yet a private road but I agree with these people. We're willing to live with the situation. In my case it didn't make any difference. It was a gas fire. The house was gone before the Fire Department got there anyway but there is a certain amount of problem. I will go along with that. But my other concern is talking about a 50 foot right-of- way across the road. We wanted, or had a 50 foot right-of-way and it's shown on the map going north there. But I believe it was 2 years ago when the fellow wanted to sell his property and there had to be a 60 foot right-of-way in order for him to sell and we all had to go along with it. I think that's only fair that it is a standard and I think it's a good standard. Very good one. The other thing I feel i that you start going to your smaller lot sizes. You pull down an area invariably and I feel that if a person can't maintain the proper lot size, then 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 you've got to... Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Jamie Heilicher: Jamie Heilicher from 9280 Kiowa Trail. Just one quick question. You had referred to the approval, or at least the recommendation from the Planning Commission or that you were going to have a back to back cul-de-sac and then you furthered that by saying until 212 was built. I'd like an explanation of, or a contradiction of what the definition of 212 and why there isn't any difference? Batzli: Go ahead. Generous: Well we believe that when Highway 212 is resolved, the traffic patterns in this area will change and people will predominantly go to the north and so, opening up this section would be beneficial for the community because the city is developing Bandimere Park. One of the elements of that development is we'd like to put a parking area off of 92nd Street and the only way that works out is if that roadway is open to provide openings from either end. And so the reason for the cul-de-sac is because we believe there's some merit that people will use the road from the development down Kiowa Trail to the south. Jamie Heilicher: So it's intended to be an access to the park through cars at the intersection of Kiowa Trail and. Generous: And 92nd, yes. Krauss: You have to understand the major access to the park is going to be off Highway 101. What the park's director was looking at was an internal access for residents. It's far — enough away from a lot of homes that a small parking area from that side of the park may be appropriate. Batzli: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? Eldon Berkland: Eldon Berkland. I'm from Kiowa...9261 Kiowa Trail. There was an area of the staff report that really concerned especially my wife and myself and our next door neighbor, Pete and Wendy Pemrick. If you look on the map that's in your packet it shows the Kiowa Trail, our property. We have a driveway, we share a common driveway off of the end of Kiowa Trail. This driveway's been used since the 50's. It was discovered in 1984 when the Dolejsi's bought the property that this driveway encroached on their property. Since this affects them selling their property and developing this lot we've been in 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 negotiations with the Dolejsi's... This weekend we resolved our conflict. What we did was, in effect established a 14 foot right-of-way permanent easement on their property for a roadway as well as a 16 foot common easement on all of our properties. There's actually 4 property owners but there's only 2 of us that use this, regularly use this driveway at the end of Kiowa Trail. Somewhere in the verbiage he talks about maybe having to relocate this driveway to come off a cul-de-sac from the Lundgren Bros development. I'm sure Terry's building an excellent development but we don't want to be in his neighborhood. We like Kiowa Trail. We bought our house and feel very much a part of this neighborhood and would be very opposed to becoming a part of another neighborhood. Changing our address. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Hallie Bershow: Hallie Bershow, 9271 Kiowa Trail. I have a question about the cul-de-sac. I just found out about this at dinner time but what I heard is that the back to back cul-de-sacs are going to be enlarged, or on Kiowa Trail it is and that's our property you're planning to enlarge it on to. I want to know what's going to happen to Kiowa Trail. Batzli: Thank you. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that at this point. I did have a telephone conversation earlier today with Mr. Berquist regarding the back to back turn around so I may have given some erroneous information as far as the exact location of it. I did indicate at a point the cul-de-sac may be, with a new subdivision...on Kiowa provide access, parking... access to the Lundgren residents to use Bandimere Park. Then after conversation with staff members my understanding that the proposal would be dead ending the Lundgren development at the south property line of the development in a temporary cul-de-sac and also provide...turn around facility at the very northerly end of Kiowa Trail. Therefore the existing _ gravel driveway that is out there now would utilize existing Kiowa Trail and not the Lundgren Bros development. What Mr. Berquist read in the report with regards to relocating the driveway, I believe for clarification purposes is the existing home site of Mr. Dolejsi. _ The driveway does run from kind of a skewed angle with the proposed new roadway and then eventually tie in the very southern tip of the development. What we would like to see when the new roadway is built in front of the Dolejsi parcel, that...for their driveway to be perpendicular to the roadway and the old driveway. Batzli: That's for the driveway from the house down to the southern boundary? Hempel: That's correct. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Pat Swenson: Pat Swenson and I live on Lake Riley Blvd. As some of you may know I'm associated with the city from the past and I'm acutely conscious of the necessity of roads for fire protection and health protection. However, and I really have not proposed it up to this point. However, with the potential use of a parking area for the park, my ears are becoming very acute because I can see that we have, as you may know, a very large apartment complex on the north end of Lake Riley. And I can see a great many of those people driving through — a very narrow road, which is true. Through, this is one area where they would come up Lake Riley to go into that complex to get to the parking area for the park. I cannot see anybody taking this as an access to TH 101 for instance. I think it would be a circuitous route and... - However, with the potential for the parking area at the end of that area, I could see that this could present a very dangerous situation for young people. We've got a lot of little kids. I would like to have that addressed. Batzli: Thank you. Hallie Bershow: Excuse me. I don't think my question's been answered about...where the cul-de-sac goes. Batzli: I think that Dave tried to address that. Can you show us on the map? Hallie Bershow: I'm not sure... Hempel: Are you located on the lot here? Resident: She's on the first lot right there. Hempel: The first lot here? Okay. It's my understanding that the future park and...we're referring to is back in this area. The dead end cul-de-sacs would be...for the Lundgren subdivision it'd be a temporary cul-de-sac at this location and then what exists up there now I believe is just a paved section straight on through to a gravel section and it pretty much how it exists today...being able to turn around up there for the last 20 years so I don't really see us expanding the pavement section up there any wider than absolutely necessary. So we would not be taking any more additional property of your's for the turn around. Don Sitter: I'll make this real quick. Just a clarification. My name is Don Sitter, 9249 Lake — Riley Blvd. I'm the last property to the east shown here. I also have access to my property through this Kiowa Trail. Our normal drive comes in through Lake Riley Blvd. A couple of things in the staff report. It says that there is no recorded easement for these properties and I 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 think that's in error. We do have a mutual 2 rod easement across the back of the property. Unfortunately somewhere in the past a surveyor, the story goes it was a drunk surveyor and got off 16 feet and so the road got placed in the wrong spot and we worked very hard with the neighbors over the last few weeks to meet. I think we had 5 different meetings and our objective was to save the trees. To save the existing roadway and make everybody happy with what we came up with. And we did come up with an agreement with the Dolejsi's and the four neighborhood properties that live here and I understand from what Dave is saying, we're going to keep that now? It's not going to, I mean this is the same? When we made this agreement, that will hold with the city? You're not changing the turn around and we are still going to have access across these 4 properties from Kiowa, is that right? Hempel: I haven't seen that, that's correct. Don Sitter: Basically we have a 2 rod easement right now and we're moving that easement to go over the road where it exists. The pavement that comes into these two properties. So we're really just trying to make right what was done wrong 75 years ago or whenever that drunk surveyor... Hempel: I guess depending exactly where your driveway enters Kiowa Trail in relationship to the property line there to the Dolejsi and Lundgren development. Maybe the entrance gets shifted slightly to the south. Something like that. You're not coming out onto that cul-de-sac to the north. You'll have to maintain your Kiowa access. Don Sitter: Okay, and I think that's what we really want. Is to maintain the Kiowa access and not have to cut down maybe the trees that are on the property. There's some very nice mature trees there and that's what we're trying. And I'd just like to say we worked hard with the neighbors and I want to make sure we maintain that. And if that's the case, then I'd like to say thank you for leaving that a cul-de-sac at the end of Kiowa Trail. We were all against that last time so... Batzli: Well, I don't know that Dave or Paul or Bob or anyone from the city here can _ promise you anything until we act on it and then the City Council takes it up so you need to continue to follow your issue. Don Sitter: Okay. Well then I think I'd like to remind you of the neighborhood involvement last time and remember us in your report. Thank you. Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Terry? Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, Terry Forbord. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: I always feel so bad when I call you Terry and then you call me Mr. Chair. Terry Forbord: The other night in Orono I did that and they begged for me to call them by their first name. Not to be formal so I tried. I'd like to talk about a couple things related to a couple of these issues. The health, safety and welfare issue is an issue that we take into consideration on every neighborhood that we develop. I have relatives that are planners. I would say we're probably one of, if not the only land developer that I know that has an assistant fire chief to consult with all the time on our subdivisions to try to get their feedback. Every firemen that I know personally, and even our own consultant will tell you that if you came to them and asked them a question about health, safety, welfare, that it would only stand to reason that they would tell you from a best case scenario, here's what we would prefer. And if I was a firemen, that's what I'd say also because obviously their concern is to stabilize and protect property. So if they were given a choice, and you said to them now if you could put a road here or you could make this road this wide or the radius of this road could be this, or if you could have a fire hydrant here, I can guarantee you the firemen would say all the things that would be the best case scenario. And they should do that. Absolutely. Now part of the job of a fire marshal in reviewing subdivisions is to look at all these issues and then find the issues that he could, if he had a wish list, amend or change or whatever. One of the things that's never pointed out, when these get to a body like yourself or a City Council is that, does that mean that in an ideal situation that there won't be a problem either. The fact is that there were 3 fires on this road and that we've spent a lot of time talking about it. The fact is the fire department fought fires. The gentleman who's house burned down burned down before the fire department got there but they did get there. They did fight the fire. If this connection would have been here as proposed, those fires would not have been fought any more diligently. I can document for you fires that have occurred in this city recently that were on roads that were totally accessible. They had problems with those fires. They weren't dead ends so you have to keep things in balance here and you've got to say, that it's possible that fires can happen anywhere. It's possible even in an ideal situation a house can bum to the ground and a life may be lost unfortunately. But I think it's in error to say that if this connection is made, all of a sudden you're greatly going to enhance the health, safety and welfare of this community. I think that's a subjective statement. About the cul- de-sac. Lundgren Bros has, as was already stated, would not be opposed to having no connections. We're talking about 134 lots in here and you could easily, and there are plenty of neighborhoods within this community and other communities, that have 2 accesses for 134 lots. You're talking roughly what, about 67 lots per access. That's manageable. This will not be a unique animal unlike any other subdivision or area in the Twin Cities. There are other areas just like that. So it is possible that you can have no other access. You could close Kiowa Trail. You wouldn't have to make this access here and this neighborhood would function and there'd be more than 2 ways in and out. There were some items and I didn't know if the Planning Commission wanted to talk about them tonight. I guess I'll leave those 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 up to them. They're related to affordability. They were items of discussion that were in the staff report and I guess I thought maybe they were put there because one of the Planning Commissions may have called and wanted to discuss it so I wanted to offer it for you tonight if you want to talk about that or if you'd like me to address anything further while I'm up here. I would be happy to. Batzli: I'd like you to address reforestation. Terry Forbord: Okay. The reforestation. I'm not sure, I think reforestation is a good idea. I'm not sure in what context it was meant to be applied here. I mean that there was some suggestion about working with the University and working with some volunteer organizations and such and that's fine with me. I'm not sure exactly what's meant beyond that. Batzli: Do you still like it if you have to provide some of the money for some of the reforestation plant materials? Terry Forbord: I think if it goes beyond what is being proposed in our landscape plan, I think it's unfair. I think that even at the Tree Board meeting when some of the developers were asked to come in and there was discussion about the reforestation of Chanhassen and there were many long time residents that were present at that meeting and they were willing to state that before development occurred in Chanhassen, there weren't a lot of trees because most of the trees have been clear cut by the farmers and there were a lot of statements to say how they could see from where the City Hall is now down to Lotus Lake. But when development occurs, people come in and the plant a lot of trees. Now all of you know, or I assume you know that when we develop we plant a lot of trees. We exceed what is normally required by a great deal and beyond that, when the people move into their homes, if they can't afford it immediately, they're not only...but as soon as they can afford it, they plant a lot of landscaping. And so over time these kind of things occur by themselves. It's not uncommon for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in a neighborhood of this size on landscaping. That is not a small amount. And so when there was some discussion about reforestation, I'm not sure what it meant and I didn't know if they were asking us to _ contribute additional money beyond what we were proposing to do but I think what we were proposing to do was truly a lot...lot of money. Everything has a price and if you elect to have me talk about affordability, I will talk about that and landscaping and things like that I would say are directly related to that. Batzli: Paul and Bob. Under the current landscaping plan. We don't have our copies of the plan anymore so we can't look at it but in your opinion, is Lundgren Bros going well above and beyond what they're required to do? Under the PUD ordinance. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Krauss: I think what they've done so far is consistent with a standard PUD. Is it...PUD? No. Probably not. Batzli: How much better is it than our standard subdivision ordinance? Krauss: Well our standard subdivision ordinance has been amended to require landscaping, significant landscaping on selected streets and this property is bounded on two sides by collector streets so you'd get that in any case. As far as the 1 tree per lot goes, that's a standard requirement as well. I don't have a count in front of me to know how they have gone beyond that. We came up with that condition after reviewing the site. After reviewing some direction of the Planning Commission relative to this is a PUD. What are you looking for. Relative to the relationship of this site to the park and to the highway and to the fact that the only thing that they've had growing on it for the last 3 or 4 years is corn and soybeans. We felt that that was an appropriate thing to look at. Farmakes: Is there any other PUD that has a 46% undersized lot ratio? Krauss: That's a question of a different color. Yeah, I would suspect there are. We never looked to see. I mean if you want to look at PUD's, you can look at the 9th Addition at Lake Susan Hills which was reviewed under a different PUD ordinance. But has an average lot size of 12,000 I believe, or 12,500. This has an average of 15,000 or better. There is no number, I know the Planning Commission dwelled on this extensively at the last meeting. We're at a loss to know what to do with it. There is no standard in the code that says thou shall have some percentage of lots above the standard. It just says the average shall be. Farmakes: I understand that. The problem that I had with this, when I first occurred this was actually another Lundgren development. The Willow development over on Lake Lucy Road. It depends on which point you want to make with this, whether or not you go to the average size. Particularly with property that extends in the wetland areas and areas that even under traditional development would not be buildable. But if you take them into consideration in formula, if you wish to beef up the square footage, you add property that under any development is not developable. And it seems to me that depending on how you wish to read the formula, it becomes a deceptive issue. And what we're really look at here, it seems to me, is that if the ratio for traditional development is 15,000 square, how many lots that we're looking at, percentage wise in the development are under sized. Under or below that 15,000. And that to me is a more palatable figure. What percentage is that than looking at large lots, particular in this property also has to a lesser extent but also has property that cannot be built on which is being used to factor that ratio. Scott: And especially the lots that, I've heard the last 2 meetings that we've had and has 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 been said the same way that the large lots that border Highway 101 have been portrayed as being made very large for the purpose of buffering, blah, blah, blah when the bottom line is that there's a pipeline running under there and it doesn't make any difference. So I get real tired of hearing that kind of stuff. And then also obviously these are like 45,000-50,000 square foot lots and I think that's kind of, that's a specific example I think of what you're talking about. Farmakes: And in a way I hate to bring that up at this meeting because I think that's a problem with the formulation that we have. And that has nothing to do right now with this particular development. It's a problem that I had originally when I looked at the Willow where the lot sizes were truly inflated by square footages on ratios for average sized lots. Krauss: Because of the wetland. Farmakes: Because of the wetlands where no matter what you built there, no matter how you built it, you couldn't build on those. Krauss: And this is part of my concern when this PUD ordinance was put into place. Wetland acreage was excluded from that calculation. Farmakes: Right, now in this case though we have a pipeline situation. Krauss: Which is a different thing occurring. Farmakes: Correct, so I guess for me, in looking at this, somehow we have to come up with where we would like that to go, either looking at buildable square feet and looking at ratios against that and I'm perfectly fine with that. And I'm not saying that we should institute a fixed percentage of under sized lots because I think that that will probably take away our flexibility, in particular with odd property where difficult type property that you're trying to save trees or natural facilities. But I have a problem, like I said whenever you can take statistics one way or the other, depending on which way you'd like to go. I like statistics that reflect factual information and that can't be taken one way or the other. And I just have a, I don't know how the rest of the commission feels on this issue but it seems again that the issue that we brought up in the meeting, and I think a majority of the people here brought it up, was the issue of under sized lots percentage wise and we looking at what's acceptable. A third? A half? If the intent statement of the PUD I think discussed that specifically, that we should look at it closer as that percentag'. . .:reased in size. And so I'll save the rest for my comments andon't want to belabor the issue but I am confused and I hate to sit here and make decisions on that based that I'm still confused on that issue. Because I think it's something that we should target. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair. Batzli: Yes. Terry Forbord: Lundgren Bros could have laid this out differently and we could have more lots in a standard subdivision. I believe even staff pointed that out. At least I'm trying to find it. I read it today. I thought they eluded to that. We could have done something over in this area with lots over here whether that pipeline was there or not. We could have done that. There's a lot of things that I can do here that would give me more lots but I know and I know that you know that it would not be as nice a neighborhood. Now we only have a number of tools that we can work with when we come to the city. The first item that we work with is the comprehensive plan. What are the goals and objectives of the city. The city has a housing policy within their comprehensive plan and it talks about all kinds of different things related to housing. Some of them have to do with diversity. Diversification. Pricing. Cost. Things like that. There's a lot of things that affect cost and diversification of housing. The other things are the ordinances and the codes. And there isn't anything in the PUD ordinance that talks about you're supposed to have this many lots of this and this many lots of that. There was at one time. There also was an ordinance at one time when all the rights- of-way were 50 feet also so things change and so we look at the items, the rules that we're supposed to follow and we try to bring forth proposals where everything isn't the same. It's specifically our intent to not make all the lots the same. Not make them all the same size. We want to provide some diversity. We clearly could have done some more things to address all the questions that I've heard each one of you make here tonight and if we would have done it I don't think this would look the way that you would like to see it. Because I've heard enough of the comments over the years and what I do hear that you like in neighborhoods and by doing those other things, we would be taking those things away ultimately. Lot size is a subjective thing. In Chanhassen you find a lot of people, at least these days who feel that if it's bigger it's better. Well that's not always true. Remember, when you drive through this neighborhood, when it's done, I can't tell how large those lots are and I do this for a living. I can't go through one neighborhood that we've developed or anybody else's and say well there's a 8,500 square foot one and there's a 15,000 over there. This one's 30. I can't tell and I do this for a living. You can't tell. There's no lines on the ground but how does the neighborhood feel. Now some people might feel it's a little tight in here. On some people they might say boy, this isn't as tight as where I came from in Minneapolis. At Near Mountain there's two whole cul-de-sacs of lots from 8,500 square feet to 11,000 square feet and I bet you there's very few people in the city who've driven in there even know that, because you can't see the lines on the ground. They just say well this is a nice little neighborhood. Now it may not be for everybody but these are large lots in reality. Not all of them. Some of them are bigger than others but we could have gotten around, and this was not an attempt to try to mislead anybody here. We could have come and cut across 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 this pipeline and put some lots back in this area. You can go across a pipeline with a driveway or a road. Absolutely. There's roads all over across that pipeline all through town. So we could have done those things. There wasn't an attempt to mislead or deceive. An attempt to try to come up with something that's creative and deal, it's a physical constraint that we have to deal with and we try to deal with it in the most creative manner as possible. And try to retain some degree of affordability, which again I'd be happy to talk about if the Planning Commission elects to. Batzli: Okay, thank you Terry. Is there anybody else that would like to address the commission? Yes ma'am. Brevity will be appreciated. Kate Halverson: Kate Halverson, 9283 Kiowa Trail. And last time I was here I thought that the back to back cul-de-sac situation there was better than a thru street going through. But tonight I've been listening and hear talk about 212 and the possible connections and the possibility of just postponing it for the future. I feel that I need to go on record saying that I am opposed to that cul-de-sac there on the Lundgren side...lot to build a great house on... because I am concerned. I've heard several good reasons that fire trucks will get there anyway so we don't need it through that. We don't need that for that future possibility. Also I've heard talk about the direction of 212 going north. So like what is the point then of even doing a back to back and I would just as soon eliminate any potential of that taking place in the future. And from what I can see here, you know it's somewhat necessary...the possibility to happen down the road and I feel I need to say something because I don't think anybody's spoken to that issue and I don't want it to come up in 3 to 5 years from now. Batzli: Okay, thank you. Unless there's someone else who would like to address the commission, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad: No, let's keep it open. Batzli: Do you want to keep it open? Scott: So moved. Generous: Mr. Chairman? If I may. Mary Ellen Jessup at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd called me today and she said she couldn't make it tonight but she wanted me to give you her opinion about the, specifically about the Lake Riley Blvd connection. Batzli: Okay. Generous: She is concerned about increased traffic resulting from this connection. She said 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the problem really is that Lake Riley Blvd is a substandard road and that the city is proposing a bandaid correction to that. Instead of doing that the city should look into improving the substandard roadway itself and providing water service down Lake Riley Blvd. Batzli: Okay. I assume that if we did that, these people would be assessed and then we'd have even more people in here. Yeah, okay. Did you make her aware of that by the way? Generous: I did mention that. Batzli: Okay. Well I appreciate her comments. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Is there a motion to close? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Batzli: Matt, let's start with you again. Ledvina: Okay. The Kiowa Trail issue with the construction of a temporary turn around or whatever, is there actually going to be any construction out there on Kiowa Trail? Off of the subdivision? Hempel: At this point we didn't propose anything I guess. As I mentioned earlier, it's been maintained for the last 15-20 years in it's current condition. Ledvina: So essentially you'd have a temporary cul-de-sac that would be built on the Lundgren Bros property and then the barricade and that would be that. Is that correct? Hempel: Essentially. Ledvina: Okay. Let's see. Dave as it relates to the Lundgren Bros proposal with the 50 foot right-of-way and the 5 foot utility easement on each side of the road. What is your opinion of that? Does that get what we need as well? Hempel: No it doesn't because with every plat, every front yard there's a 10 foot drainage utility easement dedicated along with the 60 foot wide right-of-way. It's engineering's belief that the 60 foot right-of-way is required to provide the road maintenance and safe travel for vehicles as well as pedestrians. We just had an incident here yesterday and part of today where we had a substandard sized street and ended up digging up the street to put in water and sewer service in. Ended up closing off the street. It was a dead end street. It happened to be...Lane up here near Shorewood. The residents incapacitated for nearly 12 hours. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Should there have been an emergency...one example. It's a random event that happens but it does happen. So we changed our standard I believe 2 years ago from a 50 foot wide right-of- way to a 60 foot wide right-of-way for those reasons. We needed additional right-of-way. All other developments included in the city dedicate the 60 foot right-of-way it seems like. Even PUD's unless there's been other topographic constraints such as tree preservation, severe grade difference which would require additional grading or a retaining wall and so forth and we have made modifications in those areas. But areas again though where, a little more secluded areas that were dead end cul-de-sacs and so forth...o: the amount of traffic is much less... Ledvina: Okay, thanks. Let's see on condition number 5 I would support the applicant's contention that the cost of the trail segments built by the developer be credited to the trail fees. I think that makes sense but as we saw in another proposal, that necessarily wasn't the case but I'd like to state that. And I guess talking about the main issues as it relates to lot size, I know that there's been a lot of discussion on the number of small lots here but I guess I support this development as it's laid out. I do believe that the smaller lots and potentially the lower priced housing in this area can relate to good diversity for affordability. For many new residents of Chanhassen. I think there's value in mixing a development where you have potentially $300,000.00 houses and $125,000.00 houses or $100,000.00 houses. I don't know what the numbers are but those types of ratios. I think as a PUD we see that the lots around the perimeter are the larger sized lots and I think that potentially if we had all 15,000 square foot lots you may see more residences in here that surrounds development discussing their specific concerns as it relates to that fact. So I'm buying into that. I think that you're developing a self contained development and that's going to be well planned and I do believe it will work. Batzli: So you like the fact that they've done, in essence, a defacto blending of this neighborhood with the surrounding neighborhoods? Ledvina: Yes. Batzli: And that's an amenity both to the city and future residents of this development? Ledvina: Yes, I think that's so. I don't know if there were more residents here discussing that issue. If we had 15,000 foot lots around here we would be saying, well if this were a PUD you could have done this. I don't think, maybe that point hasn't been emphasized but I think it's a factor in evaluating this. I like the curvalinear layout of the streets. I think that's going to add a lot of character. I think that the houses, obviously the lots are small but I think those, that's not necessarily a bad thing. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: What do you think about the, and maybe you mentioned this and I misplaced what you said but the Lake Riley Blvd access? Ledvina: No, I didn't mention that. I would support the staff recommendation on that. I think we discussed that from quite a few different angles and I think that's a reasonable connection to make. Batzli: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: It's going to be interesting to see how we get a consensus on this. Actually I wouldn't want the connection to Lake Riley. I was opposed to that. I'd rather have the street, Lake Riley Blvd upgraded. Batzli: Can I interrupt you right there? Let me ask a question Paul and/or Dave. Why can't we extend some water from the main that I would assume is going, looping around this development over to Lake Riley Blvd for a fire hydrant or two, if the main problem is getting pumper trucks in there. Hempel: That is actually one of our, would be one of our conditions for the applicant. If the scenario before you tonight is approved with a cul-de-sac we would require that a fire hydrant or fire water line be extended through the cul-de-sac through the common, road common property. It's to Lake Riley Blvd right-of-way for future connection and extension along Lake Riley Blvd to help flow, fire flow of water quality. That's a given. Batzli: Okay. So but you could extend it and put a, at least one hydrant if not two along Lake Riley on the corner, the northern and southerly corners? Hempel: More appropriate is fire hydrant placement when the watermain is extended through the entire length of Lake Riley Blvd to ensure adequate fire flows are provided in the fire hydrants. Otherwise you have a sequence of dead end cul-de-sacs and water lines. It doesn't give you the flow that you may need. Batzli: Would it be better than nothing? Hempel: At this point, it comes down, from good sound engineering judgment and as well as economics. Sure, a hydrant there would help...demand use it may not give us the fire protection you need. Batzli: So what you're saying is, you're eventually you'd want to loop it so that it runs down Lake Riley Blvd. But if you can't have that today because the city can't afford to do it and. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Hempel: The residents don't want it. Batzli: Right. Would you request that those hydrants be put in? Hempel: At this point, no. I guess I would just look for the future connection of looping that water... Batzli: So you'd just have them stub it to the edge of the property and not even put a hydrant there? Hempel: That's what we'd typically do, yes. Batzli: Okay. Okay, sorry Ladd. Conrad: Kiowa connection. I'm concerned with parking. I think staff brought up some real good points. I think the back to back cul-de-sacs is what I suggested before. That's what I think protects the neighborhood from some of the immediate traffic considerations but I haven't resolved the parking problem for the park. I really don't know how that gets handled. Actually the residents want certain things and I guess there's a price on a lot of these things. I think in terms of improvement of the cul-de-sac, I think the residents would have to pay for it. If they want to maintain isolation, I think then it's their street and that would be a cost factor. But that would be very definitely, it's real clear in my mind that that would be their load to pay for. And I would give it back to Riley, I'd do the same thing you know and I'm not sure how I'm going to vote on this but really if you don't want the connection to this, then there should be a street improvement and they should pay for it. Keep the isolation but pay for what it takes to provide decent city service and protection on those things so there's a cost. It's not like I'm saying, I want to preserve the neighborhood. I think that's real valid but on the other hand, it's sort of an easy out by not compensating with something. I think a 60 foot right-of-way is still the right thing to do. I think there has to be some trails coming from the north down Highway 101. I don't know that. And bottom line, 56 or whatever the number is, substandard or small lots, there's still too many small lots in this property. It's just, you know what's the right number? We don't have numbers in our ordinance because we don't want them. You kind of take a look and you get a feel for these things and in this case I'm still not persuaded that 56 is a right number of very small lots and I think maybe that's education on our part but I don't think we've ever had a PUD that looked like this on property that really didn't have any natural amenities. I think when we put in some small lots and Lundgren has done that on their other developments, those small lots have always had some natural features that have done, that have made up for those small spaces and they've done a real nice job. Here it's not the case. At least to my satisfaction. We have small lots. And I guess I'm not persuaded that we're getting affordable housing. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 So regardless of what I said about connections to streets and all this other stuff, I don't like the PUD. I think their 56 or whatever the number is, lots below 15,000 square feet is really not what I'm comfortable with. I like the general design of this. I think there's a lot of nice features. I think 56 lots, small lots are just too many. Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: Yeah I didn't pick up on any new information to change my idea. I mean I believe that it's a well laid out design. I cite similar problems that Ladd does. I'm not going to go into that. Another comment on connections. I think it was the first Planning Commission meeting that we held this year dealt with our ordinance on cul-de-sacs which we reduced the length I think down to 600 feet. And the tone has always been, if we can logically make a connection to shorten a cul-de-sac, we're going to take advantage of that. So I've beaten that one to death. I don't have any more comments on it but I don't support this as a PUD. I don't believe it addresses the intent of our PUD ordinance and do not support it and that's the end of my comments. Batzli: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I think I made my comments earlier about what I use as a guideline and that's the percentage of lots overall. I think, I'm thinking more of a third and it's almost a half. I am looking at the pipeline situation. I use that as an example. Could be a ravine. Could be a slope. Could be one of many things and the different things that we look at, in looking at percentages. What I look at is buildable square feet when I'm interpreting some of the interpretable things of our PUD intent. I look at, from a design standpoint, look at the pipeline there. If a road was run adjacent to the pipeline or followed it, it would cut off several of the lots. You could put homes there but it would make for considerable design problems. As far as selling a home that's sitting on top of a pipeline, I doubt it very much. I use that as an example. I think that from a design concept, surrounding larger lots around the smaller homes is fine. I don't have a problem with that. It's an innovative way to do it. It also reduces the amount of conflict with the surrounding neighborhoods, particularly neighborhoods that may have been there a long time. In some cases maybe larger lots. Beyond our standard requirements. What I have a problem with is the amount of percentages of the overall development. I would like to see that reduced. I've said that in my last comments at the last meeting. I don't see them reduced. The comments that haven't been addressed here tonight is talking about why such a large amount of undersized lots. I think that the goals of providing a diversity of housing is fine. Those are commendable. I don't think that the city's position on that has been defined, at least that I know of and that the city's still wrestling with that. I'm not against it. I just would prefer to see it defined better. I do not see in this report in discussing this issue the median income in Chanhassen, the 46 _ Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 median income in the metro area or the median income in the State of Minnesota. It's an ambiguous statement that's in there and I would, if it is a driving factor in reducing the cost of the house, I'd like to see more information on that type of issue in future developments that come forward here. I think that that's important and basically it takes a lot of the review I think from the commissions. A lot of information that we could use in determining this factor. But what that percentage would be say for instance within the development. Again I want to state that I think the goals of what was the intent here are commendable. So I don't want to, I don't want to discourage what obviously was a development that took some time and care in coming up with. In the issue of the connection on Kiowa, I would have liked, again my comments that were made to see more issue between the parking and access to the park from that direction and the cul-de-sac. I don't see any plans in the packet here. I don't see any options to that. I don't see Option A, B, C or D. In fact I don't even have my plans here. I'm looking at the piece here. That's displayed and I don't see that altered from the original meeting. I don't see, so I see verbal options here but I don't see, don't see any plans to review. So I would not, unless I see that I would feel uncomfortable about taking any direction with that. As in the comments made in my last meeting, there are substandard roads and in some cases lots. Not in this case but based on old Chanhassen development, where old rules were in effect versus newer rules in this case. Obviously as a city progresses and changes, the rules and considerations in 1960 are not the same as they are in 1993. The City constantly is trying to improve and change along with environmental factors and so on and we change things. And I do not think that enough consideration is given when we come into a situation where we're going to significantly change a neighborhood situation that is an older neighborhood when new rules are in effect. I'd agree with Ladd's compromise on that issue. As far as the Lake Riley Blvd. However, I don't think that this is the issue here to be discussing road improvements on Lake Riley. That would have to be a separate issue and the residents would all have to be made aware of what that would be as far as assessments and so on so I don't think that can really be coupled in with this. On the issue of city staff recommendation not to reduce the right-of-way issue, I support that. There's just a lot of things here that don't make this fly in my mind and I would vote to not approve it. Batzli: So you would vote no on the entire PUD? Farmakes: Yes. Batzli: I mentally counted 3 no votes for the PUD. I would vote yes but it sounds like I'm going to be in the minority. I'll still give at least brief comments here. I disagree with Jeff's percentage analysis and you know I'm, my tenure here on the Planning Commission waning, as opposed to waxing. The issue came up when we were looking at the PUD's as to what was acceptable lot size. I guess it was funny to me, or somewhat ironic that I argued so long and hard regarding lot size and everybody thought that small lots were okay. And now we 47 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 see PUD's and everybody wants larger lots. I feel vindicated but we've got the ordinance we've got. I live in a PUD and I live on a substandard sized lot and you probably can't tell that and it does cause a certain amount of interesting problems in the neighborhood but they're not that big of a deal so while everybody else has gone to bigger lots, over the years I think I've gone the other way and maybe I'm just like a half cycle behind you guys or something here but. Conrad: You did a good job of persuading us. Batzli: I did such a good job of persuading you and in the meantime I seem to have gone the other way. So it really seems to me that if the development was done right, you look at the development Lundgren Bros did up, I suppose it's Shorewood up on the hill there where they do have the smaller lot sizes and you can tell those lots are less than 15,000 square feet. You know I don't believe Terry when he says he couldn't tell that those were undersized lots. Maybe if they're closer you can tell but you know an 8,000 square foot lot looks pretty small. The houses are on top of each other. And they did a very good job with those lots but you know, you can tell those are small lots. Anyway. The upshot for me is if in fact we are getting blending, which we would not otherwise get, and if we were getting something else and all I can, have figured out so far is that we're getting right-of-way and we're getting blending in exchange for Lundgren Bros trying to squish some homes together. And that would probably be okay with me except I would like to see some more landscaping. And I think that if they did that, I think you'd have a nice little development. So I would be in favor of this PUD provided that some of these concepts of reforestation and Lundgren Bros helping out in that in some way was accomplished. I think that the break away barrier is fme on Kiowa. I would like to see that however, I do not want to see that, it will be removed automatically once 212 is built. I would rather see that it came back to the city for study and this was not a knee jerk based on 212 being built. I think that would be an error. I think the residents should have input at that time. And in fact I would suggest that it's even done kind — of after 212 is built to see what's what rather than projections of traffic patterns. As far as the Lake Riley Blvd access goes, I think Ladd is right and it is a bandaid to put an access through there if in fact the real problem is a substandard road and they need water on that street. On the other hand Jeff is right that you really can't or shouldn't link this development with upgrading that road. And I think that to the extent staff and engineering can work with Lundgren to figure out how to get some water pressure and a couple fire hydrants over there, that's really I think the biggest concern. In re-reading the Fire Chief's memo, really what he was talking about was the tanker traffic back and forth on the road and if you didn't have to do that, the pumper trucks, or whatever they are, that probably would mitigate the problem, at least in this one particular instance. So I would like to see these neighborhoods not intruded by linking them unless we absolutely had to. And those were my main comments. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, may I make a few comments? Batzli: Yes. Terry Forbord: One of the owners is here this evening and I think if the Planning Commission would like to, I'm sure he would volunteer the information to you that led up to our control of this site. There were over 6 developers, or at least that's what I was told, somewhere between 4 • 7 developers competing for this piece of property. I can tell you I = know fairly well that hair of those people, the type of products that they do and I feel very confident that I know what they would be proposing for this. And I can tell you that I know they would meet the city codes and I can tell you that it wouldn't look like this. It would _ look more like, the old wonderful subdivision I showed you last time. Granted it may not look exactly like this but that's the kind of development that you'll probably see on this site if you don't allow a PUD to be utilized here. I know what the concerns were at the last meeting. The first thing that I went back to do was I figured out okay, well how can I try to accommodate many of the concerns that the Planning Commission has so the next time that I go back in front of them, they say well geez. They went back and they redid this and pulled some of these lots out and boy I can vote for this. I can't pull any lots out because the numbers don't work. Now and maybe that's not a consideration of the city but then the alternative is that somebody else can come in and develop it and they'll develop it in a pattern that won't be as creative but all the lots will be 15,000 square feet. And then when everybody's done, say well they're all 15,000 square feet. We got what we wanted. I'm still not convinced that I've ever heard that from this Planning Commission or a previous one or any City Council say that that's what they want. But the bottom line is, the only way to do it is to take lots out and when you look at the raw density of this, this is not a dense project. It isn't. Those numbers don't lie. So yeah, we can take lots out but then we can't do the deal. So the alternative is that somebody else can come in and do it in a different manner but maybe I've misjudged over the years what I think the city is looking for. But in some of the comments that I hear over and over again, I don't think I have. But the owner knows that when we walk away he will be able to sell his property. I can guarantee it. It will just be developed differently. And so I'm just telling you that obviously we'll pursue it with the City Council. It's clear the Planning Commission doesn't support the proposal but we may not do everything right, exactly the way the city hopes to see it but we really try and we try to create nice neighborhoods so when they're done they don't look like some things that we believe that everybody would rather they not look like. But the only reason I mention this to you is because I did try to take lots out. I made some lots bigger but the numbers don't work and that gets back to the affordability issue that nobody asked me about. There's no such thing as affordability in Chanhassen and there won't be. Not until you come out maybe with 500 square foot lots and until there's MUSA expansion and there's more land available and the price of land goes down. Then maybe it will start getting to a threshold where I think 49 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 from the general public's mind they'd call affordable. But every time you exact something, you insist on larger lots and you insist on wider streets and you insist on more trees and you insist on, all those things cost money that ultimately the homeowner pays for. And I have to just pass it on. I can't absorb it. And so that's why we propose many of the things that we do to try and add some different sizes and that sort of thing. I'm sorry that we were unable to do a better job. We tried the best that we could. Batzli: Thank you for your comments Terry. Does anyone have a motion? Ledvina: I move that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of Preliminary PUD #93-6 subject to the staff conditions with the following modifications. Modifying number 5 to add, the cost of trail segments built by the development shall be credited to trail fees. Number 26. The date as it relates to site grading be changed from October 31st to November 15th. Number 27, the condition be deleted as it is repeated at condition number 11. And adding a condition number 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project to occur along the right-of-ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with Bandimere Park. Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. In your condition 30. I don't recall. Did you want Kiowa to automatically open if 212 was built? Ledvina: I didn't' consider that. I guess I would amend my motion to state that the city re- evaluate the modifications, the opening of Kiowa Trail in response to the construction of 212 and I don't know if it's appropriate to request a public hearing or something of that sort. Batzli: In your motion you did want to connect Lake Riley, correct? To Lake Riley? Ledvina: Yes. Batzli: What condition is that? Conrad: I couldn't find it. Ledvina: I assumed it was in there. Conrad: There's a condition relating to the trail easement. Number 5. Batzli: Number 17. Phase 3 of the development. Is that the? You don't want to delete that heh? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Ledvina: No. Batzli: Okay. Is there any discussion? Conrad: I don't know. I think just discussion. I think that Terry is talking about trying to develop I think. He knows that Chanhassen develops with a concern with lot size. He knows that. And I think it's been echoed by Planning Commission and City Council over and over again in a variety of ways. So you know it's not that there's a magic number and it's not that we don't want to go below the 15,000. We're lair:ing about proportion and that's what this, in my mind, that's what the issue is right now. Farmakes: Is this discussion or are we voting on the motion? Batzli: This is discussion. Farmakes: I support those comments. My comments on the issue of lot size Brian were percentages. I would even entertain lots smaller. That's not the point. The point is, the percentage of the development and that's what I've grabbed onto in looking at these tables because I find the information to be not always representative of the facts with the relationship that we're using. It's not intentional. It's just what we use as criteria and that's what I have a problem with. I'm closer to a third and this is closer to a half. Ledvina: Well if they were 14,999, I mean you could say that they're. Farmakes: But a lot of them aren't. A lot of them are closer to 12 to 11. Ledvina: I understand. Conrad: There's a lot of small lots. Farmakes: I don't mind diversity. I don't see diversity here. I see about half of it being under sized. And what I'm saying here is I'd be more amenable to a third. It's not the issue or the intent of what the design is trying to achieve. But I'm not sure that that's spelled out very well for us either so I would not be displeased to see this come back again. I think that generally this development is worth pursuing. It's not, if the numbers aren't there, then they're not there. Batzli: Well, yeah. You know my problem with looking at it as a percentage is, the whole concept in my mind, at least of a PUD is you allow clustering to get open space and protection of natural features. Here we have no natural features. So the issue is whether 51 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 we're getting a larger feeling to the neighborhood by getting the blending that they're doing. Now whether they're doing it because they have to do it, because of the pipeline or because they're going to have much more expensive lots that can look through the trees, inbetween houses onto the lake. Whatever reason they're doing it, there is a certain amount of open space and it's not a real dense development. So you know if it's, maybe the numbers didn't work. Maybe he can recalculate them and maybe even move the decimal point the wrong way on one of his figures but he can take a few lots out and maybe...but I think the point of it that there is a clustering here. There is some open space. The development doesn't have a real tight, enclosed look, at least as far as I can tell from a two dimensional representation on the map. And like I said, I'm here to tell you that living in a PUD with under sized lots isn't all that bad. Conrad: I just don't see it Brian. Batzli: I know and you either see it or you don't. Conrad: You see it and I don't see it at all. I see the inner circle as being real dense. And what we've done is put a dense area separated from two major, two highways. Two roadways. Moved them away. I guess I'm valuing that. I think if I was a resident there, I would value that but in terms of how I look at this, it's a real dense area. Farmakes: And I also. Batzli: But is there a down side to that? What's the down side? Conrad: They've got to live there. Ledvina: They're going to choose to live there. _ Conrad: Right. I don't care who, yeah. Anybody can and I'm not going to tell you that I don't care. But philosophically, this is really a philosophical deal. We planned with lot sizes so long here. When you change the lot size in Chanhassen, there's got to be a real clear reason why because we really perceive that to be very important. Really perceive that and along with natural amenities. And I haven't been sold on that. So when you break that one philosophy, and I tell you. I can go down to 8-10,000. I don't have a problem with small parcels. I don't but it's getting me someplace. It's getting us the cluster with a great deal of open space and I just haven't seen the significant benefit to take me down to the small lots here. I just don't see the benefit. And therefore I don't see the reason to break our standard which is what we really hold dear to us. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: In the past we've had real clear things that we were trying to save to allow the clustering. We've had the wetlands. We've had the ravines. We've had forests. Here you have a lot with nothing on it. In essence. A plowed field let's assume for a minute. What are you going to try to save, or are you just going to, are you going to require more parkland to be dedicated? What are you going to do? Conrad: This is not a good candidate for a PUD you know. It's not. Yet on the other hand. Ledvina: Do you like the alternative? Conrad: Hey, that's fine. That's just fine. A standard subdivision is just fine with me. Farmakes: And I don't have a problem with seeing this again if there are lots closer to 15,000 rather than percentages that they have. I'd even entertain away from a third or higher to a half if more of them were larger percentage wise. So I did not get the calculator out but if there were fewer of them between 11 and 12, and more of them 13 to 14, I would entertain changing my vote in that regard so. If you're looking for any flexibility there. Batzli: I respectfully disagree with Ladd's comment. I think that the city, the residents, the neighbors, everybody's getting something by doing this as a PUD this way rather than bringing in a straight subdivision but that's neither here nor there. Okay. Well, is there any other discussion? Otherwise I'll call the question. Ledvina moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary PUD #93-6 subject to the following conditions: 1. Submittal of street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review and approval prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise grading and erosion control plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation and garage floor elevation before final plat approval. 3. Tree preservation/landscaping: _ a. Detailed plans for perimeter berming and landscaping. A landscaped buffer shall be provided along State Highway 101 and Lyman Boulevard. This buffer shall be sufficient to screen direct views of the homesite from the roadway. Additional _ landscaping shall be provided along Lake Riley Boulevard to provide a natural transition from Lake Riley Boulevard into the development. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 b. Tree planting to meet minimum size standards in City Code and to be selected from the official tree list. c. Landscaping to be covered by satisfactory financial guarantees to assure installation and survival. d. Existing trees listed in the tree survey to be preserved as part of the development. e. Development of an approved landscape budget prior to City approval of the final plat. 4. The applicant shall dedicate 5.3 acres of park land to the City in lieu of park fees. 5. A trail easement to be dedicated in the southeast quadrant of the site to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to Lake Riley Boulevard. The trail segment shall be built by the developer as part of the phase of development including the abutting property and appropriate credit given toward the trail dedication fees. 6. Demonstrate that each lot can accommodate at least a 60' x 40' homesite and a 12' x 12' deck and maintain all setbacks on the final plat. 7. A minimum fifty (50) foot building setback shall be maintained from Lyman Boulevard and State Highway 101. This setback shall be included on the final plat. 8. Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be conveyed with the final plat for all utilities located outside the public right-of-way. The minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet. 9. No lots shall have driveway access to State Highway 101, Lyman Boulevard, or Lake Riley Boulevard. 10. The developer shall construct all utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and prepare final construction plans and specifications for City staff review and formal City Council approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 11. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall be required to enter into a PUD agreement and development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval of final platting. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 12. The City of Chanhassen Wetland Ordinance should be employed to require a buffer strip and setback for the homes adjacent to the homes in the northeast corner of the site, specifically Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 5. 13. The grading plan should be revised to include existing ground contours. Street grades throughout the subdivision shall fall within the City's standard of 0.50% to 7.0% percent grades. 14. Storm sewers shall be designed and constructed to facilitate a 10-year storm event. The ponding basins are required to meet NURP water quality standards and maintain the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Detailed storm sewer and ponding calculations for the entire development will be required in conjunction with fmal platting of Phase I. 15. The drainage basins along Lyman Boulevard shall be sized to accommodate the storm runoff for the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. The City may contribute towards the cost of any pond oversizing as a result of additional runoff generated from Lyman Boulevard. The City will credit the applicant by means of an assessment reduction. 16. Storm sewer and ponding basins shall be designed in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant shall work with staff in relocating or adjusting the proposed NURP basins adjacent to Lyman Boulevard to be compatible with the future upgrade of Lyman Boulevard. 17. The applicant shall redesign Phase 3 of the development to extend the cul-de-sac to connect to Lake Riley Boulevard. 18. The applicant shall dedicate on the fmal plat additional road right-of-way along Lake Riley Boulevard to achieve a 60-foot wide right-of-way. The street right-of-way throughout the subdivision shall be 60 feet wide. 19. During the construction of each phase, temporary turnarounds shall be provided on all dead end streets which are proposed to be extended. Barricades shall be placed at the end of the temporary turnarounds with a sign indicating that "this street shall be extended in the future". 20. The applicant/property owner of Outlot F shall enter into a driveway easement with the adjoining three property owners for the use of the existing driveway through Outlot F if one currently does not exist or eliminate the issue by relocating the driveway off of the property. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 21. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be conditioned upon the Chanhassen City Council authorizing a public improvement project for the extension of trunk utility service to the area and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 22. Fire hydrants shall be spaced in accordance to the City's fire marshal recommendations. 23. The applicant shall provide a 6-inch watermain stub to Lake Riley Boulevard between Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 shall be provided. 24. The existing home on Outlot F shall be required to connect to City sewer and water service within 12 months from the date the system becomes available or sooner if the well and septic system fails. 25. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits i.e Watershed District, Health Department, MPCA, Williams Brothers Pipeline Company, MWCC. 26. All disturbed areas during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket within two weeks after site grading or before November 15 each construction season accept in areas where utilities and street will be constructed yet that year. All disturbed areas resulting from construction activities shall be restored in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook for erosion and sediment control. 27. Deleted. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for their fair share of the assessments for the extension of trunk utility improvements and the upgrade of Lyman Boulevard to urban standards. 29. Outlot F shall be platted as a lot within the subdivision since outlots cannot be built upon. Relocate the driveway for this lot so that it connects perpendicularly to the proposed street within the subdivision at a location acceptable to the Engineering Department. 30. Back-to-back cul-de-sacs shall be provided at the Kiowa Trail connection. The pavement for the northern cul-de-sac shall be installed to the project property line. A breakaway barricade shall be installed to prohibit through traffic on Kiowa Trail. The cul-de-sac shall be temporary until either area residents petition the City to open the connection or Highway 212 is constructed at which time traffic patterns will be changed. The city shall re-evaluate the Kiowa connection in response to the 212 construction. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 31. A declaration that the fields in Bandimere Community park will be lighted shall be included in the chain of title for lots within the subdivision. 32. Sidewalks or pedestrian trails shall be provided connecting Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard to Bandimere Park. This trail system shall include a trail segment built within the 92nd Street right-of-way from Kiowa Trail to Bandimere Park, 33. That the city and the developer investigate the potential for a reforestation project _ to occur along the right-of-ways associated with TH 101 and also associated with Bandimere Park. Ledvina voted in favor and the rest opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 4. Batzli: I'll state my own reasons for voting against the motion. Obviously I seconded it so I was hopeful that we could take the connection to Lake Riley Blvd out. Since that stayed in, I voted against it. Otherwise I would vote for it. Also with the understanding that the applicant would work with city staff to try to get some fire hydrants to the people on Lake Riley Blvd. Ladd, your reasons for voting no. Conrad: The small lots. In addition I'm not, we haven't resolved the parking situation for the park now that we've put two back to back cul-de-sacs there. And the fact that I do want to make sure that the Lake Riley is served with water but not connected. Batzli: Okay, Joe. Scott: Mine was the same as it was last time. It was the proportion of lots that were quite a bit smaller than our minimums. And then after that being...stated as well as the 60 foot easement. There was no change to the plan so obviously we're up against a financial, you know some financial requirements on the part of the developer and there's no movement so I didn't see anything new so I felt, I did not feel compelled to change. Batzli: Okay. Terry Forbord: Excuse me Mr. Chair. Could we turn up the volume? We can't hear any of _ the comments here that are being made by almost all members of the Planning Commission. Are the microphones working? Batzli: Yeah... Terry Forbord: I heard Ladd. I did not hear the last comment. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Okay, Joe. Can you repeat? Scott: My last comment was, I didn't change my opinion of the development from last time because I saw no new information with regard to lot size. Proportion under 15,000 or the plan relative to 60 foot right-of-ways. Batzli: Okay, Jeff. Farmakes: I think I've already spelled out in detail my issue on the small lots. The issue of Kiowa. It seems to me that what I would like to see is a design relationship between access to that park and even putting a cul-de-sac on Kiowa. It seems to me that those two issues in that particular area are interrelated in that corner down there. And I haven't been terribly satisfied with, to make an informed decision based on what I've seen in the plans. Or even options. I would not like to see Kiowa connected unless the residents versus the old new neighborhood issue that I discussed earlier. Unless there was a feeling there that it should be. On the issue of Lake Riley, I think that that again is something, that issue versus the fire hydrants. The improvement of the highway and so on, I think Ladd summed that comment up and I won't repeat it. On the issue of the 15,000 square foot lot. I would like to make one more comment. There's a reason why people want to come to Chanhassen to live and it seems that traditional development or traditional development ordinance is looked down upon. It seems to have served this community well. I think also, to me anyway, from what I've seen, irregardless of how I feel about it as a designer, and I think that there's a great deal of information to support city staff on the issue of smaller lots and diversity and so on. There is a clear, I think direction based on the information that we got from the community and the information from our elected representatives that this is an issue that we have to give serious — consideration to when we go below it. And I don't see where we have the go ahead to put that aside and I think that it's, if we're here to reflect the interest of the community, I think that if we look at percentages of development, if all our PUD's are going to be 50% under sized or 46% under sized, and we use that as a guide post, it seems to me that we will never see anything but PUD's. Maybe we should just eliminate all the rest of our ordinances. BatzIi: Some would say that would be a good thing. Farmakes: Some would. In this particular case, I also am driving hard to find a reason and I don't want to compare this to a traditional development because I haven't seen a traditional development on this piece of property. So it would be a lot of what the staff report said and what was underlined were the intent statements. They weren't addressed specifically to this piece of property. And some of the statements were ambiguous to me. And if I'm going to vote on something, I think to do it responsibly, it shouldn't be ambiguous. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Batzli: Okay, thank you. That motion failed 1 vote for, 4 votes against. We normally recommend something to the City Council. So is there another motion? Conrad: I recommend denial of the proposed preliminary planned unit development approval of 80 acres, rezoning the property zoned A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD Residential and preliminary plat approval to create 134 single family lots. Planning Case #93-6 PUD. Batzli: Is there a second? Scott: Second. Batzli: Discussion. Conrad moved, Scott seconded to deny the preliminary PUD #93-6 of 80.8 acres of property to create 135 single family lots, preliminary plat and rezoning of the property from A2 to PUD-R. All voted in favor, except Batzli and Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Batzli: I think I made my feelings known earlier. Matt, did you want to add anything? Ledvina: No. Batzli: Okay. This goes to City Council when? Krauss: December 13th. Batzli: December 13th. Thank you very much everyone for coming in. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 3, 1993 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Batzli: Paul, do you have anything to report from the Director? Krauss: Well I did...The City Council is concerned and upset that the Highway 5 plan has not yet been acted upon. I was not at that meeting but Kate, I think quite rightfully pointed out that we scheduled it 3 times and all 3 times it...1:00 in the morning. She apparently got her head chopped off by the City Council...City Council actually asked for a moratorium issue be raised for the third time on Highway 5. So we have a moratorium ordinance coming back 59 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 to the City Council on Monday. Now it affects properties in the corridor. ...approve that and the Planning Commission probably still won't get to the ordinance, to the plan, because there's a lot of properties outside of the corridor as you saw tonight that's still going until 11:00 or 12:00 at night. What I suggested to them is that they order you to clear several agendas. What we're suggesting is the December 15th one, which I think some of you have been contacted on already. And the second meeting in January which will be a public hearing. We've got the field trip tentatively scheduled for Saturday, December 4th. On the December 15th meeting, some of you asked that if we do that, if we hold it earlier. We'd be more than happy to do that. Have dinner for everybody and have a real work session where it's the only topic on there. We could start at 6:00 if that works for you all. But that's what the City Council is angling to do one way or the other. Other than that, I don't know what else. I mean everything... Batzli: City Council's angling to do, I missed that. What are they going to do? Krauss: Well they're angling one or the other. I mean they want to get the plan acted upon and every time a development comes up, in the corridor, even though we make sure it's conforming to the corridor plan, the mere fact that it rears it's ugly head without the plan being adopted, we take hits on that so. Scott: Well I know and I remember with that Centex development. Farmakes: That was the one that precipitated it. Scott: Right. And there were enough knowledgeable people who know about the Highway 5 — study and what's expected and the study areas and the architectural requirements. I was extremely surprised because as part of the public record there were some very specific discussions about what the requirements were. And the developer specifically asked for some — guidance, which I know Jeff and Nancy were able to give some but. Farmakes: I think that the issue here and if, we made the comments I think at the last meeting in regards to the Centex development. The issue I think is when we had the meeting, or discussion afterwards we talked about the issue of loading up for so many of these developments and getting enough time. Having been through that thing for 2 years with — Paul, it is not something we're going to cover in a meeting. And by the time we get to it it's 11:00 and obviously we've got to take a different direction and I'm open to whatever you suggest to address that issue but it will take a long time to assimilate this amount of information. Batzli: Well I view this as no less important than the comprehensive plan and it's going to 60 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 take that kind of an effort. I really think Paul that you have to kind of take the bull by the horns and start scheduling meetings as you did with the comp plan and we're just going to have work meetings and work our way through it and we can't possibly do it starting at 11:00 after these meetings. Krauss: No. That's clear. The problem is scheduling working those. It's gotten to the point = where there's no nights left in the week to do a special meeting. I mean Monday night I had a special meeting for the City Council. Two of them. Tonight I had a TH 101 meeting. A Highway 101 before this tonight. Next week we have Tree Board this and it's getting impossible to find nights to do it which is why I'm asking the City Council, see I don't have, I have the authority to bump an item if it's half cocked and we don't have enough information to deal with it but otherwise I'm obligated to process a development proposals we receive in a consistent manner. That's why I'm asking the City Council for the authority to say no. You'll just have clear agendas and nothing else will happen. Farmakes: Are you looking for support from us to send a letter on or...? Krauss: I kind of assumed we had it. Farmakes: We touched on that at the last meeting. I asked you how long it took to turn around these things and maybe they have to wait longer. I mean it seemed to me like you turn around these things far faster than many of the other things that happen. Batzli: I really think if I could comment on that. We are getting more and more and more last minute thingy's from developers, the neighbors, everybody and it does you guys no good and it does us guys no good to be getting letters written the same day that you haven't even seen yet. And if that means that you have to put out the packets a week and a half in advance but slow down the process so that you at least get feedback from the developer and then, you know whatever it takes because this is ludicrous. This is really silly and I think these rules need to be examined as far as forcing you guys to get it out in 24 hour turn around and then suddenly the developer comes in at the last hour and says, oh by the way. We disagree with 8 points and they stand up there and try to go over each one of them with us without having talked to you guys. Scott: Well and the thing is, and I told the fellow from the engineering firm. I said if I was running this meeting, I would have tabled your item immediately for laying that on the Planning Commission and wasting time. But you know I fully support the idea of clearing the agendas. Sitting down and starting at 6:00 and working through the Highway 5. I believe it's extremely important and just on that issue, I don't see any reason why we can't make a requirement that if there's going to be anything that's going to be discussed at a 61 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, that it needs to be presented to the city staff 48, 72, however many hours before the Planning Commission meeting and we will not take into consideration any documentation presented other than with that kind of a lead time. Because I personally rely very heavily on what the city staff has to say about things, although obviously I can make some decisions on my own but you can't react to it. We can't react to it. — Batzli: And I, if you have a neighbor coming in giving us something at the last minute, I don't mind that. That's a different issue. It's the developer coming in with all sorts of conditions that they don't agree with. I assume they got their package on Friday or Saturday if they had to go pick it up, just like we did. Krauss: We've been trying to, I mean we've been telling them certainly. Lundgren knows this. That the packet's are printed Thursday and Friday. In many cases we've taken it upon ourselves to fax it to them so it doesn't get...or we ask them to stop by and pick it up. Batzli: But you know, it seems for some reason that we're getting more and more and more of these last second letters from the, I suppose what's happening is Lundgren's picking it up Friday. They send it over to their engineers and their engineers sit on it for a day and then they type it up and revise it. By the time they get it it's Wednesday but then there's something wrong with the system that they haven't had ample time to respond and sit down and talk to you guys about it. Krauss: And I don't have a good answer for you Brian. I mean this last week we put out 4 packets. And people were here until 5:00-5:30 on Friday to get them out. Batzli: And I'm not saying it's your fault. That's not it at all. Krauss: Well I know but you kind of get at your wits end you know. Do we spend our time on this special meeting or do we try to meet with the developer 3 weeks in advance? Batzli: Well you have to do it in real time. There's always going to be additional information coming in and so it's silly to say well, the report's going to be generated 2 weeks early because you know, a lot can happen in 2 weeks. But on the other hand there has to be some rule of reason here so that we don't sit there and listen to these guys read this letter to us that you guys have never seen. I mean this is just, this wasted 40 minutes tonight. And it could have been something that you guys could have said, we have no problem with anything they said. Now in this case there were problems but we've had people do that before. So and also in this case, the fact that we didn't approve it, I didn't want to table it. You know what's the point of having them come back a third time if we're not going to like what they did. But you know, in any event I would like to see, in all your spare time you examine 62 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 those rules and propose something so that this doesn't happen. And whether you propose it to us or the City Council is no never mind to me other than it's not working quite right. And I would also, to the extent we have to make a resolution, a non-binding resolution, I would like us to recommend to the City Council that they do whatever it takes to do, for you to clear your personal docket and half of Kate's or whatever it's going to take, so that we can get the Highway 5 deal done. They can't keep on loading you up with meetings and then scream and shout that we haven't looked at something. In any event. Because our rules are we don't go past 11:00. Well we've been going until 12:00, 1:00. It will be quarter after by the time we get out of here tonight. And so it's not like we're not doing the job or that you're not doing the job. There's no time given our current constraints. — Ledvina: I second that. Batzli: Okay. Last but not least we were going to talk about goals and everybody was going to bring their modified list of what they thought was important. We didn't have our ongoing dealy bob in our packet this week. Krauss: Well actually. Batzli: Was it? Did I miss it? Krauss: It was given...secretary. It was delivered late I think. Batzli: Delivered late? Krauss: It was supposed to be. When she was putting out these four packets on Friday, she realized that the back 2 or 3 pages of my stuff fell out and then Sha min was going to... _ Batzli: Well in any event, my point was that several of us didn't have it so we couldn't do our little organizational deal and so if you can give us all one of those, I would like to do that next time to kind of look at our goals and at least chat about it for a few minutes to see if something's important to us. Because I know things are and we may not have a lot to say about it but to the extent we're concerned citizens of Chanhassen and we put in long hours for no pay, the Council should at least be somewhat willing to listen to what we think is important. Krauss: You know the Council, they do have an annual...Planning Commission. Trying to get, I get the goals and the work stuff, the ongoing work program to the Council during the budget session and trying to get feedback from them on that is like pulling teeth. I mean very rarely do I get any direction at all. In fact last time it happened was 2 years ago when 63 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 the Mayor said he wanted an ordinance to regulate sexually oriented businesses. _ Batzli: And we proceeded to sit on it. Farmakes: We sat on it until the Supreme Court... Batzli: Yeah, yeah. Well we were sitting on it for a reason. We were cogitating. _ Ledvina: It was a lot to get through. It was a thick ordinance. Krauss: There's all sorts of things that we just haven't been getting to. I mean the whole issue of the BF district. South Chan. — Farmakes: Well if the problem when you open the MUSA obviously is that it's a supply and demand situation. We have a finite amount of people working for the city. We have a finite amount of time to review this stuff. We don't seem to have a, we seem to have an infinite — amount of applications for development so it seems to me that the crux of that issue is the amount of time it takes us to turn this stuff around. I should say you because you and your staff do it. — Batzli: Well but he's had turn over his staff recently and they've been given a lot of new things recently, in addition to the development. The Tree Board. Your dealy bob down in — the ravine to get the funds. I mean all this stuff. Swamp. Technical terms. Krauss: ...that throw you for a loop is all of a sudden I found myself running this organized — collection program. And I come back to my office after one of the meetings and I've got 26 irate phone calls on my voicemail. And those kinds of things kill your week real quickly. It's nothing new but it just makes it real tough. — Batzli: So there were 26 people that kind of navigated their way through the phone voicemail system. That was pretty good. I've got to get your direct dial number one of these days. Krauss: 117. Batzli: Oooh, on tape. Conrad: Are we going to get a schedule for the Highway 5? If we're going to push this Highway 5 thing through, shouldn't we have a schedule? Batzli: I think we should have a schedule. Excellent suggestion. I'm glad you brought it up. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Krauss: What we're working on right now is the 15th is a special meeting. Conrad: I'd like a written schedule. This is what we do. When we do it. And I'd like that to go to the City Council. Ledvina: Review chapters 2 thru 3 or 2 thru 5 or whatever. Batzli: I would just schedule them. I mean literally. People will show up if you give a schedule. If every time we sit there and make phone calls, playing phone tag trying to figure out who's going to come. If you just give us a schedule of every second week, third week, whatever it's going to be of at this time we're meeting, people will come. We'll make time and we'll come. Scott: Or every other Planning Commission meeting starts at 6:00. Krauss: What we're looking at doing is one or two special meetings plus the trip and then public hearing. Batzli: Pardon me? Krauss: One to two. Probably two. The 15th and maybe one special meeting and then our tour of the corridor. That should, I mean it's not earth shattering stuff. I mean half the commission sat on it. Batzli: We've gone over a lot of this before but we haven't gone over the particular plan that they've come up with. I mean some of us on the commission at least looked at this pretty heavily even during the comprehensive plan. Krauss: Right. Batzli: So you know, it won't be all new but clearly what they've done is new. How _ they've tied it all together. So it's going to take a while, I agree. But give us a schedule. I agree with that. Is there a motion to adjourn? Conrad moved, Ledvina seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:11 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director 65 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1993 Prepared by Nann Opheim _ 66