Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
09-21-94 Agenda and Packet
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994, 7:30 P.A CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER 7:30 P.M. NEW BUSINESS 1. Adopt Resolution Finding Modified Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 Consistent with the Plans for Development of the City of Chanhassen. 2. Review Signage for the Chanhassen Retail Site, Perkins and Taco Bell. OLD BUSINESS 3. **Item Deleted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot for Minnewashta Landings on property zoned RSF, and located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway, Kenneth Durr. 5. Amendment to the City Code relating to the control and prevention of dutch elm and other arboreal diseases within the city. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Planning Commission Terms. 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. Item Deleted 3. Preliminary plat of 9.7 acres into 50 lot single family twin homes and site plan review for 25 structures located on property zoned PUD and located west of Powers Boulevard,just south of Lake Susan Hills Drive, Powers Place, Jasper Development Corporation. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAL i M TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager_ `�� DATE: September 13, 1994 SUBJ: Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 and 2-2; Development District No. 2 Under State statutes. the Planning Commission must find the proposed modifications to be consistent with the future plans for the City of Chanhassen (see Attachment #1). The proposed amendment to the plan authorizes the sale of bonds for a community center and the frontage road construction. The Planning Commission, in September of 1993, approved each of these projects as being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the city. The only reason for this item is before you is that our bonding attorney requires the city to modify the plan by documenting that the projects are moving ahead and the city is selling bonds to pay for them. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission adopts Resolution No. 94-3 (Attachment #2) finding the modification to Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 and 2-2; and Development district No. 2 are consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan." ATTACHMENT 1. Modified plan. 2. Resolution No. 94-3 MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA September 26, 1994 Prepared By: HOLMES & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 RHB26639 CH130-11 ; / TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 1 A. Definitions. 1 B. Statutory Authority. 2 C. Statement of Objectives. 2 D. Statement of Public Purpose 2 E. Development District Program 3 F. Description of TIF District. 3 G. Development District Contracts. 3 H. Classification of TIF District. 3 I. Modification of TIF Plan. 3 J. Use of Tax Increment. 4 K. Excess Tax Increment. 4 L. Limitation of Increment. 4 M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. 5 N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. 5 O. Relocation 5 P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. 5 Q. TIF Account. 5 R. Estimate of Project Costs. 6 S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. 6 T. Original Tax Capacity. 6 U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. 7 V. Duration of the TIF District 7 W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. 7 X. Annual Financial Report. 7 Y. Assessment Agreements. 9 RR826639 CH130-11 MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 A. Definitions. For the purposes of the modified Tax Increment Financing Plan, the following terms shall have the meanings specified below, unless the context otherwise requires. "Administrative Expenses" means all expenditures of the City other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of real property in the District, relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District, or amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178 of the TIF Act. Adminis- trative expenses includes amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants and planning or economic development consultants. "City" means the City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation under the laws of the state of Minnesota; "City Council" or "Council" means the Chanhassen City Council; "City Development District Act" or "Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.124 through 469.134, as amended; "Comprehensive Plan" means the City's Comprehensive Plan, including the objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and water within the City; "County" means Carver County, Minnesota; "Development District" means Development District No. 2 which was established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the Act, and expanded on May 22, 1989, March 9, 1992, and October 11, 1993; "Development Program" or "Program" means the Development Program for Development District No. 2, which adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, and modified on May 22, 1989, March 9, 1992, and October 11, 1993; "Project Area" or "Project" means the property within modified Development District No. 2, as described in the modified Development Program; "State" means the State of Minnesota; "Tax Increment Bonds" means any general obligation or revenue tax increment bonds issued by the City to finance the public costs associated with Development District No. 2 as stated in the Program and in the Plans for all Tax Increment Financing Districts within Development District No. 2 or any obligations issued to refund the Tax Increment Bonds; REB26639 CH130-11 1 "Tax Increment Financing District" means Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 , established on October 10, 1988, pursuant to and in accordance with the TIF Act and which was expanded on May 22, 1989; "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act" means Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended; and "Tax Increment Financing Plan" or "Plan" means the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 2 which was adopted by the Council on October 10, 1988, and which was modified on May 22, 1989, October 22, 1990, March 9, 1992, and October 11, 1993 and which is hereby being modified again. B . Statutory Authority. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, the City has adopted the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 and has established TIF District No. 2-1 within Development District No. 2. The City is hereby modifying the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 to provide authorization for additional public improvements and costs and to authorize the sale of bonds to pay for the improvements. No additional land is being included in TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of this modification. C. Statement of Objectives. The City seeks to achieve the following objectives through the modified Plan for TIF District No. 2-1: 1. provide employment opportunities within the City; 2. improve the tax base of the City and the general economy of the City and state; 3. encourage development in an area of the City which has not been utilized to its full potential; 4. provide for roadway improvements; 5. provide for recreational facilities for residents of the community in coordination with other public entities in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of facilities; and 6. implement relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Statement of Public Purpose. In adopting the modified Plan, the City Council intends to make the following findings: 1. Anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of TIF is deemed necessary; RHB 26639 CH130-11 2 2. The modified TIF Plan will afford maximum opportunity, consis- tent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for development of the District by private enterprise; and 3. The modified TIF Plan conforms to general plans for development of the City as a whole. The conclusion summarized in paragraph 1 of this subdivision will be adopted by the City upon approval of this modification and is one which has been reached by the City Council following consultation with the planning commission and city staff. The conclusion has also been reached based upon the personal knowledge of members of the City Council regarding the property and development trends within the City. E. Development District Program. The City created Development District No. 2 at the same time as creation of TIF District No. 2-1. The Program was modified on May 22, 1989, March 9, 1992 and October 11, 1993. This modification of the Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 does not include a modified Development District Program . The modified Plan is consistent with the Program as last modified on October 11, 1993. F. Description of TIF District. A description and a map of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1 were included with the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. No additional property is being added to TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of this modification. G. Development District Contracts. The City will act in accordance with section 469.176, subd. 5 of the TIF Act and no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the land within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired by the City with bond proceeds without having concluded an agreement for development or redevelopment of the property. H. Classification of TIF District. TIF District No. 2-1 is an economic development TIF district, pursuant to section 469.174, subd. 12 of the TIF Act, for which certification was requested prior to May 1, 1990. No property is being added to the TIF District as a result of this modification. I. Modification of TIF Plan. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 is being modified at this time to authorize additional expenditures for road improvements. Another purpose for this modification is to authorize the City to sell bonds in the full amount of the authorized expenditures. The Plan for TIF District No. 2-1 may be modified again in the future by the City, provided that any reduction or enlargement of geographic area of the TIF District, increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to capitalize interest on the debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized, increase in the portion of the captured assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the City shall be approved upon the notice RHB26639 CH130-11 3 and after such discussion, public hearing and findings as required for approval of the original Plan. J. Use of Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 4 of the TIF Act, all revenues derived from TIF District No. 2-1 shall be used in accordance with this modified TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative costs of development activities within the Development District as identified in the modified Development Program and TIF Plan. K. Excess Tax Increment. Pursuant to section 469.176, subd. 2 of the TIF Act, in any year in which tax increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the modified TIF Plan, the City shall use the excess amount to do any of the following, in the order determined by the City: 1 . prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor; 3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of bonds; or 4. return the excess amount to the Carver county auditor who shall distribute the excess amount to the City, the county, and the school district in direct proportion to their respective tax capacity rates. In addition, the City may choose to modify the TIF Plan again in order to provide for other public improvements within the Development District. L. Limitation of Increment. 1 . No increment shall be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after three years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the taxable real property in the TIF District by the county auditor unless within the three year period (a) bonds have been issued pursuant to section 469.178 of the TIF Act, or (b) the City has acquired property within TIF District No. 2-1, or (c) the City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within TIF District No. 2-1. 2. If, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1, no demolition, rehabilitation, or renovation of property or other site preparation, including improvement of a street or right-of-way adjacent to a parcel but not installation of underground utility service, including sewer or water systems, have been commenced on a parcel located within TIF District No. 2-1 by the City, or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the TIF Plan, no additional increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from RHB26639 CH130-11 4 the original tax capacity of the TIF District. If these activities subsequently commence, the City shall so certify to the county auditor, and the tax capacity of the property as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue may be added to the TIF District. The City shall submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in TIF District No. 2-1. The evidence shall be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcels were certified as included within TIF District No. 2-1. 3. No tax increment shall in any event be paid to the City from TIF District No. 2-1 after eight years from the date of receipt by the City of the first increment or 10 years from the date of approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. M. Limitation on Administrative Expenses. Pursuant to section 469.176, Subd. 3 of the TIF Act, Administrative Expenses are limited to 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures. Each time the City increases the budget of TIF District No. 2-1, the amount of tax increment money allocated to Administrative Expenses may be increased as long as the total of Administrative Expenses does not exceed 10 percent of the total budget of the TIF District. N. Limitation on Boundary Changes. The geographic area of TIF District No. 2-1 may be reduced, but cannot be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original tax capacity by the Carver county auditor. This modification does not include an expansion of the boundaries of TIF District No. 2-1. 0. Relocation. Although no relocation is anticipated, the City accepts as binding its obligations under state law for relocation and will administer relocation services for families, individuals and businesses displaced by public action. P. Parcels to be Acquired Within the TIF District. It is not anticipated that any property within TIF District No. 2-1 will be acquired in connection with the development proposals outlined in this modified TIF Plan. Funds will be used to acquire property for two parks and for community recreational facilities to be constructed in connection with a new school site. The parks and recreational facilities will be located within Development District No. 2 but outside TIF District No. 2-1. Q. TIF Account. The tax increment received with respect to TIF District No. 2-1 shall be segregated by the City in a special account on its official books and records and held by a trustee for the benefit of holders of bonds issued to finance development activities. RBB26639 CB130-11 5 R. Estimate of Project Costs. The estimated budgeted amounts for the original TIF District were included in the Plan adopted on October 10, 1988. Additional expenditures were authorized by the TIF Plan modification approved on May 22, 1989, October 22, 1990 and March 9, 1992 and October 11, 1993. The following are estimates of additional costs to be incurred as a result of this fifth modification: Roads and related public improvements 2,000,000 Administration expenses 20,000 TOTAL $ 2,020,000 The City has also initiated a special assessment reduction program for properties throughout the TIF District. Under the program, benefitted properties are eligible for reductions in assessments if there has been an increase in the assessed value of the properties due to new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of less than $30,000 per acre qualify for a reduction equal to seven percent of the value added to the property through new construction. Properties assessed at a rate of $30,000 per acre or more qualify for a reduction equal to 12 percent of the added value. The amount of the reduction for which a property owner is eligible is equal to the tax increment from the parcel (as determined by the auditor and adjusted for fiscal disparities contributions) for a three year period following construction and commencing with the year in which the City receives the first full year's increment, or such other three year period as may be agreed upon by the City and owner. However, the maximum reduction may not exceed the total special assessments levied and outstanding against the parcel for qualifying public improvement projects. Owners wishing to participate must enter into a special assessment reduction agreement with the City. S. Estimate of Bonded Indebtedness. The City has previously sold bonds to pay for the improvements to Audubon Road and for land acquisition for recreational facilities. The City intends to sell additional tax increment bonds in an amount not to exceed $5,300,000 in 1994 and 1995 to pay for the improvements authorized by this and previous modifications. T. Original Tax Capacity. Pursuant to section 469.177, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, each year the Carver county auditor will measure the increase or decrease in the total tax capacity of the property. Any year in which there is an increase in total tax capacity of property within the TIF District, an increment will be payable to the City. Any year in which the total tax capacity is below the original tax capacity of all property within TIF District No. 2-1, no increment will be payable to the City. 1110326639 CH130-11 6 Each year after the certification of the original tax capacity, the county auditor will increase or decrease the original tax capacity of property within TIF District No. 2-1 as a result of: 1 . change in the tax exempt status of the property; 2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the TIF District; 3. reduction of valuation by means of a court-ordered abatement, stipulation agreement, voluntary abatement made by the assessor or auditor or by order of the Minnesota commissioner of revenue; or 4. any change in tax classification under Minnesota Statutes, section 273.13 of property after it has been added to the TIF District. In addition, each year the auditor shall add to the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1 an amount equal to the original tax capacity for the preceding year multiplied by the average percentage increase in tax capacity of all property within the TIF District during the preceding five years. U. Estimate of Captured Tax Capacity. The City's estimate of captured tax capacity within TIF District No. 2-1 was contained in the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this fifth modification does not involve the addition of property to the TIF District, the City has not revised its estimate of captured tax capacity. V. Duration of the TIF District. In accordance with section 469.176, subd. 1 of the TIF Act, the City may continue to receive TIF payments until eight years from the date of the receipt of the first increment or 10 years from the date of the approval of the original TIF Plan, whichever occurs first. W. Estimates of Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdiction. The City included its estimate of the impact of TIF District No. 2-1 in the original Plan adopted on October 10, 1988, and the modified Plan adopted on May 22, 1989. Since this fifth modification does not involve adding any property to TIF District No. 2-1, the City has not changed its estimate of the fiscal impact of TIF District No. 2-1 on other taxing jurisdictions. X. Annual Financial Report. Pursuant to section 469.175, subd. 6 of the TIF Act, the City must file an annual financial report regarding TIF District No. 2-1. The report shall be filed by July 1 of each year with the school board, the county board and the state auditor. The report to be filed by the City shall include the following information: 1. the original tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1; RHB26639 CH130-11 7 2. the captured tax capacity of TIF District No. 2-1, including the amount of any captured tax capacity shared with other taxing districts; 3. the outstanding principal amount of bonds issued or other loans incurred to finance project costs in TIF District No. 2-1; 4. for the reporting period and for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1, the amount budgeted under the TIF Plan and the actual amount expended for the following categories: a. acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase; b. site improvement or preparation costs; c. installation of public utilities or other public improvements; d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City; 5. for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the City and the price paid by the developer; and 6. the amount of tax exempt obligations, other than those reported under clause (3) , which were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in TIF District No. 2-1. In addition, the City must report annually by March 1 to the Minnesota commissioner of revenue the following amounts for the entire City: 1. the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the end of the previous calendar year; and 2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payment that are due for the current calendar year on (i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds, and (ii) other tax increment financing bonds. The City must annually report to the commissioner of revenue the following amounts for TIF District No. 2-1 : 1. the type of district, whether economic development, redevelopment, housing, soils condition, mined underground space, or hazardous substance site; 2. the date on which the district is required to be decertified; 3. the captured net tax capacity of the district, by property class as specified by the commissioner of revenue, for taxes payable in the current calendar year; RHB26639 CH130-11 8 4. the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year; 5. whether the Plan or other governing document permits increment revenues to be expended (i) to pay bonds, the proceeds of which were or may be expended on activities located outside of the district, (ii) for deposit into a common fund from which money may be expended on activities located outside of the district, or (iii) to otherwise finance activities located outside of the tax increment district; and 6. any additional information that the commissioner of revenue may require. Y. Assessment Agreements. Pursuant to section 469.177, subdivision 8 of the TIF Act, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement pursuant to section 469.176, subdivision 5 of the TIF Act, execute an agreement in recordable form with the developer which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of TIF District No. 2-1 . The agreement shall be presented to the Carver county assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and so long as the minimum market value contained in the agreement appears in the judgment of the assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement. RHB26639 CH130-11 9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION Date Resolution No. Motion By Seconded by RESOLUTION FINDING MODIFIED PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chanhassen ("City") has authorized preparation of modified plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Plan has been submitted to the planning commission to review its consistency with the plans for development of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, the planning commission has made a thorough review of the Plan and has compared it with the plans for development of the City as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the planning commission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the modified Plan for TIF District Nos. 2-1 is found to be consistent with the plans for development of the City of Chanhassen as a whole. 2. It is recommended that the city council of the City of Chanhassen hold the public hearing required by law and approve the modified Plan. Passed this 21st day of September, 1994, by the planning commission of the city of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary CH301 ��. `r CH130-11 ,!r CITY OF CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Planner II DATE: September 14, 1994 SUBJ: Sign Package Review - Chanhassen Retail Center (Perkins, Taco Bell) BACKGROUND As a condition of approval for Site Plan 94-6 for the Perkins and Taco Bell site plan, the applicant was to bring a sign package to the Planning Commission for review. Condition 24 states, "The sign package must come back to the Planning Commission for approval." The applicant shall be required to meet the signage requirements for the PUD for Target. The applicant is hereby complying with the condition. The PUD requirements for signage are as follows: g. Signage One freestanding pole sign be permitted for Target and one for the other buildings in Outlot B. All buildings in Outlot B should be limited to monument signs. 1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. 2. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. 3. All signs require a separate permit. 4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, Planning Commission September 14, 1994 Chanhassen Retail Center, Signage Page 2 they shall not be solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. 5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. FINDING: The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be revised to comply with this condition. In addition, one pylon sign is permitted for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. ANALYSIS Staff believes that the applicant has met the requirements of the PUD. For consistency throughout the development, all the signage shall have individual dimensioned letters. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the signage package as presented by the applicant with the conditions specified as part of the PUD." ATTACHMENT 1. Chanhassen Retail Center Site Plan 2. Chanhassen Outlots Retail Development Pylon and Monument Signs .• • . < Z r• .: : • ! I--- 1 of .1 0 _ . ,.., • 0 al!II H11.11,11.Alli / :viij II ill!41 1•1 ii hit libilldiffiii. 1- i c.) , Cf) II hil igiii Will D . LU . I- r ' z CI It:. R.,_;:::::, x....., 0 ...... id Lij Zgg bi° 41 I Z Z = qC I. LI--i Z i & 2i- --- 1•• 1 k LJ Z .—..,—, I b 0 :0 o la_ it U j dr--- ' •T h , . 0 a • : < C.n I inI I r . •-••• ,..,...._ ; V jiI ,...r. i . i . , . . 1 ..1 ---4.... .0_ , +-11->--1----:, ,.. ' I' ''- ...1 2; , ii 5. /1 . , : ; P 9 i • Z : F---- _......r- . LU -r- ...1 .-Z11 •'. . 2 I i • - . / ./ •/-S. / N .i. . 0 C.) / /.. I 4 / / e • ... , 1 , ; I (...., . ........., ...... • - --...:, ---- : .. ,. . I, I • • . ;"NY? t., I ' i L ti• f ci : -•., a id- hi , ...,...,,,.., "... 1. 1 i ' i ••• i /e....... .',....t./4,...... :./ . -.... ••••1. ' T77Triti'S. • ..' I/".•'7"i . ..-'''\ •\`.... s'•••• -....... ID a , \ 1. 7 , ,,,, ' i Li. _.--I I t '',..,. t qi i P :?.. 4.4 _;r.) .. ,...": , --,, 11, . . - t • i i --- 7-LI' P ., / LIC "-.W- I It ..,. .•:;.-...".1.. I, b:t. I .,- ' ,... r__-_ .. . , : 0 / / glirml I el : k...4........1...ii__ ....: _. 1 1..1....__,!.: It." ?., ir: : i : •;.......)-. i .17, t.1—..... Li -/ .... , u.;. .4.' .. / / / . ,. i , ' i 1 I ---- ': . , i 14. . 1 : . ..,. ; F '%. • : I i-- ii i • f--0-• ' I i !;: •52Ac e. oil • • . r •••• 19 i I . =7 I-LI / •.- 1 • i - , t R .. ..-..-: , . . ' -----.; ; i 1 I % 4. I1 it,•.-- 1 , In , . I -...'--";•. : 1 ill t. : • E- 1 _ • 1 j t.. i , 0' / • 1 . • i I I 1 II • j 1 ; 1 !-- •-• ..... — . ,-)/ • : : i ..., . 1 i.- 1 .••- i j l'.. -• I i.7._ , , . , ,„s/ / • • i I . .: ,I I / ! .• I 1 Ljj jail , 1 .E.C.•%.1.•...wootC) 42. i • • i '• Li. .... r---—-- / v... .1 1 it / 45 I I i 1 ,, ..,-,-,,,il ,:. . _ ___L____________., ! .1. , • 1 ---0------>--i-4----4!- -----.,-.t.4,r--Z: 1.-al, b i:, / `I / ::• . --7-= ==. . . --,.--------4----- • - 02 1l ki /• C4 . ; I. 4 --....... •• I 1 : / / ........mi . 4 - - / 1 ,' . f ' \ ", ‘. ;: '.. • ., I. ! — • 1 Li'fir""--- -7.;. -..."'" L:efr,11,?7,k) .,,,::_....,... . • 1.•• • '''.• 8 c • . / "---,,. 1.4 .,, 8 -- tE C) 7 _r,.... -&-.741,1,_, '---:..:... •i '• --., - ----- •i - • : .'',.'7'100,1 -....••••' ,... • i • .. „ I +' ....., cd....._ • qiiv•sw ,k,..L.,---,, ti + /1.2 . :i'A. . -3 _ Ig it & , ; -6 sw 1-...w&i.I.•ii. - -;',111.-.= -31f. I;-• -- w .. .. _ - - • i . g&8 8 L'17'6'.7, : *.,J,Ii,- ...'-...17-,•,-le A_..,, _: 4 ..: 0 t.-, r, I -...—.."I.. I •7•;-:::t17-7";',•'4.:i...-M"j leiS' .-er::•• I X g i 1 g gi ill I ttz g lit'l g , i zel 1 rag § r pgr, A 1 1 I I -... A11110al* 2 g . ,7 • • • ., ; 45: , w a2w .1 .1' BM 1 p ikeVS 1-._,..-e•in w.icw:,:i.;.i ft,°) lit•I• ell * 2 2 z ig t a ssSS'S ug,..s29:6 E --w- w - iillatit.t.: - 1 . !.., isi •1 in in *a t' 7,7 I 1 li II . . 1 - ----- - - - --- -------- - - - . - . • a. V l N IN • , 1 t le 0 t • 0 • r , 11 I g 1 g :::-. Z.4,1iLl 1 4 - , Clr --_----= I I -8 c 11 /t I � r I. i11 ; 1 1! II i I s � [ _ . � II rr I�.' � � Ii1"r �te _77=7� - r / ✓ uiFI : / _L111 ^ -. l"Ihn -__- fl. .r S i , r. Y— . =._Ci C $ ' '. �6 a II. - d1 _._ ___ • , 1 , _ ._1 1 II� _�. - r - rI' r � . E l' !Y tI. _.- f - � 1110 r ' ti E. !Iliaili ii'....----: . M. ;:lia i c, ,): a I ` _--11 I 77:17 1 .1.1 MOM11.' S ' illi -,; I - I FFF k nn 1�n - c o at k a ppw 4 s •• �P♦7 ♦ • ♦ • qvif .S it `-' ' l -. _ 4��-+�� I --L�__-Iam,I ndHlltidi ii' M 111111141 I= 1/7 222 i I 1; 'hi ---------- _.'I' ,`\\ —aJ�---�' ; �4 Io1 "— i J am lilt I r i �� . 1 1 P a 1 c s AE iiI l- • R i =2 it a 1 m 7.ci o 41a-±' HAND KI'CHEN-E.I.F.S. EXT-W000 JOIST 43 c 1 •Trt .rss." (qa 1 t?—0.1,, I Y ' s MOMS 1012I1J0 Ale 1•5341/A5 Pis 5 4 !tf `� DtM•M�l WeQ�A . i f rn !! i ' I{ 11 Ili tI! !jI1flU 1I 2 f '; i}l'. i ,1 ' • I 2 6!1::!1 e a I Z 1 SII`P 11ti VI i I ' 1 1:%11-i I • m ] I r E( Ili' ] rn flI ' I� i 11 IS mI 1 1 Ti il I, 1/] ., m IF 1 11 iji ' 11 �r ` 0 0 ® I o II } > a .�I11 111\ 0II 5 n . 1 / 0 l IT T, (f o,° O T ::_:..r i No, 1 I -r„J. .. . , :3 1 "'Ia:1:I I Ohl,t /,r, ir $.13 iiii i'rn =)A it L,i° u\ • it I ] IIVJ 71 .plPg y. I__ rr - rI i'I'a il- /A li 1174 ) 0 [[ 4 1 c i I ° Z .w 1 i� c:D I. t0 i ci p. IAI1t _:':i..►. ' TI 41 :i:i.:!:: T r� /� -. .'\� Ci in • u ► 1+'\ Ir – 1 \ ilt ' l} Q_ .1-4 ur 1 .ki I i ; ,...t2 " : . , I o i1 11tI:lRi i II 1y; i ' 'I I1te1 fVI _ , r • 3i I NI" e1 li F.4j. II W N H .. 1 H 14 w .Vr S n.- 4 { ; . r SSe-' ?' '° CO BELL tT _ 5 ~ t7 t ; r °}1 � L WEST 78TH sr. III � `��'� 1 • 1 CHANHASS:N• MINNESOTA Ira= <....a .Di { t I €_ , .°: ,� ...... TACO t Q "" qtr EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS �.. BELL 11 I '°�`� 7-* 4, 4, i4, ° 4„ �/. M CNFz1r GAP /— • Jam'/ilti/!!•.)r : W T TE A �JI ' FiN►4HE7 META, -,.- 1 TTCOIE 6ic,w ,E F , i .:� METAi, REVEAL. 'n 41 r _.._ ` -_ ^' RoC.K S�-E Gam, I -...:'MS .-. -I'f. .?mtssem SCALE. a• Ryan Companies a,�, - r-0• CHANHASSEN OUTLOTS Booddallde.g Laatdeag Relapg$©ecobfsdrme ;QST' 1994 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT B 1 Arenas South DARYL PROPOSED PYLON 00w.tia MX 55402 (6L 836-1200 1 I''-4- MA'RY cAP 4 10r-o" Ve•4 4'' 4 14Z II. ..' /.l /ins." i _ m`7— `-=-_=—_ = _-tea?--. --- .-=" 5 NN to�s R \ RxKF�oLe=C.M.U. , Ryan Companies ic,re, CHANHASSEN OUTLOTS BoadQd1 g Leafing IIBeleegdo%cl pa 2 SEPT. t994 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT B. 1 700 International center 900 Second w, s DARYL PERKINS Minneapolis. 14N. 55+02 4612) 336-1200C044.Fa 1 MONUMENT 1 • III-422 N � „ h 4 �`4, 10 0 4,N'�4 i .— r ift, -�, cit , F 1? Kur SIAM' 5' -� L L , .: t 'S+GN°l. N ti X Id-O.' Roc.K ,E,G„I'ott,i• SCALE Ryan Companies 0: CHANHASSEN OUTLOTS zuoiLiing Laseeing Relaftioeooilaipe 2 EPT. 1994 RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 700 International Center 900 Second Avenue Scoria DARYL TACO BELL B 1 Minneapolis P.,. 55402 6512) 356-1200 °?A'`":' MONUMENT C I TY 0 F PC DATE: Sept. 21, 1994 ""f \ 110,. , 1 C HA�tHASSEN CC DATE: Oct. 10, 1994 I Y it �..� CASE #: 94-5 CUP By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit Request for a Recreational Beachlot F- Z LOCATION: North end of Lake Minnewashta near the intersection of Minnewashta Q Parkway and future Landings Drive, Outlot "A" Minnewashta Landings V J APPLICANT: Kenneth Dun 4830 Westgate Road a.. Minnetonka, MN 55343 PRESENT ZONING: RSF/RD, Residential Single Family & Recreational Development ACREAGE: Approximately 40,500 square feet DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING Q AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 7 and RSF S - PUD-R, Minnewashta Creek d E - RD, Recreational Development - Lake Minnewashta Q W - RSF, Fire Station & PUD-R, Minnewashta Creek W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is a riparian lot to Lake Minnewashta. There are 1 a number of mature trees on the site. A pond has been constructed on this lot as part of Minnewashta Landings Subdivision. 20(1(1 I ANT) IIRF. PIAN I nw IDPncity Recirdential ' It'\°:P. 1111111112 '3 AY 33tl1M1!volumitimuimw In 1 e\A •... laws, on i,,,,solinn '`' 111111110 arideN33a0, MICIE '! ;. \ç.$% ii oN\:' 4.1 o**lat..... -,• ;.. ,.. 1:10 111111111M j 1 ;v o °A 3z - �b LJ H o g. . " , ��'_ Z Vi I s ,� a k, r p,14.1 11J c 0 �; s J .g Jy u \ *-2 eV IL •Q t `•`• . W f l $ it -A - + d _ `' 2 s -- \t pN o z.. • tit • p \j . :1 . sat J \ .may•:‘'..co \ - / \Ao !� _ ,Ij : yr '4 ei fro . t----_____ -- .:: c r. 4, or : Att a �y t. A w "Prilirl 1^ ,\ _ Icc. f YNOS-WO 2•, 1. 444...:10‘ ON'413'....ss • II i g � . Liilk ..: 44A, I 4... .\11*-= iiittrimr.,* Y t 0~ 1 :v i \Vit - 0111 VW 2 1 a a � +. HH *Iv 4 _ ., . .. ii li w ��� oa i I I �~ 'I -- $.3 1,A09 oo a - -- V. /CI Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Kenneth Durr, the applicant, is proposing to develop a recreational beachlot as part of Minnewashta Landings Subdivision. The beachlot will be located on Outlot "A" near the entrance of the subdivision. Access to the site will be via Landings Drive. The beachlot is approximately 40,500 square feet in area and has 200' of lake frontage. A plot plan has been submitted showing various improvements to be constructed on the lot. The applicant has indicated that all existing mature trees will be preserved and additional suitable trees and plantings will be added in at least the number shown on the plot plan. In addition, the existing vegetation will be left along the westerly side of the site to provide additional screening from the property to the west. The following improvements are proposed for the site: 1) A pond has been constructed on this lot for the treatment of storm water associated with the subdivision. A circulation fountain will be constructed towards the center of this pond. 2) The site will be sodded and an irrigation system installed. 3) A gazebo is proposed near the center of the lot to provide shelter for residents using the beachlot. The gazebo would be of high quality cabinetry grade cedar and would be 16' in diameter. (Section 20-263(2) of the city code prohibits structures and shelters on recreational beachlots.) 4) The applicant is requesting approval for the placement of a portable-chemical toilet on the site. The facility will be screened from view by fence screening and plantings, and will be located at least 75' from the OHWM. A service contract will be provided for this facility. 5) One dock is proposed on the lot and will be a maximum of 6' wide and of a length which is sufficient to reach water depth of 4' and have a "T" or "L" attachment not exceeding 25'. (A maximum of 3 boats are allowed to be docked overnight.) A maximum of 4 canoe racks with each rack holding no more than 6 canoes is planned. 6) A path constructed of brick, concrete or blacktop will be constructed to provide access to the various improvements. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use meets the requirements and standards listed in the ordinance. The proposed beachlot preserves the natural vegetation as well as Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 3 provides additional landscaping to buffer the site from surrounding residences. The beachlot will serve as an attractive entrance to Minnewashta Landings. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit request with the conditions listed in the staff report. BACKGROUND On June 13, 1994, the City Council approved the final plat for Minnewashta Landings (#94-1 Sub) to subdivide 19.7 acres into 27 single family lots and 2 outlots. Outlot "A" was proposed for a beachlot at the time the preliminary plat was being reviewed. No action was taken on the beachlot at that time as a conditional use permit application had not yet been submitted. Thus, the applicant is now requesting a recreational beachlot to serve the residents of the subdivision. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the compatibility of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The beachlot will be screened from adjacent properties by existing and proposed vegetation as well as the topography of the lot, which slopes down from the road towards the lake. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare, if the necessary conditions are attached to the permit. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed beachlot meets the general issuance standards listed in Sec. 20-232 and the requirements for recreational beachlots (Sec. 20.263). The use is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The improvements associated with the beachlot take into account the Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 4 natural features of the site, and will be constructed in a manner that is compatible in appearance with the general vicinity. The applicant has submitted information showing service procedures for the toilet facility. The maintenance and use of the chemical toilet will have to meet the requirements of Sec. 20-263(16). 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: There are several other beachlots on Lake Minnewashta. The design of the beachlot is such that it will not negatively impact neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: Continuing maintenance of the site will be provided by the Minnewashta Landings Homeowners Association. The Association will be responsible for refuse disposal and the annual removal of the toilet facility. The plot plan shows a trail off of future Landings Drive, which provides access to the toilet facility and the shoreline. This trail shall be constructed of sufficient size and width to allow for the annual removal and weekly maintenance of the toilet facility. Thought should also be given to providing access to the shoreline for safety equipment and vehicles. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: This type of use does not require excessive public facilities and services, and should not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the city. 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Finding: The applicant has indicated that the Homeowners Association with provide continuing maintenance of the site. The proposed use will not Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 5 be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash than would be the operation of any permitted use in the RSF zoned district, if the appropriate conditions are attached to the permit.. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: Members of the association all live within close proximity of the beachlot. Launching of boats would take place at the regional park. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: A recreational beachlot, with several small structures, should not impair solar access to surrounding properties. Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: Suitable trees and plantings will be added in at least the number shown on the plot plan. Significant mature trees already exist on the lot and will be preserved and incorporated into the landscaping plan. The toilet facility will be adequately screened from view. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The beachlot should be an asset to the neighbors by providing recreational opportunity as well as protected open space. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use meets the standards provided in the ordinance. Staff finds that the use meets the ordinance provision, but the proposed gazebo is an accessory structure which is prohibited by city code. Staff is recommending approval of the beachlot without the gazebo. Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 6 RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT CUP COMPLIANCE TABLE Association Compliance P.C. Item Request Standard With Standard Recommended Number of 16 80% / 1000' rule Yes Homes Size, Sq. Ft. 40,500 30,000 s.f. 1st Dock Yes 20,000 s.f. each add'! dock Shoreline 200 200 !.f. per dock Yes Vehicle No Prohibited Yes Access Off-Street No Prohibited Yes Pkg. Boat Launch No Prohibited Yes Buildings Yes Prohibited No (Gazebo) Seasonal 1 1 permitted Yes Dock Dock Length Reach 50' or 4' depth 4' depth whichever is greater Yes Dock Width max 6' max 6' Yes Cross Bar max 25' max 25' Yes Length Canoe Racks 4 3 or 1 slip per lot Yes Sail Boats none maximum (3) Yes Moored Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 7 Association Compliance P.C. Item Request Standard With Standard Recommended Boats at none max. (3) motorized Yes Dock or non-motorized Swimming none permitted Yes Beach Marker none permitted Yes Buoys Swimming none permitted Yes Raft Beachlot none permitted Yes Buffering Chemical one (1) must meet req. Yes Toilet of Sec. 20-263(16) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #94-5 to allow a recreational beachlot on Outlot A in Minnewashta Landings Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. All provisions of Section 20-263 pertaining to recreational beachlots shall be adhered to. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. the dock must be within the dock setback zoned. The dock shall have a maximum of three (3) boats docked overnight with a maximum of 18 slips for canoes. 3. The applicant shall apply for a permit from the city on an annual basis prior to installation of the portable chemical toilet. The portable chemical toilet shall only be Minnewashta Landings CUP for Recreational Beachlot September 21, 1994 Page 8 permitted from Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the beachlot during the rest of the year. The width of the trail and the location of landscape plantings shall be designed to allow for the annual removal of the toilet facility. 5. No gazebo or shelters shall be allowed on the beachlot." ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated August 19,1994. 2. Application. 3. Service contract for portable toilet. 4. Dock setback zone. 5. Public hearing and list of property owners notified. 6. Site plan dated August 22, 1994. , living environs ENNETH DURR ASSOCIATES • 4830 WESTGATE ROAD • MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 • TELEPHONE (612(935-7789 August 19 , 1994 Ms . Kate Aanenson - City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P . O . Box #147 Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 Subject : MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT Dear Ms . Aanenson : This letter is written to provide the City staff , Planning Commission members , and City Council members with background information , a description of the proposed Beach Lot and an understanding of my goals and objectives . At the time of planning MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS , the intent was to establish an area which could become a Recreational Beach Lot for the enjoyment of the residents of the subdivision . Outlot A with lake frontage of 200 ' and containing over 30 , 000 square feet was platted to meet this need . In the developement and use of this proposed Beach Lot , care will taken to conform- to the City Ordinances Sec . 20-263. The work will be supervised by the Landscape Architect and paid for by myself. Continuing maintenance will be provided by the Home- owners Association . Suitable trees and plantings will be added in at least the number shown on the plot plan . The trees will be larger than City requirements and of approved species . Significant mature trees already exist on this Beachlot ; 1 50" Cottonwood 1 28" Oak 1 14" Poplar 1 15" Poplar 1 22" Walnut 1 6" Cottonwood 1 8" Poplar In addition there is native vegation along the westerly side of the site. Many specimen plantings will also be added as we see things developing . signers and builders of custom Memory Homes The pond is part of the subdivision requirement and will have a circulating fountain . Paths of brick, concrete or blacktop will wind through the sodded areas which will be irrigated. Security lighting will. be installed and a flag pole is proposed. The dock will be a maximum of 6 ' wide and of a lenght to reach water depth of four (4) feet and have a "T" or "L" not exceeding 25 ' . A maximum of 4 canoe racks with each rack holding no more than 6 canoes is planned . The Gezebo will be of high quality cabinetry grade cedar and be about 16 ' in diameter of octagonal shape. Located to have a view of the pond and the lake. It will shelter residents from the sun or rain when using the Beach Lot or when awaiting arrival of neighbors by boat . A chemical toilet facility will be tucked into the hillside with wooden fence screening and plantings surrounding it so as not to be visible from neighbors , street , lake or those using the Beach Lot . A service contract will be provided for this facility. Both the Gazebo and Toilet will be located more than 75 ' from the lakeshore . The improvements to the Beach Lot will be done in an attractive and inviting manner, enhancing the "arrival" experience for the residents as they enter MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS . It will not only provide a pleasant environ for the residents enjoyment , but will be equally attractive to those boating on the lake. Thank you for your consideration . I hope all involved in the review and approvals are pleased and supportive . Sincerely-, Kenneth Durr CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: Kenneth Durr OWNER: Kenneth Durr ADDRESS: 4830 Westgate Road ADDRESS: Minnetonka , MN 55345 TELEPHONE (Day time) 935-7789 TELEPHONE: 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2 X X Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Pian Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8'h" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT LOCATION Landings Drive East of Minnewashta Parkway LEGAL DESCRIPTION Outlot A , Minnewashta Landings PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Outlot REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Recreational Beach Lot REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To provide the residents of Minnewashta Landings a neighborhood facility at lakeshore . This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the ori I document retumed to City Hall Records. Signature o Applicant Date Signature o Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. Inc • POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL • February 5 , 1992 BIFFS, Inc. - Service Procedures SERVICE PROCEDURES Each time a portable restroom is serviced the following • procedures will be performed: 1 . All waste will be pumped from the tank and rocks, ice and other debris removed. 2 . All surfaces will be scrubbed with the aYpropriate brushes and chemical solution from chest level down. Z . The floor will be cleaned of mud, ice and other debris and then scrubbed. 4 . The urinal will be scrubbed inside and out including periodic d_-sealing as needed. ' - . Graffiti will be removed as much as possible weekly. 6 . Fresh water and chemical solution will he added tank: Light - medium use units : 5-6 -P 1 1 x nc Heavy use units: 7-] 0 gall ons Special Events: 7-1G gallons 7 . Deodorizing Spray will be used as needed. 8 . Toilet tissue will be replaced or replenished. 9 . Screens, urinal hose and seat will - be checked. 10 . Surfaces will .be towel dried. . 11 . Ledges above screens and door will be wiped off . 12 . Needed repairs will be done or if necessary scheduled for replacement or repair in the shop. 13 . Prcper .and level placement will be confirmed. 14 . Driver will sign and • date the service log sticker :n each unit. 15 . If a unit is blocked cr in some way- inaccessible, a No-Pump Service Procedure will be performed. A No- Pump procedure includes all of the above except the pumping. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 184 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 AND CHAPTER 6 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING DOCK SETBACKS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-1 and Section 6-1 of the Chanhassen City Code are amended by amending the definition of "dock setback zone" to read as follows: DOCK SETBACK ZONE: Dock setback zone means the area inside and running parallel to and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake. "Extended lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines 100 feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water mark. If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap, then the common extended lot line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap. Exemption from dock setback: A wetland alteration permit issued by the city stipulating the location of a dock. Section 2. Section 6-22 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding subparagraph (c) to read as follows: (c) On or before June 1, 1993, all docks not already conforming to dock setback requirements must come into compliance with dock setback requirements. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 26th day of April, 1993. ATTEST: Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 6, 1993.) I \ ' . .<\ \ . (,), . .,Q ; isi /\:•/\\ Alliir _ N/ , * .4,-,v--- t: ,. _ ‘A‘ 4_,-, . ?i 1 ___ _ _____ / ITI� -r- LI\ N s, ‘ 7" > i», _ �� 1 7 b.)a I �_ C../ -^..NA"-- - -______/ 7- 1 e. of' _____.--- 41//e. t v".4.74.1 •...... . j ..."'.".7 . s� .- _ , e.....:\ 0 Al7GNrs ~PK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ¶ = I 111 b I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING : ! '" Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 21, 1994 p " � - " r •:-_ / sir 7:30 P.M. AW411A _ 11"41111 City Hall Council Chambers , _ Suby,c4 690 Coulter Drive ',�`�rt-- AIN. i-€ Project: Conditional Use Permit for / P4. 1 a Recreational Beachlot at 0 ` '' "' E Minnewashta Landingsr i N N E WA SNTA Developer: Kenneth Dun °— K < it Y V Location: SE Corner of Hwy. 7 and w�A,K t .� Minnewashta Parkway f ! Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot to be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway, Minnewashta Landings. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact John at 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on September 8, 1994. -11\a1P . Csi Dana & Nancy Johnson Timothy & Mary T. Colleran Charles & Vicki Anding 50 Pleasant Lane W. 6560 Minnewashta Pkwy 6601 Minnewashta Pkwy. Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Mary Allenburg Minnewashta Creek Homeowners Terrance, Jr. & Sandra Thompson 6621 Minnewashta Pkwy. c/o Nancy Narr 3820 Linden Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 3950 Linden Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Louis & Carol Vaneps Thomas Krueger Vincent & Janice Feuerstein 3840 Linden Circle 3860 Linden Circle 3880 Linden Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 David & Julie Ann Terpstra James & Luann Stewart Gene & Nancy Christensen 6582 Joshua Circle 6551 Kirkwood Circle 6561 Kirkwood Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Frank & Theresa Gustafson Stephen & Santina Caster Blake Bogema 6571 Kirkwood Circle 3861 Linden Circle 3841 Linden Circle Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Dean & Jacqueline Simpson Vic & D. Moravec Craig C. Miller 7185 Hazeltine Blvd. 14310 40th Ave. N. 6450 Minnewashta Pkwy. Excelsior, MN 55331 Plymouth, MN 55446 Excelsior, MN 55331 Lester & Cynthia Floyd Kenneth Durr 6570 Kirkwood Circle 4830 Westgate Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55345 FLOYD LARSEN JULIE STRODTMAN TOM RUHLAND 4001 GLENDALE DR 4020 GLENDALE DRIVE 6211 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PATRICIA L MCINERNY CHRISTOPHER BAKER SANDRA KADISAK 6311 GREENBRIAR 6340 GREENBRIAR 6400 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID PETERJOHN GARY KIRT ED PETERSON 3921 HAWTHORNE CIR 28060 BOULDER BRIDGE 3632 HICKORY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TIMOTHY RAIDT GARY R VOIGHT MR. TROY PRINSEN 3715 HICKORY 4010 GLENDALE DR #112 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 8570 MAGNOLIA TRAIL EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 MARVIN ONKEN HARLAN WATERHOUSE OLIVE G SCHMIERER 6221 GREENBRIAR 6321 GREENBRIAR 6341 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KATHY KOCINA EDWARD V. OATHOUT SAMUEL POTTS 6301 GREENBRIAR 3940 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE 3628 HICKORY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GREG BOHRER MARVIN YORK PATRICK FAUTH 3706 HICKORY 3716 HICKORY 4011 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LEE ANDERSON JAMES THOMPSON C L JOHNSON 6651 MINNEWASHTA PKY 951 PENAMINT COURT 6331 GREENBRIAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 5331 STEVE EMMINGS EDWARD MONSER LEO JANUS/M.MATTHEWS 6350 GREENBRIAR 3920 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE 3980 HAWTHORNE CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JAMES J MOORE ALFRED SMITH STATE OF MINNESOTA 3630 HICKORY 3714 HICKORY DNR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD ST. PAUL, MN 55101 STEPHEN VONBEVERN JAMES LIPE GORDON FREEBURG PO BOX 874 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE 3891 LONE CEDAR LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 JOHN FERM TERRANCE JOHNSON TIMOTHY S. ENGMARK 3895 LONE CEDAR LANE 3898 LONE CEDAR LANE 2821 NORTH MANOR CHASKA, MN 55318 •CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MR. PHILLIP TOUIJEY DIRK J YOUNG RICHARD BELLERT 2851 NORTH MANOR RD 3830 MAPLE CIRCLE 6641 MAPLE DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARK AMBROSEN ARNOLD HED DANIEL HUDSON 3830 MAPLE SHORES DR 3860 LONE CEDAR LANE 3881 LONE CEDAR LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 DAN PETERJOHN JEROME S AHLMAN JOHN MERZ 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE 3896 LONE CEDAR LANE 3900 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 RON LUDWIG PATRICK RUSH BRAD BROCKPAHLER 2831 NO MANOR 3810 MAPLE CIRCLE 3840 MAPLE CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GERALD E BARBER GERALD KELLY 1ST NAT'L BANK CHICAGO 2201 STREET ANDREWS CIR 3841MAPLE SHORES DRIVE c/o GMAC MTG CORP. OF IA BETTENDORF, IA 5 2 7 2 2 EXCELS IOR, MN 5 5 3 3 1 P . O . BOX 780 WATERLOO, IA 50704-0780 MICHAEL A JUREWICZ JOEL ANDERSON DAVID TESTER 3890 LONE CEDAR LANE 3894 LONE CEDAR LANE 3897 LONE CEDAR LANE CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 ANDY BRISLEY DENNIS HANSEN CHARLES W. CROSBY JR. 2811 NO MANOR 6450 PLEASANT VIEW CIR 3820 MAPLE CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MICHAEL R. RYAN EAGLE FOOD CENTERS SCOTT HOWARD 3850 MAPLE CIRCLE INC 3861 MAPLE SHORES DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PO BOX 6700 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ROCK ISLAND, IL 61204 TIMOTHY NELSON MARK KRONHOLM K & W PROPERTIES 3724 HICKORY 3733 HICKORY ROAD P.O. BOX 275 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 THEODORE BIGOS ROBERT W HEBEISEN STEVEN SWAM 3221 HIGHWAY 7 3607 IRONWOOD 6576 JOSHUA CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MICHAEL F. SKALLMAN ROGER DOWNING JOHN J ZIEGLER JR 6590 JOSHUA CIRCLE 7200 JUNIPER AVENUE 145 MISSION HILL WAY Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80921 VINCENT JOHNSON JOAN RASK SUSAN MORGAN 6510 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 3728 HICKORY ROAD 3734 HICKORY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ROY LEACH KENNETH C DURR THOMAS WRIGHT 3738 HICKORY 4830 WESTGATE ROAD 3611 IRONWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNETONRA, MN 55345 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KENNETH HANNEMANN BRIAN WINDSCHITL GREGORY G DATI1LO 6580 JOSHUA CIRCLE 6591 JOSHUA CIRCLE 7201 JUNIPER AVENUE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 TEW HOMES INC. JD INVESTMENTS LOUIS PARSONS CURRENT RESIDENT #1029 3732 HICKORY 6501 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 15500 WAYZATA BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55391 KEVIN GUTZKE JOSEPH BOYER RICHARD ZWEIG 3735 HICKORY 3630 VIRGINIA 3601 IRONWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 WAYZATA, MN 55391 EXCELSIOR, MN p5331 DONNA HOELKE DAVID TERPSTRA PAMELA D LINDQUIST 3621 IRONWOOD 6581 JOSHUA CIRCLE 3902 COLGATE AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 ELIZABETH NOVAK MRS MUEHLBERG JAMES E. MARKHAM 7210 JUNIPER AVENUE 6508 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 6520 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM HARDWICK CYNTHIA FLOYD SANDY TAYLOR 6541 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 6570 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 3801 LESLEE CURVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LESTER C JR ANDERSON STEVE ERICKSON VINCE DECKER 6200 BEARD PLACE 3850 LESLEE CURVE 3861 LESLEE CURVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHARLES HULTNER TOD SCHILLING LEONARD HEW 3900 LESLEE CURVE 3911 LESLEE CURVE 3930 LESLEE CURVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 RALPH RIDDLE JAMES C. STEWART FRANK GUSTAFSON 4000 LESLEE CURVE 6551 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 6571 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DAVID LOCKWOOD PETE WARHOL MARK ROGERS 3810 LESLEE CURVE 3831 LESLEE CURVE 3851 LESLEE CURVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DONN BULEN BRUCE DREBLOW PAUL SCHEELE 3871 LESLEE CURVE 3901 LESLEE CURVE 3920 LESLEE CURVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 J D BENNYHOFF GENE CHRISTENSEN COURT MACFARLANE 3931 LESLEE CURVE 6561 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 3800 LESLEE CURVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HARRY DUNN JOSEPH FROEHLING BARBARA M DENSLOW 3820 LESLEE CURVE 3840 LESLEE CURVE 3860 LESLEE CURVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DIANE BARTZ DANA NICHOLSON MOUNT OLIVET ACRES, 3881 LESLEE CURVE 3910 LESLEE CURVE INC Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 7200 ROLLING ACRES RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 RICHARD DORSEY CATHY DAVIS VINCENT FEUERSTEIN 3941 LESLEE CURVE 4010 LESLEE CURVE 3880 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 LOUIS C. VANEPS STEPHEN CASTER HARRY DRAHOS 3840 LINDEN CIRCLE 3861 LINDEN CIRCLE 3911 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ALAN REUTELER MARTHA HEIBERG JAMES ZASKE 3930 LINDEN CIRCLE 3941 LINDEN CIRCLE 3960 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DANA A NELSON MARILYN K. MITLYNG TERRY THOMPSON, SR. 3967 LINDEN CIRCLE 3800 LONE CEDAR LANE 3820 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 BLAKE BOGEMA JOHN NELSON MARK ORTNER 3841 LINDEN CIRCLE 3891 LINDEN CIRCLE 3920 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 KAREN NELSON WILLIAM PECK SCOTT MORTENSEN 3931 LINDEN CIRCLE 3950 LINDEN CIRCLE 3961 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DAVE LUNDQUIST SCOTT GAUER JEFF RENO 3969 LINDEN CIRCLE 3820 LONE CEDAR LANE ROUTE 1, BOX 78 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 GREEN ISLE, MN 55338 VIC MORAVEC VIC & D. MORAVEC THOMAS KRUEGER 3821 LINDEN CIRCLE 14310 40TH AVE. N. 7136 UTICA LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 Excelsior, MN 55331 BRYAN HUBER THOMAS SANDERS RICHARD E. LARSON 3910 LINDEN CIRCLE 3921 LINDEN CIRCLE 3940 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 STEVEN MCSHERRY TOM FLEMMING KENNETH WICKLUND 3951 LINDEN CIRCLE 3966 LINDEN CIRCLE 3970 LINDEN CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JOSEPH STASNEY ROBBY D. SEGAL DAVID B. FREE 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE 3901 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE 3921 MAPLE SHORES DR CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DAVID SCHOELL CHARLES RIENSTRA E.G. WILLSON 3501 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 3511 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 3530 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 KENNETH LUND DALE MENTEN JAMES WAY 395 HWY. 7 6630 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7126 UTICA LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT M. JOSEPHS MR. TERRY D. CARNS THOMAS GIESEN 6701 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3911 MAPLE SHORES DRIVE 3930 MAPLE SHORES DR Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ROBERT CRIPPA TERRY L SHERWOOD GERRY WENKUS 3503 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 3520 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 3531 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 NANCY JOHNSON CHARLES F. ANDING ZOE BROS 6541 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6631 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MARTIN J FOY TIM JENZER DAN STOFLET 1300 8TH STREET WEST 3920 MAPLE SHORES DR 3500 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE KIRKLAND, WA 98033 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GERALD KRUSE BILL MODELL CRAIG MILLER 3510 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 3521 MAPLEWOOD CIRCLE 6450 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 TIMOTHY COLLERAN THOMAS ALLENBURG JAMES LARKIN 6560 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6621 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 6671 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JAMES BOYLAN LOUIS GUTHMUELLER PHIL PITSCH 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7095 RED CEDAR COVE 7099 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 T. J. SCHWABA LUMIR PROSHEK K LOCKHART 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD 8549 IRWIN ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55437 • BIRUTA M. DUNDURS RICHARD COMER BERNARD LEACH 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3800 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3820 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HORACE LEACH LOUIS ZAKARIASEN ELLEVA JOY MCDONALD 3840 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3861 RED CEDAR POINT RD 7096 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GARY PETERSON DOUG ANDERSON MARK BROECKERT 1769 20TH AVENUE NE 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3616 RED CEDAR POINT RD ST. PAUL, MN 55112 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 STEVE KEUSEMAN LINDA JOHNSON ROBERT OSBORNE 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3815 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JAMES GULSTRAND KEVIN CLARK JAMES CONNOR 3831 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3841 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3901 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JAMES HOFER RICHARD SCHLENER PAUL W LARSON 7098 RED CEDAR COVE 200 NE SO COMMERCE CIR. 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Excelsior, MN 55331 EMIL SOUBA ERIC BAUER TOM PARADISE 14025 VALE COURT 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EDWARD ALLERMAN KENNETH SMITH GARY COBB 3821 RED CEDAR 3837 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3859 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' JAY DONALD KNIGHT LARRY WENZEL PETER FUHRMAN 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD 6900 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7161 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK MALINOWSKI HOWARD BOLEY WILMER LARSON 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY WESTVIEW ACRES *318 7381 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 433-5TH STREET WEST Excelsior, MN 55331 WACONIA, MN 55387 FAITH LUTHERAN CHURCH DEL SCHOTT GARY NELSON 7595 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 7048 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DAVID C. PRILLAMAN BERNARD FULLER REV JOHN ZIEGLER 7064 RED CEDAR COVE 7075 RED CEDAR COVE 145 MISSION HILL WAY Excelsior, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80921 THOMAS MANN DONALD LINKE STEPHEN V. BAINBRIDGE 7211 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7301 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7351 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 BRENDA ROY HARVEY L SOBEL PATRICIA A BIXLER 7400 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 1331 HILLSIDE DR 7038 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 RENO, NV 89503 Excelsior, MN 55331 RALPH KARCZEWSKI COY SHELBY JOHN MANEY 7054 RED CEDAR COVE 7068 RED CEDAR COVE 7078 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JOHN P BAUMTROG PETER BENJAMIN JAMES BORCHART 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7231 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7331 MINNEWASHTA PKWY Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MR. KIP LINDBERG BRYAN PIKE THOMAS MCRAITH 7361 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7411 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 7028 RED CEDAR COVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 REKORP FINANCIAL SRV WARREN RIETZ ROBERT E ROYER CURRENT RESIDENT 7058 RED CEDAR COVE 7074 RED CEDAR COVE 7044 RED CEDAR COVE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DONALD BITTERMANN PETER SCHISSEL PETER J. OLSON 7085 RED CEDAR COVE 3851 RED CEDAR POINT RD 2721 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 HARLAN NINOW DOUG ROPER TOM SCHOENECKER 2740 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2751 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2820 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM NAEGELE FLORENCE BISCHOFF F DENTON WHITE 4300 BAKER ROAD 3331 SHORE DR 3351 SHORE DR MINNETONKA, MN 55343 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 RUTH AHLCRONA MR. PAUL MODELL ROBERT BAUER 3420 SHORE DR 3441 SHORE DIRVE 2700 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 FRANK SCOTT STEPHEN HUGHES R HINDERAKER 2730 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2741 SANDPIPER TRAIL 2800 SANDPIPER TRAIL Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 A M WEIMERSKIRCH RALPH HEGMAN WILLIAM MCDANIEL 2831 SANDPIPER TRAIL 6361 MINNEWASHTA WOODS DR 3341 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HENRY ARNESON MR. WAYNE HAGEN MORRIS MULLIN 3401 SHORE DR 3421 SHORE DRIVE 3451 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 RONALD STEVENS MATTHEY GILROY FRANK M YOUNG 2720 SANDPIPER 2731 SANDPIPER 2750 SANDPIPER Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 HOWARD SCHMIDT 2810 SANDPIPER HENRY NEUMANN BARBARA WINTHEISER Excelsior, MN 55331 2841 SANDPIPER 3321 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 DONALD CARSIK MR. KAREL VAN LANGEN JOHN MCKELLIP 3342 SHORE DR 3411 SHORE DR 3431 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 5531 FRANCIS FABER RICHARD WING KEVIN TRFIZ 3471 SHORE DR 3481 SHORE DR 3851 STRATFORD RIDGE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KEVIN CUDDIHY WAN P. STREIF W SCOTT MORROW 3900 STRATFORD RIDGE 3940 STRATFORD RIDGE 3980 STRATFORD RIDGE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 W. NAEGLE BRUNS KEITH BEDFORD, TREAS. CLAIRE ERICKSON 4001 STRATFORD RIDGE STRATFORD RIDGE HOMEO 3301 TANADOONA DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ART KIMBER PER JACOBSON WILLIAM TURNER 2820 TANAGERS LANE 2840 TANAGERS LANE 3501 SHORE DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HAROLD TAYLOR ALLIN M KARLS JEFFREY ADAMS 3861 STRATFORD RIDGE 3920 STRATFORD RIDGE 3960 STRATFORD RIDGE EXCELSIOR, NLN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TERRY LABATT DOUG REICHERT ROBERT BERGAN 3981 STRATFORD RIDGE 3901 STRATFORD RIDGE DR 3241 TANADOONA DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DEAN BERSIE GARY OLSEN E MICHAEL ARONE 2800 TANAGERS LANE 2821 TANAGERS LANE 2841 TANAGERS LANE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM MU IG ROBERT A OLSON CHARLES R CRUICKSHANK 6850 STRATFORD BLVD 3881 STRATFORD RIDGE 3921 STRATFORD RIDGE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KEITH BEDFORD BARTON WELLS MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF 3961 STRATFORD RIDGE 4000 STRATFORD RIDGE CAMPFIRE GIRLS Excelsior, NLN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 4100 VERNON AVENUE SO MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 STEWART PETERSON TODD PEDERSON HERB PFEFFER 2810 TANAGERS LANE 2837 TANAGERS LANE 2850 TANAGERS LANE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 MARTIN BEUKHOF JOSEPH LEUKUMA IRENE OLSON 6230 FIR TREE 6240 FIR TREE 6301 FIR TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM F. FLNLAYSON DAVE SCHROEDER CLAUDIA BERNHARDT 6320 FIR TREE 6331 FIR TREE 3883 FOREST RIDGE CIR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 DON HOLMAN MR. MICHAEL CORWIN JERRY KORTGARD 3887 FOREST RIDGE CIR 220 WATERS EDGE DRIVE 3901 GLENDALE DR CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 NICHOLAS FOLWICK TERRY REITEN JIM BARTZ 3920 GLENDALE DRIVE 6231 FIR TREE 6241 FIR TREE AVENUE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 SCOTT IVERSON THOMAS DIEDRICH RANDALL K. SCHWOERER 6310 FIR TREE 6321 FIR TREE AVE. 6340 FIR TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 AMY HAGBERG ROBERT FROLUND LARRY LANGSWEIRDT 3884 FOREST RIDGE CIR 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR 3811 GLENDALE DR CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 STEVEN M. KNIGGE RANDY CUNLIFFE CHRISTINE C HUNTER 3910 GLENDALE DR 3921 GLENDALE DRIVE 6236 FIR TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 ROGER R ROBINSON ARLAND MCCAUL CLAUD L JOHNSON 6300 FIR TREE 6311 FIR TREE 6331 GREENBRIAR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LORI FREY WILLARD ANENSON MR. ALLAN AHO 3886 FOREST 3885 FOREST RIDGE CIR 3890 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA,MN 55318 TERRIE SHERMAN CHUCK WEBER TONY J TORNTORE 3821 GLENDALE 3911 GLENDALE 3930 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 DONALD SUEKER JAMES GINTHER JOHN WEBER 3111 DARTMOUTH DR 3131 DARTMOUTH DR 3220 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MARY J. MOORE GETSCH CORP. ANTON GUENTHER 3231 DARTMOUTH DR EDWARD GETSCH 6221 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 5400 31ST AVENUE NE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 FT. LAUDERDALE,FL 33308 CHARLES E ELY TOM HUNTINGTON MELVIN OESTREICH 6241 DOGWOOD 6300 DOGWOOD 6320 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ROGER SPENCER JOSEPH FIEDLER THOMAS MERZ 6340 DOGWOOD 3121 DARTMOUTH DR 3201 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PAULA S ROETTGER WARREN HANSON SCOTT HANSON 3221 DARTMOUTH DR 3241 DARTMOUTH DR 6201 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KENNETH HOGAN TOM ADCOX GARY L OLSON 6231 DOGWOOD 6250 DOGWOOD 6301 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, M 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 TAIN'YA LOGSLETT MURIEL DRESSLER 6330 DOGWOOD 6341 DOGWOOD STEVE MARTIN EXCELSIOR, Ks 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 3211 DARTMOUTH DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ARVID OAS D'ALBI, INC. KURT WEIMER 3230 DARTMOUTH DR 4725 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY 6211 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55422 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 NANCY VAN EPS ALLEN CLAPP JEFF STEINKE 6251 DOGWOOD 6310 DOGWOOD 6240 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ALLEN LEIDING JOE KASPER 6331 DOGWOOD MICHAEL SCHACHERLE 411 CIMARRON CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6350 DOGWOOD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 JOHN T FOLEY MARK LEITNER MARTIN JONES 80 SO INDIAN ROCKS RD 6311 DOGWOOD 7321 DOGWOOD BELLEAIR BLUFFS, FL 33540 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CAROL REICH SHIRLEY BARFKNECHT DIANNE S TESCHENDORFF 6231 ELM TREE 6310 ELM TREE 6220 ELM TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 HUDSON HOLLENBACK ROGER SMITH MARILYNN BONAHOOM 6330 ELM TREE 606 CARVER BEACH ROAD 6240 ELM TREE AVENUE Excelsior, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 ROGER W. OAS JANET M QUIST ETAL BARBARA 0 FREEMAN 7301 DOGWOOD 7331 DOGWOOD 7431 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MICHAEL SAUL DAN A. IVERSEN THOMAS HARINGS 6321 DOGWOOD AVENUE 6221 ELM TREE 6300 ELM TREE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 KEITH ARNTSEN JOHN WARREN RICHARD NELSON 6320 ELM TREE 6340 ELM TREE 6241 ELM TREE AVENUE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 MICHAEL H. STAHOWIAK ANTHONY MORELLI RICHARD LUNDELL 6331 ELM TREE AVENUE 7311 DOGWOOD ROAD 7341 DOGWOOD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 PETER BRANDT KIMBERLY ADAMS-PLEHAL HOWARD WROGE 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD 6210 ELM TREE 6230 ELM TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 WILLIAM HICKEY RONALD SCHROER ELIZABETH WOLL 6301 ELM TREE 6321 ELM TREE 6341 ELM TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 SANDRA R STONE HILDEGARD FORNER TIM SCHWEIZER 6311 ELM TREE AVENUE 6200 FIR TREE 3725 SO CEDAR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CRAIG SWAGGERT MIKE CECKO GARY NUNNALLY 2739 CHES MAR FARM RD 3910 CRESTVIEW DR 3921 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 MICHAEL KAMMERER RAFAEL FERNANDEZ PATRICK BAUER 4000 CRESTVIEW DR 7620 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 7404 FRONTIER TRAIL EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA,MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LYNN BROWN KATHY LE CRONE 6201 CYPRESS DR 6220 CYPRESS DR HAZEL JOHNSON Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 6231 CYPRESS DR Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM HAUGH GARY BACHLER 3727 SO CEDAR TOM ERDMANN 3911 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3900 CRESTVIEW DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DANIEL HERBST BRADFORD GOAR DAN AMEN'T 7640 CRIMSON BAY ROAD 3930 LESLEE CURVE 4010 CRESTVIEW DR CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 FRED HYDE DORIS E. HANSON PAMELA 1LLIES 109 GOOD LUCK LANE 6210 CYPRESS DR 6221 CYPRESS DRIVE MARS, PA 16046 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 GORDON FOSTER MR. LEONARD KUHI 6240 CYPRESS DR 2703 CHES MAR FARM RD CRAIG COURTNEY Excelsior, NLti 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 3901 CRESTVIEW DR Excelsior, MN 55331 RICHARD KINSMAN CLIFFORD HEINZEN 3920 CRESTVIEW DR STEPHEN ALDRITT 4011 CRESTVIEW DR Excelsior, MN 55331 3946 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Q. A. HANSON JAMES REYNOLDS 6200 CYPRESS DR JACK SCHILTGEN 7660 CRIMSON BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 6211 CYPRESS DR CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior, MN 55331 SCOTT STURM 6230 CYPRESS DR L W HAGEN ROBERT F. CORSON EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 6300 CYPRESS DR 7504 WEST 77TH STREET Excelsior, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 VERONA GORDON PAULA EPPING 7511 WEST 77TH STREET ABRAHAM ABBARIAO 7508 WEST 77TH STREET CHASKA, MN 55318 3750 ARBORETUM BLVD CHASKA, MN 55318 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 LARRY VANDERLINDE DAVID HEMPEL PETE WALMAN 3701 SO CEDAR DR 3707 SO CEDAR 6220 BARBERRY CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, NLN 55331 RICHARD ANDING DAVID ZAMJAHN DAVID BUSCH 3715 SO CEDAR 7506 WEST 77TH STREET 7509 WEST 77TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 MICHAEL P. CORNELISON STEVE HALL WILLIAM READEL 7512 WEST 77TH STREET 6221 ARBOR LANE 6210 BARBERRY CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 Excelsior,MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 HELEN M ANDING NICHOLAS HAWLEY BLAKE HORTON 1708 EAST 57TH STREET 3703 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE 3711 SOUTH CEDAR MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 EXCELSIOR., MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 KEVIN EIDE CRAIG ANDERSON LEVI SEASER JR 3719 SO CEDAR 7507 WEST 77TH STREET 7510 WEST 77TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 CHASKA, MN 55318 CRAIG LAMB JEFFREY PAPKE MICHAEL DETERMAN 7514 WEST 77Th STREET 6180 CARDINAL DR SO 6211 BARBERRY CIRCLE CHASKA, MN 55318 SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 NICHOLAS F HAWLEY CHESTER LOBITZ MARGARET E. JENSON 14431 WELLINGTON ROAD 3637 SO CEDAR 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CLIFF PEDERSEN TAB ERICKSON SUSAN L JASIN 3713 SO CEDAR 3720 SO CEDAR 425 CHAN VIEW#312 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RANDOLPH COLE DONALD SUDENGA JAMES KERTSON 3931 GLENDALE DR 6340 CYPRESS DRIVE 6810 MINNEWASHTA PKWY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 BETTY ANN CARLSON PAM SMITH LARRY OPPEGAARD 4020 LESLEE CURVE 3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD 6310 CYPRESS DR Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 JERRY MARTIN STEVEN MARBEN GARY CARLSON 6521 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 6201 FIR TREE AVENUE 3855 WEST 62ND STREET Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 BRADLEY D. STRAKA JEROME JOHNSON STEVEN G WOOD 3881 MAPLE SHORES DR 3940 GLENDALE DR 6341 CYPRESS DR Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 BARBARA HEADLA ARLENE HERNDON ALEX KUCHER 6870 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 6330 CYPRESS DRIVE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 THOMAS LENARZ EDWARD EVANS IRENE A SCHNEIDER 6531 KIRKWOOD CIRCLE 6220 FIR TREE 7501 WEST 77TH STREET EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 CHASKA, MN 55318 BARBARA SCOULER RICHARD F ST ANGELO ROBERT J ROY 3890 MAPLE SHORES DR 4000 GLENDALE DR 3110 DARTMOUTH DR Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 LARRY WENZEL VERN ISHAM MICHAEL WENNER 6900 MI NNEWASHTA PKWY 4030 LESLEE CURVE 3801 RED CEDAR POINT RD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 DOUGLAS JOHNSON MARION OLIN JAMES HAGAN 6331 CYPRESS DR 6540 KIRKWOOD 6221 FIR TREE Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 IVAN UNDERDAHL CHRISTOPHER HOLDEN GENE FURY 7502 WEST 77TH STREET 2851 TANAGERS LANE 2821 WASHTA BAY ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 LESLIE MICHEL HAZEL ANDERSON WAYNE HOLZER 2840 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2851 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2911 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GLENN COPPERSMITH ROBERT CHRISTIAN WILLIAM J KILBY 2941 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2971 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2930 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 KELLY SHEEHAN IVAN MIELKE JEANNINE HUBBARD 2951 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2830 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2841 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 HARRY NIEMELA GLADYS FERM ALAN TOLLEFSON 2901 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2920 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2931 WASHTA BAY ROAD Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 GEORGE HOCK JIM SENST KRISTEN ORTLIP 2950 WASHTA BAY ROAD 2820 WASHTA BAY 2831 WASHTA BAY EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior,MN 55331 HAZEL ANDERSON JOHN SCHUMACHER NORMAN CASPERSON 2851 WASHTA BAY RD 428 SO MISSISSIPPI 2921 WASHTA BAY RD. Excelsior, MN 55331 ST PAUL, MN 55105 Excelsior, MN 55331 WILLIAM KILBY DONALD CRENSHAW DANA & NANCY JOHNSON 2930 WASHTA BAY 2961 WASHTA BAY 50 PLEASANT LANE WEST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 TONKA BAY,MN 55331 MINNEWASHTA CREEK HOA THOMAS KRUEGER DEAN &J. SIMPSON C/O NANCY NARR 3860 LINDEN CIRCLE 7185 HAZELTINE BLVD. 3950 LINDEN CIRCLE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CITY OF CII ANBA SSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern DATE: September 14, 1994 SUBJ: Diseased Shade Tree Ordinance BACKGROUND The City of Chanhassen remains one of the few metro communities without a diseased tree ordinance. Citizens' concerns have made this a socially and environmentally important issue. Property owners have called to report a suspected case of Dutch elm disease, however, there is no action that the city can take to see that the diseased tree(s) is removed as it should be. While the number of diseased trees in the city are significantly less than epidemic, being without an ordinance puts the city's elms and oaks at high risk. The original diseased shade tree ordinance was adopted by the council in 1975. Later amendments were made in 1978 and 1979. Attached is a copy of this ordinance. When the city code was revised in 1988, the diseased shade tree ordinance was not included. In order to effectively deal with diseased trees in the city, a diseased tree ordinance must again be adopted. ANALYSIS Presently, the main concern in Chanhassen is control of diseased elm trees. Numerous diseased elm trees are left standing year after year throughout the city. The trees serve as infection sites by means of underground root grafts and as breeding sites for the elm bark beetles, vectors of the fungal disease. These diseased elms need to be removed and properly disposed; they are threats to other healthy elm trees in the owner's yard and the neighbor's as well. Fortunately, the city has so far been spared the destructiveness of oak wilt. Unfortunately, surrounding communities haven't been so lucky and have numerous infection sites throughout their cities. Chanhassen, with its many beautiful oaks, needs to be prepared for the spread of this fatal disease into the community by having a diseased shade tree ordinance in place. Planning Commission September 14, 1994 Page 2 Staff has drafted an ordinance that incorporates aspects from diseased shade tree ordinances in various cities and from the Minnesota State Ordinance. By creating our own ordinance, instead of adopting the state ordinance, we tailor the requirements and obligations of the city. The three defining factors for the city are money, time, and commitment. While there may not be much money to spare for a control program, the commitment appears to be high and time is available. Adopting a nuisance only ordinance would allow the city to implement a diseased tree program without much expense and maintain the city's respect and concern for the general health of its natural resources. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the proposed diseased tree ordinance as shown in Attachment #1." ATTACHMENT 1. Ordinance amendment. 2. Previous ordinances. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 13 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Article IV to read: ARTICLE IV.CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DISEASED TREES. Sec. 13-27. Declaration of Policy. The City of Chanhassen has determined that the health of the Elm and Oak trees within the municipal limits is threatened by the fatal diseases known as Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease and by other epidemic diseases of shade trees. It has further determined that the loss of Elm and Oak and other shade trees growing upon public and private property will substantially depreciate the value of property within the City and impair the safety, good order, general welfare and convenience of the public. It is declared to be the intention of the Council to control and prevent the spread of these diseases and this ordinance is enacted for that purpose. Sec. 13-28. Forester. (a) Position Created. The position of City Forester or Tree Inspector is hereby created within the City. The City Forester or Tree Inspector must meet the qualifications as defined in Minnesota Statutes Sections 1505.0050, 1505.0070, and 1505.0080. (b) Duties of Forester. It is the duty of the Forester to coordinate under the direction and control of the Council, all activities of the municipality relating to the control and prevention of Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease and other epidemic diseases of shade trees and perform the duties incident to such a program adopted by the Council. Sec. 13.29 Shade Tree Disease Program. It is the intention of the City Council to conduct a program of plant pest control pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Sections 18.022 and 18.023. This program is directed specifically at the control and elimination of Dutch Elm disease fungus and elm bark beetles and Oak Wilt fungus and is undertaken at the recommendation of the Commissioner of Agriculture. The City Forester shall act as coordinator between the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Council in the conduct of this program. Sec. 13.30 Nuisances Declared; Abatement; Firewood Storage. Nuisances Declared. The following are public nuisances whenever they may be found within the City of Chanhassen: (a) Any living or standing elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Dutch elm disease fungus Ceratocystis ulmi (Buisman) Moreau or which harbors any of the elm bark beetles Scolytus multistriatus (Eichh.) or Hylurgopinus rufipes (Marsh). (b) Any dead Elm tree or part thereof, including logs, branches, stumps, firewood, or other Elm material from which the bark has not been removed as provided in Minnesota statute 4.03. (c) Any living or standing Oak tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Oak Wilt fungus Ceratocystis fagacearum. (d) Any dead tree in the Red Oak group, or part of any such tree, including logs, branches, stumps, firewood, or other Red Oak material from which the bark has not been removed. (e) Other shade trees with epidemic diseases. Sec. 13-31. Abatement. It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to permit any public nuisance as defined in subsection 4.01 to remain on any premises owned or controlled by him within the City of Chanhassen. Such nuisance may be abated in the manner prescribed by the ordinance in addition to the criminal penalties provided for in this ordinance. Sec. 13-32. Elm and Oak Wood Storage Stockpiling and storage of elm logs and branches with bark intact or tight-barked wood from an infected tree in the Red Oak group is prohibited except during the period September 15 through April 1 of the following year during which period such storage shall be permitted. Authorization for storage per this ordinance shall only be permitted for residential premises. Sec. 13-33. Inspection and Investigation. (a) Annual Inspection. The Forester shall inspect all premises and places with the city as often as practicable to determine whether any condition described in Section 4 of this Ordinance exists thereon. He shall investigate all reported incidents of infestation by Dutch 2 Elm fungus or elm bark beetles, or Oak Wilt, or other epidemic diseases of shade trees. (b) Entry of Private Premises. The Forester or his/her duly authorized agents may enter upon private premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out any of the duties assigned him under this Ordinance. (c) Diagnosis. The Forester or his duly authorized representatives shall identify diseased trees by generally accepted field symptoms such as wilting, yellowing of leaves, or staining of wood in accordance with Minnesota Department of Agriculture Rules and Regulations AGR 106. Laboratory confirmation by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture will be used only when it is necessary. Sec. 13-34. Abatement of Shade Tree Disease Nuisances In abating the nuisances defined in Section 4, the Forester shall cause the infected tree or wood to be sprayed, removed, burned, or otherwise effectively treated so as to destroy and prevent as fully as possible the spread of epidemic diseases of shade trees, including, but not limited to, Dutch Elm disease fungus, elm bark beetles, and Oak Wilt Disease. Such abatement procedures shall be carried out in accordance with current technical and expert opinions and plans as may be designated by the Commissioner of Agriculture. Sec. 13-35. Procedure for Removal of Infected Trees and Wood (a) Forester's Abatement Order. Whenever the Forester finds with reasonable certainty that one or more of the infestations defined in Section 4 exists in any trees or wood in any public or private place, the owner shall be notified and ordered to remove the same in a manner approved by the Forester. If the owner fails to comply with the order, the City Manager may act to abate the nuisance. In the event that the owner cannot be contacted, the City shall send notice by certified mail to the last known address of the owner of record, and shall then proceed forthwith to abate the nuisance. (b) Methods of Disposal of Diseased Elm Trees. All diseased elm trees including the above ground parts thereof shall be properly disposed of by such methods including burning, debarking, chipping, and utilization. (c) Removal and Disposal of Diseased Trees in the Red Oak Group. All diseased oak trees in the red oak group that wilt in July and August shall be identified, marked, and removed by April 1 of the following year in order to eliminate any spore formation on them the following May or June. Tree in the northern red oak group include the northern red oak (Quercus rubra), northern pin oak ( Quercus ellipsoidalis), black oak (Quercus velutina), and scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea). Methods of disposal include burning, chipping, and utilization. (d) Control of Overland Spread of Oak Wilt. To control the overland spread of the 3 disease, the City shall avoid pruning or other mechanical damage during the most susceptible period of May and June. The City Forester may determine that emergency pruning by utility companies is necessary during this susceptible period if trees interfere with utility lines. If wounding is unavoidable during this period, as in the aftermath of a storm or when the tree interferes with utility lines, a tree wound dressing shall be applied. (e) Stumps of Diseased Elms and Oaks. Stumps of all elm and oak trees shall be removed or debarked to the groundline to eliminate all possibilities of beetle habitation or possibilities of spore formation. (f) Special Assessments. From time to time, the City Manager shall list the total unpaid costs of abatement attributable to each separate lot or parcel of land in this City. The council then may spread said costs or any portion thereof against the property involved as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 18 and 429 and other pertinent statutes, for certification to the county auditor and collection the following year along with current taxes. Sec. 13-36. Interference Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to prevent, delay or interfere with the Forester or his agents while they are engaged in the performance of duties imposed by this Ordinance. Sec. 13-37. Penalty. Any person, firm, or corporation who violated this Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be punished by a fine not to exceed Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00). Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 8th day of August 1994. AI-FEST: Don Ashworth, City Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1994.) 4 I. •L ' • C C� CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES WITHIN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. The City Council of Chanhassen Ordains: • Section 1 . Declaration of Policy. The City of Chanhassen has deter- mined that the health of the Elm and Oak trees within the municipal limits is threatened by the fatal diseases known as Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease and by other epidemic diseases of shade trees . It has further determine 1-'1V\_ that the loss of Elm and Oak and other shade trees growing upon public and private property will substantially depreciate the value of property within the City and impair the safety, good order, general welfare and convenience of the public. It is declared to be the intention of the Council to control and prevent the spread of these diseases and this ordinance is enacted for that purpose. Section 2 . Forester. 2 . 01 Position Created. The position of City Forester or Tree Inspector is hereby created within the City. 2 . 02 Duties of Forester. It is the duty of the Forester to coordinate under the directio; and control of the Council , all activities of the municipality relating to the con- trol and prevention of Dutch Elm disease and Oak Wilt disease and other epi- demic diseases of shade trees , and perform the duties incident to such a pro- gram adopted by the Council. Section 3 . Shade Tree Disease Program. 3 . 01 It is the intention of the City Council to conduct a program of plant pest control pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes Sections 18. 022 and 18 .023 . This program is directed specifically at the contro: and elimination of Dutch Elm disease fungus and elm bark beetles and Oak Wilt fungus and is undertaken at the recommendation of the Commissioner of Agricultu The City Forester shall act as coordinator between the Commissioner of Agricultu and the Council in the conduct of this program. Section 4 . Nuisances Declared. 4 . 01 The following are public nuisances wJ2enever they may be found within the City of Chanhassen: a. Any living or standing Elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Dutch Elm disease fungus Ceratocystis Ulmi (Buisman) Moreau or which harbors any of the elan bark beetles Scolytus Multistriatus (Eichh.) or Hylurgopinus Rufipes (Marsh) . b. Any dead Elrri tree or part thereof , including logs , branches , stumps , firewood or other Elm material from w#iie-11 the bark has not been removed and-burned or sprayed with an effective Elm bark beetle insecticide c. Any living or standing Oak tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Oak Wilt fungus Ceratocystis Fagacearum. d. Any dead Oak tree or part thereof, including logs, branches , stumps , firewood or other Oak material from which the bark has not been removed and burned or sprayed with an e .ctive Oak fungicide. e . Other shade trees with epidemic diseases . 4 . 02 Abatement. It is unlawful for any person , firm or corporation to permit any public nuisance as defined in subsection 4. 01 to remain on any premises owned of controlled by him within the City of Chanhassen. Such nuisance may be abated in the manner prescribed by this ordinance . Section 5. Inspection and Investigation. 5. 01 Annual Inspection. The Forester shall inspect all permises and places within the City as often as practicable to determine whether any condition described in Section 4 of this Ordinance exists thereon. He shall investigale all reported incidents of infestation by Dutch Elm fungus or elm bark beetles , or Oak Wilt , or other epidemic diseases of shade trees. 5. 02 Entry on Private Premises . The Forester or his duly authorized agents may enter upon private premises at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out any of the duties assigned him under this Ordinance. -2 5. 03 Diagnosis. The Forester shall , upon finding conditions indicating the presence of any condition described in Section 4 of this Ordinance , immediate send appropriate specimens or samples to the Commissioner of Agriculture for analysis , or take such other steps for diagnosis as may be reccommended by t Commissioner. Except as provided in Section 7 , no action to remove infected trees or wood shall be taken until positive diagnosis of the disease has been made. Section 6. Alsatement of Shade Tree Disease Nuisances. 6. 01 In abating the nuisances defined in Section 4 , the Forester shall cause the infected tree or wood to be sprayed , removed , burned or other- wise effectively treated so as to destroy and prevent as fully as possible the spread of epidemic diseases of shade trees , including , but not limited to, Dutch Elm disease fungus , elm bark beetles , and Oak Wilt disease . Such aba ment procedures shall be carried out in accordance with current technical and expert opinions and plans as may be designated by the Commissioner of Agricu Section 7 . Procedure for Removal of Infected Trees and Wood, 7 . 01 Whenever the Forester finds with reasonable certainty that the infestation defined in Section 4 exists in any trees or wood in any public o private place in the City , he shall proceed as follows: a. If the Forester finds that danger of infestation of other Elm trees , Oak trees or other shade trees is imminent, he shall notify the affected property owner by certifies mail that the nuisance will be abated within a specifi€ time , not less than five (5) days from the date of mail ing of such notice . The Forester shall immediately report such action to the Council, and after the expiry tion of the time limited by the notice ne may abate the nuisance. If the Forester finds that the danger of infestation of other Elm trees , Oak trees or other shade trees is not imminent because of dormancy of the infected tree or , trees , he shall make a written report of his findings tc the Council which shall proceed by: (1) Abating the nuisance as a public improvement unc • Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 , or (2) Abating the nuisance as provided in subsection 2 of this Section. • -3- • 7. 02 Upon receipt of the Forester's report required by subsection 7 . 01 (b) , the Council shall by resolution order the nuisance abated. Before actio; is taken on such resolution, the Council shall post notices of its intention to meet to consider taking action to abate the nuisance. This notice shall be mailec to affected property owners and may be published once in the legal newspaper of the City not less than one week prior to such meeting . The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting , the streets affected, action proposed, the esti:- mated sti-mated cost of the abatement, and the proposed basis of assessment of costs , if any. At such hearing or adjournment thereof, the Council shall hear property owners with reference to the scope and desirability of the proposed project. The Council shall thereafter adopt a resolution confirming the original resolution with such modifications as it considers desirable and provide for the doing of the work by day labor or by contract. 7 . 03 The Forester shall keep a record of the costs of abatements done under this Section and shall report monthly to the City Clerk-Administrator all work done for which assessments are to be made stating and certifying the description of the land , lots , parcels involved and the amount chargeable to each. 7 . 09 On or before September 1 of each year the Clerk-Administrator shall list the total unpaid charges for each abatement ,against each separate lot or parcel to which said charges are attributable under this ordinance. The Counci may then spread the charges or any portion thereof against the property involved as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes Section 429 . 101 and other pertinent statutes for certification to the County Auditor and collection the follow- ing year along with current taxes. . _ Section 8. Spraying Shade Trees . • 8 . 01 Whenever the Forester determines that any shade tree or shade wood within the City is infected with Dutch Elm fungus , Oak Wilt or other epidemic shade tree disease , he may spray all nearby high value shade trees , with an effective concentrate . Spraying activities authorized by this Section shall be conducted in accordance with technical and expert opinions and plans of the Commissioner of Agriculture and under the supervision of the Com- missioner and his agents whenever possible . 8 . 02 The notice provisions of Section 7 apply to spraying operation conducted under this Section. • Section 9 . Transporting Wood Prohibited. 9 . 01 It is unlawful for any person to transport within the City any wood diseased with conditions described in Section 4 of this Ordinance , without having obtained a permit from the Forester. The Forester shall grant such permits only when the purposes of this Ordinance will be served thereby. -4- • Section 10 . Interference Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to prevent , delay or interfere with the Forester or his agents' while they are engag in the performance of duties imposed by this Ordinance. Section 11 . Penalty. Any person, firm or corporation who violates to Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof may be puni ed by a fine of not to exceed $300. 00 or imprisonment for 90 days. Section 12 . Repeal. Chanhassen Ordinance No. 50 , enacted May 17 1972 , is hereby repealed. • Section 13 . Effective Date . This Ordinance is effective from and aft its passage and publication. Adopted by the Council this f Com/?day of } fr1 , 1975. • • ATTEST: i„ . GLEF K MAYOR • Published in Carvc. County- NPrA3,1 on the day of Juna 19' • -5- CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 58A AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM ANDOTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 7 of Ordinance No. 58 , adopted June 16 , 1975, and entitled "An Ordinance Relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm and Other Arboreal Diseases Within the City of Chanhassen, " is hereby amended to read as follows : 7 . 01. Forester ' s Abatement Order . Whenever the Forester finds with reasonable certainty that one or more of the infestations defined in Section 4 exists in any trees or wood in any public or private place, the owner shall be notified and ordered to remove the same in a manner approved by the Forester. If the owner fails to comply with the order, the City Manager may act to abate the nuisance. In the event that the owner cannot be contacted, the City shall send notice by certified mail to the last known address of the owner of record , and shall then proceed forthwith to abate the nuisance. 7 . 02 Special Assessments . From time to time, the City Manager shall list the total unpaid costs of abatement attributable to each separate lot or parcel of land in this City. The Council then may spread said costs or any portion thereof against the property involved as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes , Chapters 18 and 429 and other pertinent statutes , for certification to the county auditor and collection the following year along with current taxes . Section 2 . This ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed by the Council this lsta_ . _ May , 1978 . Attest: .7 ) Mayor Clerk City Manager Publish in Carver County Herald on the 10th day of May , 1978 . ter 4. 03 Elm Wood Storage. Stockpiling and storage of elm logs and branches with bark intact is prohibited except during the period September 15 through April 1 of the following year during which period such storage shall be permitted. Authorization for storage per this ordinance shall only be permitted for residential premises. Section 2. This Ordinance becomes effective from and after its passage and publication. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen this 16th day of July, 1979. Walter Hobbs, Mayor \ ATTEST: ( • N. Don Ashworth, City Manager Publish in the Carver County Herald on the <''' day of /( f2-4.,/n C �•_J 1979 . " CITY OF CHANHASSaNI k CARVER AND H NNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 53B AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CONTROL AND PREVENTION OF DUTCH ELM AND OTHER ARBOREAL DISEASES THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS : Section 1. Section 4 of Ordinance No. 58 , adopted June 16, 1979, and entitled "An Ordinance Relating to the Control and Prevention of Dutch Elm and Other Arboreal Diseases Within the City of Chanhassen, " as amended heretofore by Ordinance 58A, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4. Nuisances Declared; Firewood Storage; Abatement. 4 . 01 Nuisances Declared. The following are public nuisances whenever they may be found within the City of Chanhassen: a. Any living or standing Elm tree or part thereof infected to any degree with the Dutch Elm disease fungus Ceratocvstis Ulmi (Buisman) Moreau or which harbors any of the elm bark beetles Scolytus Multistri (Eichh. ) or Hylurgopinus Rufipes (Marsh) . b. Any dead Elm tree or part thereof, including logs, branches , stumps, firewood or other Elm material from which the bark has not been removed as provided in Minnesota Statute 4 . 03 . c. Any living or standing Oak tree or part thereof in- fected to any degree with the Oak Wilt fungus Ceratocy Fagacearum. d. Any dead tree in the Red Oak group, or part of any such tree, including logs, branches, stumps, firewood or other Red Oak material from which the bark has not been removed . e. Other shade trees with epidemic diseases. 4 . 02 Abatement. It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to permit any public nuisance as defined in subsection 4. 01 to remain on any premises owned or controlled by him within the City of Chanhassen. Such nuisance may be abated in the manner prescribed by this ordinance in addition to the criminal penalties provided for in this ordinance. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino, Ron Nutting, and Diane Harberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR A PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF COUNTY ROAD 17 FROM THE EXISTING FOUR LANES SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD (SECTIONS 14 AND 23, T 116N, 4 23W). UPGRADING OF TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT- OF-WAY WILL IMPACT 1.55 ACRES OF WETLAND. APPROXIMATELY 3.1 ACRES OF REPLACEMENT WETLAND WILL BE CREATED AS MITIGATION. Public Present: Name Address Jon Horn BRW Beth Kunhel BRW Brent Miller 1200 Lyman Blvd. Kate Aanenson introduced Beth Kunhel with BRW to present the staff presentation on this item since Diane Desotelle could not be present at the meeting. Mancino: How long does it take once you mitigate and create a new wetland there. How long does it take until it becomes a natural? Beth Kunhel: Actually the area that we're looking at right now for wetland mitigation, a couple years ago a beaver had moved in and dammed up a portion of that drainage ditch and the city just removed that beaver dam and in the last year or so the cattails sprung up so within a year. Or less than a year you can have the wetland vegetation there. Mancino: It starts. And what we're mitigating right now or filling right now is all ag wetland? Are we getting into any natural or pristine wetlands that we're filling? 1 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Beth Kunhel: No, I believe they were all ag urban, except for the one that was created and that was utilized. Conrad: So the functions of the wetland that we're filling, what were the functions of those wetlands? Beth Kunhel: Basically storm water and some...larger wetland area to the south which kept some wildlife habitat... Scott: Any other comments? So you have any other comments for us? This is a public hearing. May I ask, are there any people who would like to speak on this particular issue? Could I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak at this public hearing. May I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: I had a question for staff in terms of the wetland bank. What do we have in our bank and do we use this just around the city as we fill wetlands for road improvement projects? How does that work? Hempel: I can answer that. The required, as part of the wetland loss that right now are in mitigation, when you fill an acre of wetland, you have to replace it with 2 acres. So essentially we're filling 1.55 acres and we're mitigating 3.1 essentially is a wash there... Beth Kunhel: The restoration area that we're looking at restoring the existing wetland and creating additional wetland adjacent to it, there's a good possibility there would be more wetland created than the 3.1 acres. So that could be enrolled into a wetland banking program. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. What's the balance on our account right now? Hempel: Zero. Ledvina: Zero, okay. So this would be our first wetland banking type of situation? Okay. And again, this could be used for other projects. Scott: Other city projects or is it specifically for the use of other city projects or let's say another developer, we can apply that? Hempel: We're leaning that way. We're trying to establish a banking program whereby we can actually sell some mitigation areas to the developer down the line here. We can give them a total package on where and how to do that... Mancino: I have a question about that in principle. If we are going in to certain areas and we're filling in wetlands and asking for mitigation 2 to 1 in that same area? A lot of times it's because there's been habitat and wildlife in that area. Don't we want to keep the area where we're filling and putting in the 2 to 1 mitigation kind of in the same way? And even add more to the site specific areas versus making it. Hempel: That's a good approach there to replace...mitigation laws go 2 to 1 so if we're filling an acre of habitat, we'd be replacing it with 2 acres. We're essentially going do we need to replace 1 acre of habitat for the wildlife and so forth...an extra acre of land... Mancino: And that was the intent of the 2 to 1 mitigation? Aanenson: ...ag urban wetland...that we can pick an area such as Bluff Creek where we want to...and we all concur that that maybe that would be an area that we want to do and put it in an area where we want to enhance it as an improvements. So those are what we're trying to get some makings on...the implementation portion that Diane is working on, where the appropriate locations would be. Mancino: That's wonderful. Scott: Okay, Ron. Nutting: I don't have any additional comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-5 subject to the staff, the conditions identified in the staff report. Scott: Is there a second? Mancino: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we follow the staff's recommendation. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #92-5 subject to the following conditions: 1. The replacement plan includes restoration to the existing Wetland A. 2. The design and construction specifications must be approved by the City before the project commences. 3. A wetland bank be established for the City and the County if the wetland restoration creates more than the required mitigation. 4. According to the WCA, the project cannot comment until 30 days after the City's decision has been distributed to the parties notified of the application. 5. The County will monitor the replacement and restoration for a period of five years as required by the WCA. Monitoring forms will be completed and submitted to the City at the end of each growing season with descriptions of the site vegetation, wetland types, and ground photos. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: City Council, excuse me Kate. This goes to the City Council on the 12th? Okay, good. Thank you very much. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T 116, R 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDEN POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius, MN Charles Stinson Deephaven Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Lake Road Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd. Mancino: Planning Commissioners, I'd like to ask your approval, well just let you know that I'm going to step down from the Planning Commission at this point for the next two subdivisions that are coming in front of us, which is the Gestach-Paulson and the Ryan subdivisions because my land abuts their land. I have no financial interest in it but I do care about what happens so I'm going to remove myself, if that is fine with you. I talked to the City Attorney and kind of gone over this with him and will take my place as a private citizen and speak from that point of view. Scott: Good, thank you. In view of similar things on other parts of city government, that is definitely appreciated but does not surprise me. Thank you very much. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Harberts: What's the, excuse me. What's the comment by public safety on this issue. I'm trying to determine traffic flow and then stacking up here. Has staff looked at that? Hempel: One of the issues that's been brought up in the subdivision before us this evening that is being addressed, that the intersection spacing was. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Harberts: Pretty tight. Hempel: On their submittal, yes. We did point that out. It would be sufficient, we would revise the drawings and get additional space. Aanenson: I'd like to make a couple of comments as far as the options. What happened with this is we had the Gestach-Paulson party who wanted to go forward with the plat...Lake Lucy extension. Having done that, the Ryans put themselves in a position where they want to make sure the road that they're designing so they were ready to develop. Well that left us with the concern, is well now Mancino's is the last big missing link here and...we needed to make sure that access is provided for all properties. If the Mancino's to come in first we would say okay, you need to now provide access to Gestach-Paulson property and to the Ryan's property so all three parties have been very cooperative and we've spent a lot of time. It's been very difficult. We've kind of wrapped each...issue here as far as on this subdivision but they're all inter related. So we tried to make sure that each subdivision provides access to the adjoining property. It is a complex issue and we're not sure that we've got all the answers but we've tried to give some options that we think may work. There's some steep slopes on this property. Significant grade changes. Some natural features. Wetlands. Heavily wooded areas that we had to preserve. So it is complex but on this, the Gestach- Paulson property, we feel that however we get access to the Mancino's, there is one outlot that was platted on the Shivley addition. We're not sure but...would be to the north into the Mancino's so we're saying somewhere, either through the Ryan's subdivision or through the Gestach-Paulson subdivision, access needs to be given to the Mancino property. And that's why Commissioner Mancino removed herself from this because we're insisting that, whether they develop or if they would sell at some time in the future, somebody may want a public street through there. It may not be them but somehow we need to insure that there's access to that property and we're not land locking them so that's why this issues is before you with this subdivision. Scott: Just a question. Dave, with the alignment that we see here having access to the Mancino property from it looks like between Lots 20 and 21. Is that slope going to be, is it going to be, is it going to be about a 10% grade street or 15% or something like that? Hempel: Yeah. We looked at the topographic maps and it was extremely steep and then I believe the Mancino's had hired an engineer's office to do that as well. The grades were pretty significant for this swath. The street would be 100 feet or so in that area. We felt that that was not a feasible route for a city street to go. Scott: How do you feel about that? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hempel: I would concur with that. I believe there are better alternatives to serve the Mancino parcel than bisecting it in that specific location. Scott: Would you, I mean just from looking at the maps that we are provided, does it appear, at least if we're looking at access from a westerly or southwesterly portion, would you agree that a connection between Lots 15 and 16 would topographically would yield both the access with a minimum amount of disturbance. I mean we don't, obviously we're trying to allow three different land owners to develop responsibly here but just dealing with the access from the westerly side, does it appear that going between Lots 15 and 16 is one of the better alternatives? Hempel: It is a better alternative than the southerly one, definitely. There are a couple drawbacks with that one as well. It would be a single loaded street. The school property is directly to the north. If the Mancino's develop, they may not even elect to use that option. They may loop the street back internally but at least we're providing an access with the utilities for future extension if so desired. Scott: Is there enough distance inbetween, now we need a quarter of a mile inbetween access to county road? What is the distance requirement? Hempel: In this subdivision here we're looking at 300 foot intersection spacing. The quarter mile refers to arterials like Trunk Highway 41. Scott: Okay. So there wouldn't be really anything that would preclude an access point to the Mancino property off of CR 117 that was somewhere in the middle of their, I know there's an existing driveway or something like that. Aanenson: And that would be one access. They would have direct access out onto Galpin. What we're saying is, if that was their only access point, let's say. Scott: Well yeah, you need. Aanenson: You would have a long dead end cul-de-sac and that's our...there needs to be another access point into the Ryan's piece which can...or up through the extension of the cul- de-sac from the Gestach-Paulson property. Scott: Okay, thank you. Al-Jaff: We are recommending approval of this subdivision with conditions outlined in the staff report. I have some minor changes to some. One...where the applicant needs to shift 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 some property lines to give some...adequate frontage. We also apologize for not forwarding the grading plans to you. If there are any questions regarding the grading, it's fairly simple and if there are any questions regarding the grading, we will answer them. With that we are recommending approval of the plan with conditions outlined in the staff report. Scott: Good, thank you. Any comments from commissioners? Hearing none, would the applicant or their representative wish to speak at this time? Yes sir, please state your name and your address please. David Gestach: David Gestach...we've been working with staff and the adjoining neighbors and like they say, it's been a long process. The first plat was submitted back in '85. That was in 2 1/2 acre lots and then...so it's been a long process so we're appreciate your approving the plan. It's basically the same layout as far as...but I guess that's all I have to say. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Good, thank you very much. David Gestach: And the other thing is, we are willing to provide a public street to the adjoining property owners. Scott: Okay. Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: If anyone would wish to speak, please step forward. Give us your name and your address and tell us what's on your mind. Steve Buresh: My name is Steve Buresh. I'm more directly interested in the next item but this one does impact me somewhat since I do live on Galpin Blvd. I do have a few concerns with having lived in this area since 1987 in the Lake Lucy Highlands area. And in that the concerns are with the extension and then with the two additions that are planning to go in there. Currently we already, as someone who tried to get onto Highway 5 every morning, we currently have some extreme traffic problems out there in that area and I think that the Planning Commission should definitely take a look at the approvals of additions out there with the current status of Highway 5 and the fact that it's only 2 lane out there. And then also what, basically what impact this, all these homes going into this area are going to have. Scott: So you're concerned about your access from CR 117? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Steve Buresh: Well with the continuation of Lake Lucy Road there. I'm just about 4 houses down from the intersection of Lake Lucy, the current Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Blvd. The traffic that's going to end up being dumped onto Highway 5 to the south there and then also currently with the traffic that's going through that area right now in the rush hour period. So I just want to voice that we should take into consideration the current roads out in that area before we start expanding that at too large a rate. Scott: Okay. Dave, do you want to talk about the signalization project this fall? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The projection with the new elementary or middle school being constructed at the southeast corner of Trunk Highway 5 and Galpin Blvd, there will be construction and installation of a signalized intersection there to assist traffic in crossing Highway 5. This project and Lake Lucy Road extension will actually probably assist in some of the traffic. Right now you only have one access and that's going south with the extension of Lake Lucy Road through and provide a parallel street system to Highway 5, approximately a 1 1/2 mile north of Highway 5 to give another option to access TH 5 as well. But we are well aware of the traffic concerns at the intersection of Galpin and Trunk Highway 5. We're working on resolving that. Scott: Okay, so that signal will be installed yet this fall? Hempel: Early 1995. Scott: Okay, good. Does that answer your question? Steve Buresh: Yeah. That concludes my concerns. Scott: Good, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sam Mancino: Hi, I'm Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd... Nancy Mancino: Mr. Chair, Nancy Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. Sam Mancino: First off we'd like to make it clear that we at this time have no intentions to develop. We are merely trying to do some long range planning. As the development around us sets in, it becomes clear that we have to apply certain prudent...how we deal with this property and allow for future contingencies. But at this time we don't have any definite plans but we have done some drawings and some planning to...decision. In the process we've talked to a lot of experts and engineers as well as staff...sketched this and we want to kind of walk through some of the issues as we see them. As it regards, the first part of this area, the 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Gestach-Paulson property to the west of us. Both this and as well the Ryan property but basically in terms of the topography for the last many years, working farms has been mostly clearing trees. The rolling topography remains but most of the trees have been cleared. During that same period of time in the 40's and 50's, our's was the old Slogan Tree Farm and planted a lot of specimen trees. The perimeter is pretty much lined by trees and within the site itself there are a lot of very mature trees. The western half is almost completely woods with a ravine system that runs through it. It makes future development of it possible but as we say somewhat problematic. We have to deal with and sensitive to it. Our house is located at about the gift point east and west, very close to the southern property line. Scott: If you could angle that. Could you angle that straight at us so the camera can pick it up from behind. There are cameras everywhere so be careful. Sam Mancino: By the way, this is Charles Stinson who is an architect who will be helping with the presentation and planning. There's a perimeter tree line that runs the entire east/west portion of the southern property line. Many of you who drive Galpin Boulevard probably are familiar with the large stand of arborvitae trees that line the western side of Galpin Road. There's a companion set of arborvitae through here. This entire section is woods and will be...through here, that will meander back into here. The terrain rises somewhat sharply here to a high point. The section near our house is probably at 1,050-1,060 feet and this property falls off down into the 960's I believe or 980's. It's about an 8 foot drop there so just to give you an overall sense of the terrain. Through here there are a lot of stands of Ponderosa pines... As a consequence, most of the people who have advised us about looking at our future development potential, both developers, architects, and engineers, have really come pretty much to the same conclusion which is whatever is happening here, we should probably consider that whatever development we do in our property will be somewhat different than the surrounding developments. Both in terms of the lot sizes, which following the landforms and the natural trees and vegetation...force themselves into a larger lot configuration than we see being platted around us. And so our long range thinking is that we will probably tend to develop that as an eye per se. More self contained and for that purpose we probably don't want to go through...adjoining properties. We've looked at a number of road options. We've been in some discussions with the Gestach-Paulson and Lee and have at one time looked at a variation that staff had talked about us with which had us accessing a road system through here, or a road system through here to serve this property. And perhaps Charles, maybe you can talk to us about some of the things that's happened as a result of that road system. Charles Stinson: Okay. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm an architect and I live at 4733 Eastwood Road in Minnetonka. I was approached by Nancy and Sam about taking a look at that property from an architectural standpoint, from a land planning standpoint and with the understanding that none of us wanted to do a maximum density residential area and we 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 wanted to keep and save the integrity of the area. I mean it's, with all the development going everywhere and with trees coming down and topography being ripped apart, we wanted to save one of the last stands of just specimen trees. I mean there's huge ponderosa pine. Across this area, I mean they're just gigantic. There's a big ravine and again there's 80 feet of drop going from here to down in this area. A lot of, there's pathways. Just a tremendous amount of trees that were planted 40-50 years ago and they go all the way across the property. This is totally dense. Kind of an unmolested nature in this area and they actually extend across the property line. So as we looked at it, the first thing we wanted to think about is, as we get back to the road, was just the idea of what can we do to preserve the integrity of this whole area without destroying it. And with the buffers we're thinking, at the beginning point is, creating a conservation zone that would occur on both our property and the properties abutting that would be desirable for everybody. You know perhaps 30 feet on each side or something but it would be far enough away that it wouldn't destroy the root system and that's one of the problems of so many of our developments is we go in and we say well, we're going to miss that tree with the road but by the time we do the grading, it gets wider than we think and dirt is you know knocking the oxygen out of the roots or the earth below the tree and we lose not only where we've just placed the trees but we've damaged everything around it that we'll lose it within a couple years. So trying to preserve their root system for everything around, for everybody in the neighborhood. So the idea, and in looking at this and the other, we can look at a concept here of the road but to give you a feeling of how they live there...have lived here for the last 10 or 12 years, is there's a private drive that comes in here. Drive through past the existing houses and reaches their house. In going in there, so you're just cutting right through the trees. It's just beautiful and very private. And when you arrive at the house, there's a giant meadow that's just going all the way across here that just goes on forever. There's also a large meadow behind their house and wildflower garden and then again the path system going through here is just, you really should take a look at the property. So in looking at it, I can address this road alternative but this is an example of what can happen I think just about anywhere where a large street comes through the site. But an engineer took a look at this and showed us the topography so I've just identified the area of the trees that certainly would be lost. And to see that, I mean it's a major displacement of that forest. And even if a natural road came in the top, it would do pretty much to the top what the same at the top did and all the ponderosas that seem to be here and here would be gone. And it's right next to the school field and it's exposed to the fence and all that. So it didn't seem like a real good alternative. So what we looked at. Sam Mancino: One other point. In addition to just knocking out the trees, because of the grades. We'd have to probably be either outside...10% grade in some cases which would require, I think that requires cutting down of 10, 12, 14 feet. Being able to fill with 16 feet up in places and being able to...across the whole ravine system so it seemed a bit of a violation to the topography. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Charles Stinson: So in a very cartoon form, this is what we were thinking of. We were thinking if it had to, and we were trying to come up with stages that would happen so the Mancino's could live in their house with the same integrity that they do now and the site. So we thought if, there are several components here but the ravine is so big and this is so dense and the topography is dropping down so much this way and that way, that the service is dipping down here. The best way to service this side, instead of bringing a road all the way through, would be having a two private drives off the west side of the property. One coming up here and would service this lot and this lot with each of them are good sized lots. I'm not sure of the exact acreage they would be. Sam Mancino: Probably 3/4 of an acre. Charles Stinson: Yeah. And another one coming up at the top. So it would just be a private drive and utilities so anything brought up would actually stop at the conservation line instead of wrecking the trees with these. If it doesn't happen and then at some point we would bring them in. And then the other access point would be in kind of a phase one but would be just coming off this existing road up here. That neighborhood and coming out with one cul-de- sac that would service here, here and here with a private drive going to that lot so we could work the homes built in a real...solution into the existing topography. And then leaving this all the same as it exists in the middle and just bringing in a short road and a cul-de-sac here. Just servicing these lots and keeping and using this, what would be the future road, as a private drive going to these lots temporarily and that would leave this whole meadow area as kind of a neutral open zone and that way we'd be leaving all the trees here, all the trees here. As much of this as we possibly can all in this except for where the road can come in. Mancino's would continue to use their existing private drive coming in and enjoy this area. At some point they retire and move out to the country or something, they could put this road all the way through. Connect the two of them and divide this up into lots and they would have a thru street here and a short cul-de-sac at this point. But from the lower portion, just bringing up utilities because the topography is...bring the utilities in here. Instead of having a thru road going through here, just have the utilities again stop at the bottom of the conservation line and I'm getting ahead of myself on this next site but it's all so integrated that it's doing the same thing here. That way we could bring it up. There is a short open space just by the arborvitaes here. Just on the back side of it that there isn't anything. So we could bring it right across there and if we need to go across, we could just kind of tunnel underneath the trees as opposed to making the big hole there. Sam Mancino: As it relates to the future possibility to hook up to Crestview. Some years ago we were requested to come to the city Planning and City Council meeting and we have a note from February 7, 1990 which made a City Council recommendation that at such time that this plat was filed, that it should be amended to provide the right-of-way for the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 extension of Crestview Road...feet which basically though it doesn't lock in the exact location of the road, either positions it through here or possibly through here as long as there are some proper buildable lots. So I think that there is some notice in the record that that is a strong preference from staff at one point that recommended that we hook up at that time. Nancy Mancino: Yes, that is true. That when the Shivley's went in and did, I think it was a subdivision in here. That staff asked to make sure that we had access to the north. And the particular road alignment, where that access is. Whether it's between here and there, it was not drawn out. It was not stated exactly where it is. That there is an outlot that was created to have a roadway to go into the new property. But the exact location is between there and there...very comfortable that if it isn't right here, it could come over the cul-de-sac and also allow for our entering onto Galpin and there would be two accesses into the property so there would not be a long cul-de-sac. Sam Mancino: Just to reiterate my point. Though we've looked at the possibility of bringing in a flow through road, we do believe that we, long term will serve the community's needs to flow a road through into Crestview, which will create the circulation and the need. The other thing is that in terms of violating and ripping and tearing the property, there's two discreet private drives that would be built to city roadway standards would probably be...virtually no different than a road easement for full service roads. We don't feel that that's much of a burden on the adjoining property owners and we have offered to help in landscaping the road. The private drive going in there to be able to minimize the impact on that. And it also facilitates a better sequence of any future development, whether it's ourselves or someone else in the future because there are a number of options for sequencing in this area. Nancy Mancino: No, I don't think there is. As just stated, we would recommend that under the condition of the staff approval that number 28 be changed. Instead of having a street access off the, the applicant shall provide a right-of-way and street and utilities to the east boundary of the plat and tying in a temporary cul-de-sac which will be signed on barricades to indicate this street shall be extended in the future. That we do recommend that two accesses, two private drives between Lots 15 and 16 and Lots 19 and 20...be approved. Also there be a 30 foot conservation easement on the perimeter of the property that abuts the Gestach-Paulson property. Scott: And from looking at the staff report, you've discussed the private drive issue with the Gestachs and they've. Sam Mancino: We haven't. Unfortunately haven't been able to work out all of the details of that. As they said, they are, as I understand, they are more than willing to bring a road up at either of the locations. In some conversations we've had we have asked for two private 13 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 drives in lieu of a single road. At our latest discussions, I think that they would prefer a single road, full sized... Scott: Okay. Good. Nancy Mancino: Any questions? Sam Mancino: Any questions? Scott: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Lee Paulson: My name's Lee Paulson. I live in St. Bonifacius. Gestach-Paulson Construction. We've already gone over this private driveway stuff. My partner's talked to staff and talked to Mancino's and our experts tell us that it would...our development by having these private driveways running through our development. We don't want private driveways. We agree with staff with Option A or B. We just don't want these private driveways in there. I don't believe staff really wants these driveways. The way I understand it, want the driveways either and we'd like to see this moved on to, voted on and moved on to the next step. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Steve Buresh: I would like to comment. Scott: Well why don't we see if there's someone who would like to speak first. Or for the first time. Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, my name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard which is that kind of odd shaped, rectangle in the upper right corner. I just wanted to be recognized as an interested party. I haven't been involved with the other discussions and just to save my remarks for item 3. Scott: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Sir, if you can make your comments extremely brief then. Steve Buresh: Now that it's been outlined here and made a little bit clearer, since this does pretty much go along with the concerns that I have for the next item on the agenda too and that is the area that adjoins Galpin Boulevard there. This whole area along Galpin Boulevard is 2 1/2 acres and larger lots and I think that, I don't know exactly what the size of the lots that are being proposed for this section, for that small pan handle section there that runs up to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Galpin Boulevard but I would strongly recommend that those lots be no smaller than an acre and a half in order to fit in with the aesthetics of the area. This area is also very, there's very much wildlife in the area. I've got deer that go across my property all the time. That's one of the reasons that I moved out there. I was raised on a farm so I like the open spaces and basically I feel that that probably is the reason a lot of people are out there with the large sized lots. So I guess I'd ask the Planning Commission to monitor what size those lots should be in the panhandle section there of that development to make sure that those are, would fit in with the area. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I guess I haven't, perhaps I...what is staff's reaction to the private drive issue? Hempel: Maybe I can address first from a utility standpoint. Depending on the length of a private driveway, it's typically 200 feet is probably maximum for the sewer and water extension for a single service. The...we looked at servicing additional lots and properties and trying to get a full sewer line or a water line in there... The other issue is basically...for a single lot or two lots for a private driveway that responsibility is with that homeowner to maintain that line. Whereby if it's a city street, it's obviously maintained by the city and so forth. With the roadway extension to the northeast corner of the property, it leaves the option for the Mancino's to either explore a full service street through there or explore stubbing off a private driveway to serve up to 4 lots off of that cul-de-sac. There is significant elevation change from the north end of the property to the south end of the property where it may be somewhat difficult to extend the private driveway down to service that area where the southerly private driveway the Mancino's are requesting. That end there...will be served internally through a private driveway through the Mancino's but again there's some steep slopes and ravines and the private driveway would have to meander in order to do that. The private driveway would have less environmental effects, less trees, less grading, to do that but the...so I think staff's position is that we're obligated to look at providing adjacent properties street and utility service and I believe that's what we're doing in this circumstance. Without a full fledged development proposal before us from the Mancino's, we really, there's a lot of options in developing the property. The Mancino's are requesting large lots. That's fine. That's great here. It would be nicely preserved with that. There's also potential that the Mancino's would sell the property at some future date to another developer and we would 15 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 have potentially a 15,000 square foot lot subdivision. So it's critical from a street and utility aspect that it provide the infrastructure and street right-of-way to service that for a full fledged subdivision. Nutting: Did I hear correctly, did the applicant prefer Option A or B and not C? David Gestach: Yes. Nutting: ...Option C. Aanenson: That was before...we asked Mancino's to explore whether or not, there was a portion of this plat that is on the Gestach-Paulson that's called Outlot A. This portion isn't being platted right now. That's a future development... Mancino's looked at going out through there and we asked them to see... Nutting: I think there are a number of issues here. I think I'm going to defer maybe some of those to the other commissioners. Scott: Okay, Diane. Harberts: I guess just from my perspective, I'm certainly torn with regard to the opportunity to develop the land on both parties in the way that they want to. When I go back or revisit our other plans with regard to how important it is to the community with regards to it's natural resources, and the uniqueness that exists on the Mancino property. I guess I'm not quite sure. I think there's a lot of, I think the commission should maybe have a discussion with regard to some of those values that we place on our natural resources and see if this might be one of those projects that we might want to have some kind of special consideration because of what we're dealing with. The development itself with regard to the applicant, I guess I'm okay with it in broad concept and I guess my concern lies more with that overall picture, especially when we're dealing with some of those special resources. And I'm just, I'm undecided. I really am. Scott: So you need more time to consider? More time to think about it or. Harberts: Well mine is, I think maybe it is a matter of more time to think about it because we have a really unique feature here and when you look at some of the work we've done with our other developments, I think it deserves a little extra special consideration here. And you know, I mean Kate kind of characterized it well when she said we don't have all the answers but we're trying. Maybe at this point that's all we can do but it sounds like both the applicant and the Mancino's are trying to work something out. I guess personally I'd like to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 see this resolved for all parties, including the city. If we're locking ourselves in by some type of approval on it tonight. I'd rather then table it or like I said, see it resolved. If we're in fear of locking ourselves into something if approval is given tonight. Scott: Okay, Ladd. Harberts: Did you find your page? Conrad: I found my page, yeah. I like the staff report. I think they covered most everything. It seems like a good staff report. I like one of the additions the Mancino's made about the tree easement. I think that's important. I think what everybody is talking about is sort of unclear in my mind right now. I'm not really sure. Road alignment for Lake Lucy I think should be as per the original. I don't like Alternative B for Lake Lucy. I like the way it was originally specked and I think that's where it should be. In terms of access to the Mancino property, I really appreciate what they're trying to do. It's a little bit, yeah it's funny you look at it, it's not based on what we typically do here in our bigger lot subdivisions but what they're trying to do is what we endorse. But to a degree it seems a little bit, it's hard to totally grasp what they're trying to do. I'm not sure I understand it yet. I certainly don't mind an access to the north off of the proposed Brenden Pond cul-de-sac going into their property. I'd reduce the number of lots on the plat that I'm currently, on the subdivision that I'm seeing. I think if a road were to swing to the north off of that cul-de-sac, I'd really, I think I'd be eliminating a lot there. And I also, I think there's yeah. I'd be eliminating a lot up there and swinging at least a road or a cul-de-sac into the Mancino property. I'm not sure how to deal with what they're requesting for the private drive to the southwest of their parcel. Bottom line. Like the staff report. Like the tree easement. Road access to Mancino is, I'm up in the air on that. I guess I do want an access on the northwest corner. I'm not sure if it's a private driveway or if it's a connection to that cul-de-sac. If that cul-de-sac literally dead ends into the Mancino property. If it dead ends into it, I'd keep a lot, Lot 15. I want to have a full lot there so that would back up to the school. I don't really know what I'm talking about because I haven't walked the property and I know Matt has so again I guess I'm going to, maybe Matt can persuade us a little bit because I know he's been out there and maybe he has a better feel for it. Scott: Okay, Matt. Thanks. Ledvina: Well the issues that are associated with the plat are real thorny ones and the problem that I see the Mancino's face in terms of their development is that the west part of their property is isolated by a ravine and they feel the need to maintain that landform and also the trees that are associated with that. Because if they go blowing roads through there, I mean they're going to wipe out a tremendous amount of really beautiful area and. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Can I stop you for just a second? How would this fit in with our bluff ordinance? That ravine. Is that considered a bluff? Aanenson: I don't believe it would be, no. Ledvina: I don't think it would, no. Aanenson: There is a ravine that topographically. I mean we looked at putting a culvert in there and yes, it does pose a significant...but maybe not. Scott: Okay. I just thought maybe with that ordinance. Ledvina: I don't think that comes into play but in terms of the access. I would generally agree with Ladd that the northern access be provided. I don't know about the access towards the southeast corner of the Mancino parcel. I don't know how that would work. There's still, according to the grading plan that the applicant has proposed, there'd be some, it would really run havoc with their grading plan because they do have some steep slopes right in that corridor. I don't know. It would almost seem that although the property lines have served to kind of define the vegetation for landform to the western part of the Mancino property is really with this subdivision or with this parcel. And so it's always hard when the lines get drawn on the maps and I think that's the exact same thing we're going to see with the other parcel to the east and in relation to Mancino's south line there too. Although there's, the trees have been come up because of the amount of time. Still it's, you're dealing with kind of a related land area in terms of the slopes, etc. Okay. Having said that, I would feel that there should be a way of running that northern street to the property line and extending some kind of private drive to the south. I don't know. I think that possibly the south private drive could be reviewed to see if that could be eliminated. I didn't have an opportunity to review the grading plan before this evening and I guess I do have some concerns immediately as I look at this grading plan. I think the, first of all I think that a conservation easement of 30 feet along the property boundary abutting Mancino's represents an excellent idea in trying to preserve those trees but you, the grading plan as indicated this evening grades right to the property line with some severe slopes so I don't know how off the top of my head, I don't know how to remedy that or reconcile the situation with the conservation easement and the grading as shown. Obviously if they're going to grade right to the property line, that would actually affect some of the trees that actually are on the Mancino property so that essentially is unacceptable. In the other portions of the subdivision I see that the developer is relatively conscientious of the trees that are bordering the wetland on the west part of the parcel and then even in the south. They've done a pretty good job of staying away from the wetland area so it's essentially that difficult area near the southeast or southwest corner of the Mancino's that I think has to be reworked and I don't know if you change the grades here, I 18 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 don't know how that would change the street grades. Or what can be done there. If necessary, perhaps retaining walls represent an option. I don't know. The other thing that we normally have with these plats before we make decisions relates to the tree conservation and we generally have a tree inventory associated with these developments and although I can, I generally have the feeling that the trees along the western part of the development, adjacent to the wetland, I have a feeling that the grading doesn't go into those trees. I don't really know that. And again, along the east boundary I have concerns there too. There also is quite a bit of grading in Outlot A that doesn't appear to be necessary. And again, I don't know what trees are down in that area and how that's going to affect what could be done there in the future so I think that, I don't know, can they grade on Outlot A? If this is all platted together. Al-Jaff: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. So that would be something that I'd like to see also. Yeah, it appears they're grading quite a bit there. Well at any rate, I didn't have very much time to study that plan. Let's see. I guess as far as the street layout, it seems to be utilizing the area fairly well. I don't have a problem with that. Just for looking at some of the conditions of the staff report, there's some duplications in here I think. Number 8 is repeated as number 14. And then 25, 26, 19 is also repeated. Let's see. As it relates to number 9. Dave, I had a question on condition number 9. Talking about Lake Lucy Road. Would we also want to identify that those lots that are platted with, or that are developed with Outlot A shall be limited to interior streets or I guess do we have to define that at this time. Hempel: I don't believe we do. The other problem we have here is if Lake Lucy Road alignment does get shifted northerly, there is a potential lot site or two on the south side which may be appropriate so I guess at this stage we would have another chance at Outlot A. That would have to be platted and brought back before you to address that issue. Ledvina: Okay. So we would see Outlot A as a preliminary plat before us again, okay. Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. I don't know what else I need to comment on here. I guess my overall feeling is that I'm a little uncomfortable. I am uncomfortable with the situation with the tree inventory. I would like to see the developer and the Mancino's try to work a little bit more on the access scenario because it appears that they're worlds apart. The developer does not want the private driveway and it appears that that's the preferred technique for development for the Mancino's and I don't know that we can get between that process and try to resolve that here tonight. And it's important because it really will affect how that area associated 19 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 with the ravine gets developed and whether there's extensive grading in there or not and associated tree loss so I think we could see a little more work on this one. Scott: Dave I just, I have a question. Just a question. I noticed that the official, it looks like the official alignment for Lake Lucy Road shows the road, and I'm talking about the area between West Baptist Church and the Carlson property. It appears that there's quite a bit of clearance inbetween the property to the south. When I look at the applicants drawing, it comes right up to the property line. My question is, what kind of an impact, since we're talking about adjoining properties, we really have not spoken about the Carlson property. With the change in the alignment, what sort of impact is that going to have on the Carlson property? It looks like the road, the applicant has shifted the road and I can't tell you how many feet or what it is. I mean it's obvious if the road goes straight through there, they're going to lose, probably lose 2 lots. Hempel: I believe that roadway alignment for Lake Lucy Road has been established as a part of the feasibility study the city has conducted. Scott: On the applicant's plan? Okay. Hempel: That's correct. My understanding. Ledvina: It looks a little different. Scott: Well it's a lot different. I mean I'm looking at this. Ledvina: Yeah. The section just east of Highway 41. In terms of the feasibility study and what the applicant is. Scott: Yeah I don't know, is this an official map here of the proposed Lake Lucy alignment? This is, okay. Well when I compare this to the alignment to the east, or the west side of the applicant's development, it touches the property line on the south side. So I'm trying to figure out if this is official, it's not the same as what the applicant has on their property. Hempel: I believe in the feasibility study they showed 2 or 3 different alignments for extending out to the Westside Baptist Church directly affected the Carlson property to the south. There is a degraded wetland on that southwest corner of the Baptist Church site. That was one option. I think...elected to align. Scott: Swing it up, yeah. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Hempel: ...rejuvenate or restore that wetland... Scott: If you have a preliminary plat map you can, if you happen to have that, you can see how there's a difference between the road alignments and my question is, where is it going to be? Aanenson: I think the simple answer to that is, Mr. Engelhardt, Bill Engelhardt designed Lake Lucy project and he's also the project engineer for the Gestach-Paulson piece so we're confident that he matched the alignments. That would be our qualification on that and Mr. Carlson, as Dave indicated, is aware of this alignment that was approved by the City Council as part of the feasibility study. So they should match... Scott: Okay. Well I just was concerned because I saw some differences that were visible in these two. Aanenson: ...again, we put this in for your edification... Scott: Okay, that's fine. I don't have any other comments. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that we table preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond. Scott: Is there a second? Harberts: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Nancy Mancino did not participate in voting on this item.) Scott: So we'll be seeing this, what on the 7th? Aanenson: If you give the staff direction? Scott: Okay, pretty easy. Matt is going to need the time and the rest of us are going to need the time to review the grading plan. We need a tree inventory. Aanenson: We have a tree inventory that was done. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: I mean a graphic representation of where they are. I mean we went through this with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. We had a listing of all the trees but we had no idea where they were. Something like that where we can see the locations and then also staff's best guess of the trees that are going to be removed due to streets, utilities and pads. Building pads. What did I miss? Harberts: I'd like a little further work, consideration with regard to the environmental resources here. With regard to full road versus perhaps that private drive concept and recognize that it's probably not the usual way that the city likes to conduct business but again I guess I'm just pointing out that I feel we have a unique situation here with regards to the environment and maybe just revisit it. Maybe the applicant, the Mancino's and city staff can sit down and maybe there's a resolution. It sounds like you're close. See if there's some alternative that is palatable for everyone. But I personally think there's some environmental issues here that we should be sensitive to. Thank you. Ledvina: Mr. Chairman, also along that, the east property boundary and dealing with the grading in relation to the conservation easement. I think that has to be addressed somehow. And how that affects the grading for the entire parcel I don't know. Scott: Okay. Ladd. Conrad: Just as a point of clarification. I know we can serve the two lots the Mancino's want to serve on the northwest with an extended cul-de-sac into their property. Dead ending into their property. I know we can. Well I'd like to know if that's possible. Same street standards as not a drive but the same street standards as we're using on the Brenden Pond roadway and then the question again is, how do we service the, can we service the two lots to the southwest and the Mancino property. Is there a feasible way of doing that and is that besides the private drive that was recommended. Scott: Okay. Does that help? Aanenson: Yes, thank you. I'm sure we've got everything. Scott: Well I'm glad you asked. We need that sometimes. Nutting: Part of the hypothetical here is you're talking about a plat for the Mancino property which doesn't exist and may not ever exist and I think, I sense in thinking through this process and what, where staff is coming at this from is you know we may never get the applicant and the Mancino's to agree you know sitting down so then we're left with making a decision. That decision either takes away a lot from the applicant or impacts the potential 22 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 development which the Mancino's may or may not do. As we say, they could sell the land. Someone else could come in and the northerly entrance may not be a significant issue. So what I struggle with in this whole thing is, we've got the applicant before us. We have to make the decision on how we're going to impact that on the basis of what might be impacted in the adjacent development. I'm not sure where we, you know the dividing line in terms of, I guess we're playing a little bit of, we're developing the Mancino property here with the street proposal that we're making. Harberts: But I think what we're also doing is. Nutting: Or we're moving towards that. Harberts: And I'm not disagreeing with you Ron. Nutting: I'm not on one side or the other. I'm throwing out the position here and I think we need to be a little careful as we, or it's very definitely it's a piece of property with a resources that for all of the...this is the type of thing we want to be careful about and make sure that we preserve what we can from a development standpoint but I struggle with what we do with assuming they can't come to some agreement down the road as to accessing private drives or if staff doesn't feel there's any room to give on the private drive issue versus Option C that they're proposing. What direction we turn. Harberts: And I would just add or comment or take it from there on that perhaps what we're facing is perhaps a situation in which in the true sense of planning, after all the numbers are ran and all of this, it's like what does my gut tell me because this is really what we're doing is guiding land use. I think that's the real, one of the real elements here that we have to deal with. And there's nothing wrong with that...but that's where my frustration or going back and revealing all of the things that we've done with other developments. The Lake Susan. The tree inventory. The conservation. All of those things. To me it looks like we have all of those elements here. Wait a minute. Maybe we need to just stop and revisit that. Understand what we're doing. Because of this site we don't have, I don't know if there's a whole of other sites like this but it's just a matter of taking a little extra time. Understanding what we're doing. Nutting: I agree. Scott: Good. Thank you for your comments. Thank you all for coming. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 52 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE. Public Present: Name Address Dan Herbst 7640 Crimson Bay David Gestach 8001 Acorn Lane Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius John & Mariellen Waldron 1900 Lake Lucy Road Martin Kuder 6831 Galpin Blvd. Steve Buresh 6651 Galpin Blvd. Peter & Marg Davis 6640 Galpin Lake Road Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions? Harberts: I just have a point of discussion. You know I certainly respect the amount of time that staff and the applicant put on this. I know it takes a lot of work on the staff's time and I respect the time that the people have taken to come here to make comments. I feel, I guess I'm just looking at, in terms of time and good use of time, with all of those issues and not really having a complete packet. I guess I'm a little concerned about spinning my wheels because I don't know, I see some of these aren't maybe requirements with regards to lots. Things like that. I don't know if that's then going to change this drastically and it's just, I guess I just don't like spinning my wheels with other things going on with my time. But anyway, that's just a point of discussion. Scott: Okay. Can I just ask a question? How many residents are here for this particular issue? Okay. Well we are scheduled to have a public hearing and we will have a public hearing. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Aanenson: Can I make a point of clarification? Scott: Sure. Aanenson: We had the same issue at staff. These are three properties are very, very complex. The reason we put it on, even though there's a lot of issues unresolved, we need to give them some direction... We came forward with our recommendation. There was no concurrence so we felt the best thing to do was to put it in front of the public and give them some marching orders so they know so they're not spending their time...so we are trying to make that. give them some clear direction on where to go with their plat so that's... Harberts: That's a good point. Thank you Kate. Scott: Okay, good. Harberts: I still think I'm spinning my wheels. Scott: Okay. Any other questions from the commissioners for staff. Would the applicant like to make, or their representative like to make a presentation? Please state your name and your address. Chuck Plowman: My name is Chuck Plowman, the project engineer representing the Ryans. Mary Ryan is here this evening if there are any questions that I am unable to answer. Ed would have loved to be here but he was involved in an accident and he's still recuperating so he's not able to attend the meeting at this time. Let me start with just a little bit of the project background. Lake Lucy Road, can you just put that map up there that shows the outlot. I'd like to see the one where Lake Lucy Road ends...specifically to give the Ryans an opportunity to evaluate their plat. See what might be most feasible and practical and...involved with the properties. So we've been spending the last 3 months going over different plans and different options and looking at exactly that. So what I'd like, I gave Dave a copy of something yesterday which is a modification for a lot of the things that we're talking about tonight and I think if you could just bear with me, I'll shed some light on a lot of things involved with bringing up some major issues. Let me just start with, the initial plat was submitted, let me call it Plan A showing Lake Lucy Road up at the top. Staff told us that this was not a good plan because of the impacts on the environment and the excessive grade, actual grading up into the property north of us. So we came back with trying to address those concerns. We did another plan, without much input from staff but just giving some, they gave us some direction and we just come up with a second drawing that we submitted to them prior to the last scheduled meeting that we were going to be on. That showed Lake Lucy coming right down the center of that corridor. And what I liked about 25 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one so much was that it was the most sensitive to the environment. ...all the trees along the north. Gave us long lots this way. Long lots this way. Stayed out of the wetlands. It was just the most favorable as far as environmentally concerned. It gave us some nice walkout lots here and some liveable lots here because we've got a lot of room in the back to do some grading. This was bumped down because staff said that we don't want all of these driveways connecting to Lake Lucy Road. So that brings us to the plan that we have before you tonight. This is almost identical to the one in your packet but there was a couple things done to it to address some issues...Here we're 60 feet south of the property line with the beginning of the right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road. That enabled us to construct the road width along...boulevard and also a 3 to 1 slope and if we do get into the trees, it's very, very minor. And it also allows us to have two cul-de-sacs, one to the south and some very desirable lots looking over a wetland. This is what we're really studying the entire plat for what's economically favorable to the plat and also what's favorable to the environment. So we've come up with this plan. We are not encroaching on the wetlands. We're not taking out the trees. We're coming up with a favorable plan for development and we feel this is the plan that's best. Let me just talk a little bit about this. This is with the Lake Lucy Road going with this original alignment to the south. With the cul-de-sacs going to the north. We end up with tuck under lots. Two for sure, possibly more. We end up with destroying another tree...because of the elevation of the road. The slope will require some wetland...so this one's not favorable from a development standpoint. It is definitely not favorable from the environment standpoint. Let me just back up a little bit to the staff report. Let me just talk about Options A, B and C. Option A I believe was the one I just showed you. Option A was the... Okay, I really just went over that and described to you why that's not a good choice. Option B, which is the one that we just talked about, which we like. As far as the location of Lake Lucy Road. Option C is not at all favorable to the Ryan's because it's going to, this number of lots are going to be getting up here plus they're ready to develop now. They want to develop now. And initially we had hoped when we started a few months ago, they were looking only at the alignment and wanting to get some location or connecting point set. That has changed. They spent the money to have all this work done, and research done and they've got a different mind set. They do want to develop. They don't want to wait 2 years, 5 years, whatever. So they're here. They're here to get your approval so they can develop. So Option C is not a good option. And I was understanding it also is not very good for the future plans for a cul-de-sac to come down into this property through the trees so that to me would be another reason to not go with that one. Let me just touch on some of the issues. I know Dave's aware of some of them that I addressed. Things have been happening so fast. I get a short notice about some things that need attention and then Dave gets a short time to look at it so again, it's kind of works both ways. The 300 foot spacing from Galpin Blvd to the first street. The initial thought by staff was that this was going to have a ripple effect. It's going to change all these intersections. When in fact it didn't. This intersection moved I figure about more like 100 feet. 110 feet or something like that. But 26 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 this one really didn't change all except for that moving over making these lots deeper and these were excessive before so they fit the plan. What we did also with that is, instead of having, see how the street is moving up and in fact it's going to the right. Once we switch this street over, it was not workable doing it that way. Now we had a previous plan that showed it coming this way so this is going back to that plan...Plan B so we kind of referred it back to that on this plan and we think it works much better. We did lose another lot. Now we're down to 49. We're moving in the wrong direction. So I guess the effect of the 300 feet was not a major issue, and I know that's...not only your's but mine. But that wasn't...everything stayed the same... Along with this reconfiguration right here, the 17 foot by the way was also added to Galpin. The wetland setbacks. There was a drafting error on a couple lots which showed this pad down here so it was...and was obvious that it was too close to the wetland but when in fact there is room there so that's not... The storm water treatment ponding area was also an issue and before we turned the configuration things, we had no choices where the inlet and outlet was going but since then we reconfigured this, which allowed us to construct a pond in this fashion. And also discharging the storm sewer at this end of the pond. Outlets at this end of the pond. We have plenty of volume. As you can see it's quite large. So we do have an ideal situation with the discharge and the outlets being offset into the pond and that's what Dave was looking for. Something in that fashion. On the wetlands itself, can you differentiate between the green and the yellow? Okay, the yellow is actually fill that's going into the wetland. This area is not filled because we're actually excavating in here. But wherever fill is taking place, you have to follow rules to mitigate for that. The green areas are mitigation areas. And those areas sum up to a little shy of being 2 to 1. So we need to confer with Diane about what our options might be. There's no credit given for storm water ponds according to the rules, even though we're creating wet ponds, it doesn't apply for mitigation. The option I was looking at was...the cul- de-sac a little bit. Reducing the fill so it is workable because I did...find where I can do that. Lower it down and reduce the...that 2 to 1 ratio. Time is running short so this is what I came with. I looked at the canopy coverage, because that was one of the things that they were looking for, and I count 10%. So there was an error made by one of the fellows...came up with, what was it? Generous: 75. Chuck Plowman: Yeah, so 10%. We do have the issue of these lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. The idea of private drives is real negative for the same reasons that were mentioned before because who wants to live with a private drive, even if it's facing out, a private drive between these homes is just not good. And we certainly don't want to do that. I guess what I would like to ask is that separation would be given a common drive for 2 of them instead of one for each because I know the city does allow access to collector roads where there's not a good alternative. I think this is the case where there is not a good alternative. We've done 27 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 real well in keeping everything off Lake Lucy Road. I think this is a piece of property that', no matter how you slice this up, it happens. You can't get away from it. Again I think I'm just going to reiterate but I feel this is the best plan. This is the plan we want and we want you to consider this for approval tonight contrary to what staff is recommending so all the actions from here are taken into account with some items I've clarified and addressed. Not to make it any lighter, I wanted to also mention the fact about the potential of using 50 foot right-of-ways. Staff discussed with us...about doing that. I forget which layout we were looking at. But the advantage to 50 foot right-of-ways, for example here. We could use the 10 feet and pull this right-of-way in. Along with that we pulled the grading slope 10 feet in. It's a plus as far as... 60 foot right-of-ways are really something that have been used for many years and more and more we're going to 50 because the utilities are now going in a common trench so we don't need that room we used to have in the boulevards and the easements that they used to have for gas, telephone and electric. They're all going in one trench so the 50 foot right-of-way's working well. We can live with the 60 but I think if it's possible, we'd like the 50. I really had no further comments unless there's any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Scott: Good. Any questions for the applicant? Harberts: Could you just take one more minute and just kind of resummarize why you prefer the alignment of Lake Lucy? You know your preference as to why again. Chuck Plowman: Sure. This location of Lake Lucy Road was pulled away from the north property line so that we could preserve this tree line along this north property line, and I know the Mancino's are very concerned about that and... So this location allows us to build a road with the boulevard and...it's very tight but I'm saying we can get...in here and preserve the boulevard and save trees. On the other side, we're not encroaching onto the wetland with any fill. We do have a nice location here for a treatment pond and discharging runoff before it goes into the wetland. As far as the talk of there being mass grading, I've been involved with a few sites that are like this. There's going to be mass grading, I don't care how you look at it. And it's not a problem. You know we need to be sensitive to the trees. The wetlands. We can move a lot of dirt. It doesn't cost that much when it comes to developing land. I mean it's, there's a limit obviously but this isn't a problem as far as, you know if you move 2 feet of dirt, the tree's gone. If you move 10 feet, the tree's gone. It doesn't make any difference. Harberts: Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Do you want to hear the reasons why I don't like the other one? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Harberts: No. I got those down. I just wanted to again, just make sure I clearly understood the preference of why on that one. Thank you. Chuck Plowman: Well obviously from a developer's standpoint, we have lots that we can sell for a good price. If we put the cul-de-sacs up to the north, we lose lots or value. Scott: Good, any other comments or questions? Good, thank you sir. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion please. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: The public hearing is now open. If you'd like to speak about this particular item, please step forward and give us your name and your address. Don't all stand up at once. Thank you sir. Steve Buresh: Steve Buresh again from 6651 Galpin Blvd. One small question. Now this is also a proposed approval of a preliminary plat drawing for the area. Scott: Yeah. And then a rezone from RR to RSF. Steve Buresh: Right. Well that in fact is what I had the biggest problem with. This particular asking for, which I guess has been revised down to 50 now, single family homes, may fit in with the residential single family but the residential single family rezone does not fit in with this area at all. The area is large lot. The lots on Lake Lucy Highlands area are 2 1/2 acres. That is probably some of the smallest lots in the area. And I think that if we allow it to be subdivided as it is currently, we're totally going to destroy the look of the area. That's probably something that we want to attain at some point. I think we have to strongly look at the people that are in the area now. What their wants and needs are but also consider the future obviously. We can't have all this land if it's not going to be developed at some point in time. That's just not feasible to believe that that can happen. But I guess my recommendation is not to rezone it as residential single family but in fact keep it as rural residential and work out some kind of agreement like we've done in the Lake Lucy Highlands area and I guess I wouldn't see a problem with it being even 1 1/2 acres per lot. This would fit, still fit in with the aesthetics of the area and this particular location of this proposed development is right in the middle of the deer migration path. I know in fact because I wake up every morning and have deer crossing my property. They go right into this area. This is going to destroy the wildlife in the area, but I'd like to reiterate that it's just destroys the aesthetic value of that area. So I strongly recommend that you do not rezone this as residential single family. Thank you. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Okay. Kate, RSF. 15,000 square foot lots. This is approximately what, averages 20. Generous: 22. Scott: 22, okay. The reason why I brought that up is that, and this has been guided in our comprehensive plan as a RSF area. What the applicant could have done is put in 15,000 square foot lots and would have met the minimum requirement for lot size in a residential single family. So we feel that this is preferable. It's beyond what the minimum would be but your comments are appreciated. I think that development is going to happen and basically what we see, our position is that we try to get the best that we can for the city and it's very rare and I think since, in the last 2 years that I've been involved here, I don't think that we've put through a development that met the minimums. I don't think we really accept the minimums. We try to encourage better but no, you're comments are well taken because you know you're used to a certain type of lifestyle and what we're trying to do is trying to manage the land use as best we can but they always have to be subject to the ordinances that we deal with but thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis, 6640 Galpin Blvd. Could I ask that that map be put back up which showed the two different properties. I wanted to speak to several items, specifically I was encouraged to hear that there is a concern over the aesthetics and the ambience of the area. We just recently moved into the area. We knew that this development was about to take place. What I wanted to point out, and since some of you have started to walk the property and is generally aware of the aesthetics and what some of the unique features are. This gentlemen spoke of some of the migratory habits. There are a lot of ecosystems that are really coming into play here. Not only the deer but we have snow owls and bat populations. Pheasant runs that are taking place from across Galpin Lake Road where actually coming up from other wildlife areas to the northeast coming through this property and out into these wetlands and then going and spreading out back across Galpin in both directions. So what I wanted to point out was the fact there are actually quite a number of different ecosystems, both plant and wildlife that are going to be impacted by this development with all of the rapid that has been taking place in Chanhassen. I think it's very important that there's some considerations being made. We're very encouraged by the Mancino's efforts to set up some buffer zones and we would like to recommend that you actually consider some of the other effects of grading, as I understand it, some of the mitigation land that would enable some of the protection for these migratory patterns that exist and cutting from the northeast to the southwest. Secondly I wanted to recommend that from an ambience standpoint in the area, the use of private drives. We currently share a private drive with the Mancino's that was, has subject to a lot of easements and what not and are finding that the arrangement to be quite workable. We want to encourage some of that kind of development because I think it adds to 30 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 the area. It promotes somewhat of a lower density which is why we actually chose to move out to this area. And lastly I wanted to speak to the nature of the development in terms of the overall road and density and I wanted to encourage the city to do anything it could to accelerate any traffic work that was going to go on as was mentioned tonight to us earlier about the light at TH 5. Since that, there is quite a bit more traffic that is already coming into some of the developments on the south. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes sir. Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. To get back to a point we made earlier. We know that this...potential to develop but we would like to revisit this plan for a moment because we are going to... What I'd like to borrow these for a minute if I could. To remind you of the configuration of our property. The lines okay start immediately south of our property line. And there's a stand of trees along here that straddles either side of the line on that property and there's some bluffs here. When we first became aware of the Ryan's intent to develop, we went out and tried to understand the impact that that was going to have on us and understand it from an access point of view and a utility point of view, from land use point of view, and from conservation and things like that. One of the things we had to understand first, what was going to go on next to us and what basically was the land use intent and a lot of the first things that we found was the original design pushed Lake Lucy Road up to the property line. That the intent was to grade basically all the way through the tree line and on this site plan that would put that grading about here where our house is. So that concerned us to begin with. Just a little concern. Throughout the process of seeing the plans start to evolve here, what we've seen is a continual kind of a paradon that was drawn originally on a flat piece of property but has ultimately translated itself into turning the land into a flat land. They're trying to take all of the ground from here and transpose it over on this side by grading all the way up. And I think that what we've heard is just basically to maximize the number of lots, which is not our point to comment on other than it does tell us about the size, the shape and configuration of that and that it no way is that compatible with what we see going on up here. That we would like to argue against forcing any penetration at this point because we think we can access our property through here, ultimately migrate out through here...for a connection at this point. We are concerned on a few other things. As their grading plan started to evolve, even their latest version which pushes the road down 60 feet, still has severe grading and as their engineer has said, we won't lose too many trees here but as he's also said, if you grade 2 feet you lose trees anyway. So what we would like to request is a 30 foot easement, conservation easement along here. The consequence of their grading, any of the remaining trees on their property, which are indicated through this section and show up on some of these plans, will all go away. They're not preserving a single tree that I'm aware of in this section of the property so at minimum we'd like to be able to request that this be a buffer be provided and that we be given an appropriate utility easement 31 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 for the lot to the edge of the conservation easement for future access. We also agree with staff that in their current plan, I'm not sure if it will show it on here but what is shown as Lot 10 is an unbuildable lot and they're trying to build some very, very steep retaining walls and do some severe grading again on the premise that more lots equals more money and I'm not certain that that's an acceptable premise. It's possible but I'm not sure that I believe that. And that I think as another by product of this 60 foot piece, if you look at the grades here, it's probably very doubtful whether they'll be able to grade out and...encroaching on the required conservation land. Charles, is there anything that you'd like to add? Charles Stinson: I'd like to add to if I could. I think a lot of it, Charles Stinson. Minnetonka. I think the point being that we're real concerned about anything that happens across there, just as we're, I thought your comments on the last project were just very good as far as taking the time to identify really what's happening here because I think just having hiked this site and I think the same thing across there and I'd suggest that maybe if everybody could, it'd be really helpful because I think you can really see how the lay of the land is and what's going on and how both access. How important it is for the access points here without disturbing the change of topography here as well as down here. That if you brought the utility lines, the utilities up here and here to the tree zone, we could have access here. But leaving everything unmolested so to speak, especially the road coming up. One thought I had and this isn't I talked to the Mancino's and I'm not having these comments representing them. They're just my own as a citizen but could you put that back up on the screen. Just a thought I had is that I believe there's always a winning solution for everybody, including the land owners and all the neighbors but it always takes a long time to get there. I think Sam had a great quote from Mark Twain that was, if I had more time I would have written a shorter letter, and I think it really applies to development. The longer you think about it, you can always find a simpler way of doing it than makes everybody happy. But I think one of the thoughts is, I think one nice thing about having a road at this point was the fact that, and I liked the other idea about the road coming up here instead of right here. I guess I'll do one thing at a time. I think the engineer's idea of coming up here I think was a good idea. Cul-de-sac this so you don't have a road here and I was just wondering if you could do the same thing with that one. Cul-de-sac from here so you don't have anything so close to the intersection there, just as far as safety to that corner and you're just having the streets, two openings here. But the thought over here, the nice thing about having a little, and just for the citizens driving by as you're looking across the wetland and you're not doing anything to it and it's kind of a pleasant drive in the midst of a lot of development. The ideal thing for here would be perhaps some private drives or do some as private drives going up here. But the other thought is, I just whispered to the Mancino's to see if they'd be interested but you know there's a value that you put on on this piece of property that you're going to get from developing and selling it and if you back out the cost of what it costs for the roads and utilities, maybe there's a land value that the Mancino's would just buy from 32 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 you and then you wouldn't have to worry about developing it. I know you still have the pheasants running around and the deer and everybody'd be happy but I don't know if there's any, if that's possible to discuss about that but it just seems like there's a lot of development happening in a small area and that's it. Sam Mancino: One other thing that I'd like to add. Throughout this process I've appreciated the difficulty that staff has gone through in trying to put all these pieces together. They've worked awfully hard at it. They have made an alternative suggestion about C, about exactly a variation on their point which is as much as this area relates to development from that site, given sequencing, yes. This area up here does actually relate more to development but there's a definite sequencing issue. We have had very little time since the report came out to think about how C would work. I know this was a sketch but when I actually put the pen and the ruler on it, we found that our house was actually right here and so we, before we comment on that we'd like to have a little time to understand the engineering implications of that kind of a plan. So we'd like to reserve comment on that at this particular time, if that would be okay. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Okay, where do I start? Mr. Buresh made some comments as it relates to the zoning and the zone change and I think you made some good points as it related to that but the other thing that I, another important factor we look at when dealing with zone changes and looking at the comprehensive plan for how this is developed in the ultimate relates to how is this going to fit in with the other parcels and as I look at this parcel, the Shamrock Ridge, you look at County Road, or Galpin here and in the future that area, or that road will be a 4 lane road. So you have that as somewhat of a buffer between the other land use to the east. And then also I think the developer has done a reasonably good job of orienting the ponds, etc to provide some open space beyond that to the west before you actually get into the development area with the lots that are indicated. And even the lots along that side are fairly large size lots in comparison. They're above the average in size. So we understand the residents concerns as they relate to transition with density and I think we're trying to do as good a job as we can as it relates to the ultimate development for this area. So we try to work that into account. Looking at the staff report and walking the area and kind of getting a feel for the relationship of this parcel with the other two parcels. This is, they're definitely 33 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 all together and really you have to look at how it's going to work. I think the staff is pretty close in terms of their ideas on this. I would choose, or I feel that the Lake Lucy Road alignment as originally proposed by the city along the southern portion of the parcel, is the best alignment. The other major point that staff makes relates to the western 1/3 of the property. That essentially that arm west of the wetland area there. That appears to be premature in terms of the development of this area at this time and I would support that area being platted as an outlot at this time. I mentioned it with the other plat. I look at this extremely steep hill and it's, the views to the south over the wetland are really actually breath taking. It's a very beautiful area. I can, from my perspective, if I could see this whole area being graded flat and I don't know, I just can't see what would be gained by that process. So I think the road probably has the least impact on the area in it's proposed alignment. I did have one question for you Bob. As it relates to the tree stand on that western portion. I look at the tree inventory. I think it's, let's see. Something like 621. Is there 648? Somewhere in there. There's quite a few reasonably sized trees. Do you know if those trees will be saved with the alignment? The proposed alignment of Lake Lucy Road. The city's alignment. I know, I don't want to put you on the spot but I. Generous: No, I haven't really... Ledvina: Right, right. Well whatever. I think the possibilities of those trees being saved increase. I don't know for a fact but I think the possibilities increase there so, and that's something that I'd like to see looked at. I had a question about trails and that recreational opportunities. We have a trail proposed along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy Drive. Is that on the south side or? Generous: North side. Ledvina: North side, okay. Are we proposing any trail or easement along the west side of the wetland area which you've identified as Outlot A? I know in the past we've done a lot of trails around wetlands and I'm just wondering, this is a pretty large wetland and I don't know if there's a good chance or an opportunity to have a trail around there and how that would fit into our trail needs. Generous: I don't believe the Parks Department has looked at that. That's actually on the Carlson property so that hasn't been proposed with the development. This wetland continues over to the west. Ledvina: Right. Well, continues to the south where Outlot A is, yeah. Just a thought. I don't know if you would take a look at how that fits into the overall scheme because I know in the parcels further to the south towards TH 5, we've got trails that are along our wetlands 34 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 there and those are nice amenities and if we could do something like that here, at least get an easement there, that might make some sense. Let's see. I guess I'm not going to look at a lot of the details but I would support the staff recommendation of generally I think they've done a good job of evaluating this and I think that this thing, this plat would need some work before it could really be considered tying into the overall development of this area. Scott: What kind of direction would you give? Ledvina: Well, I would give I think, just as I mentioned, I would prefer the feasibility study alignment. I would prefer that the western 1/3 of the parcel be platted as an outlot. And that area, that very steep slope area be developed somehow. I know Mr. Mancino mentioned that the street goes right through his house. Obviously we don't want that but maybe there's another alignment to the west that might work there. I definitely think that area should be served via access from the north. And as I look at it, maybe there's a possibility of serving it from the east somehow but by private drive as Mr. Stinson has mentioned. So I think those are the most important things. I generally see a lot of grading that I don't think is necessary but it's not as critical in the eastern portion of the property as it is on the western portion of the property so maybe some, a little more sensitivity can be used in the grading processes if this is redeveloped. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: I ask a question of Dave. Is it real clear to you that Lake Lucy Road shouldn't be shifted to the north? Is there any solution? Hempel: I believe the City Council's already made that determination with the approval of... on June 13, 1994. They approved the feasibility study and authorized preparation of construction plans and specifications for Phase 1 which is only up to that intersection of the Brenden Pond but the intent is to continue with future phases on the southern realignment. Conrad: It sure seems like that portion on the western part of this plat relates more to the Mancino development than to this one. I support the staff recommendations. I think the developer should, has to work. There's obviously a difference of opinion and I think staff brought up some, a lot of good points. I think they have to be ironed out before it comes back. Scott: Good, Ron. Nutting: I also support staff recommendation. The applicant has attempted to address some of the issues tonight. I need to see staff's response to those items before responding to them. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 I can't act in a vacuum and so I would support tabling this application and addressing it. It also, when you've got a key issue with just the southerly versus the northerly route of the road and it seems to, it appears from what was said here tonight that the southerly route is somewhat cast in. Aanenson: I don't want to differ with Dave but the Council did, they did leave an option on the Gestach-Paulson piece. That Outlot A that showed a portion over to the south so in deference to what the Ryan's are trying to do. There was some flexibility. We know it has to touch down on a certain point on Galpin Boulevard. There were two proposals shown. A northerly and southerly one in the original, in the original Lake Lucy alignment. A northerly and southerly alignment and they gave feasibility for the supplementary phase, they left the option out whether it goes to the north or to the south so I think their response that they were trying to decide what works best for them and they pushed it to the north. That's what they originally came in with. And we said it just didn't work because they're grading into the Mancino's property... Then we started moving up and down the property trying to figure out where it works best. And going back to what Matt said, you can see the dilemma we were in. Throwing out property lines. You just look at, how should this property best be served. That's what we came up with and that's, the problem is that the property lines don't follow the natural topography and as Mr. Plowman indicated, once you...2 feet, what's the difference. Well that's the problem. There are some unique natural features there that we're trying our best to try to maintain. And it's not a flat, square piece of property that you can lot out 15,000 square foot lots. It's got some unique features but they will respond to the option of, there are two options showed in the...study for Lake Lucy. One to the north and one south so that's what they were responding to and I just want to make sure that that was clear. And that's what we were asking your direction to give to them. Do you want to go to the north or to the south and our preference was, to keep it south. That's what...keep it towards the middle. Nutting: The impact if it was to the north on the previous applicant's proposal, just looking back at that. Do you have any drawings? If the road was to the north. Hempel: I'm sorry, which development? Aanenson: The Ryan's? Scott: Gestach? Nutting: No. Scott: Gestach-Paulson? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Nutting: Paulson. Aanenson: Yes. Generous: You'd have lots on the south side of the Lake Lucy Road and on the north side of Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Street front facing lots. Nutting: Okay. So you'd have the issue of private drive. Aanenson: Front facing lots on a collector street, yeah. Right. Nutting: I guess I would concur with staff's recommendation and Matt's observations as well in terms of the southerly route so I don't have any other comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission table Case #94-7 SUB, is that right? Scott: Yes. Ledvina: Okay. The Shamrock Ridge subdivision plan. Scott: Do we need to table 94-3 and then the rezoning and the wetland alteration permit? Okay, why don't you add that. Ledvina: And I would add those under the items as well. Scott: Good. Can I have a second? Conrad: Second. , Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we table the issue. Or all three of them. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Subdivision #94-7, Rezoning #94-3 and Wetland Alteration Permit #94-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (Diane Harberts had left the meeting and was not present to vote on this issue or subsequent issues.) 37 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Okay, thank you all for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR CHANHASSEN RETAIL 2ND ADDITION CREATING 2 OUTLOTS AND CHANHASSEN RETAIL 3RD ADDITION PLATTING OUTLOT B INTO 3 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT, SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR PERKINS RESTAURANT, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 1,800 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR TACO BELL, LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5, POWERS BOULEVARD AND WEST 78TH STREET, CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER (TARGET SITE), RYAN COMPANIES AND RLK ASSOCIATES. Public Present: Name Address Danny Chadwick Memphis, TN Tom Palmquist Ryan Companies, Mpls. Daryl Kighton Ryan Companies, Mpls. John Dietrich RLK Associates, 922 Mainstreet, Hopkins Marc Kruger 4700 IDS Center, Mpls. Maleah Miller DJR, 1121 E. Franklin, Mpls. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Now Bob, these are brick. This Taco Bell is brick? Generous: No, they'll be stucco. Mancino: Okay. So it will be different than this? Generous: Yes. The tile on the roof will be the same. The stucco is sort of a tannish. It's something the applicant has some better photos...to show that. The color band, the canopies will be the same. The signage will be the same. They're actually using two tones and the rest of the development...so they'll have the arches will be an accent band and then they have the other colors on the rest of the stucco. Mancino: And is the band around it the corporate colors? Scott: It looks like it, yeah. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Generous: ...I don't know if it's a registered trademark. Mancino: Does this take...at all with the Highway 5 design guidelines about using corporate identity colors as an architectural element? Scott: Or brick. Aanenson: I'm not sure. We'll get back on that. As far as the materials, we did look at that...The brick that you see on the photos there, we have met... Again, this is a PUD so we're trying to make this part relate, not to the Byerly's but more to the Target PUD so we're trying to blend. We're trying to pick up elements of the same. You have this green...which is also an element on the Target so we're trying to pick up all those things. Mancino: Okay. But I know that we had concern on the Highway 5 Task Force on the design committee task force, part of that about on Highway 5, that commercial property and the design and architecture of their buildings have to be comprised of...corporate colors so I would like to look into that. Ledvina: Colors though? Mancino: Well some of them have like...big bands that actually have a great deal to do with the architecture. That becomes a design element in the architecture and that we were concerned about that. So I just wanted to make sure that this did not fall into that. Ledvina: Well they have tile bands. You know bands of tile around...Does that represent a negative thing? Mancino: I think we felt that if it became a major part of the architecture it could. So I just want to check it. I'm not saying no but I just would like to have staff review that and make sure. Scott: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If yes, please give us your name and your address. Tom Palmquist: My name is Tom Palmquist. I'm with Ryan Companies. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Staff members. We are in concurrence with all the items of the staff report and the items of staff that you have had this evening. Yes, we do acknowledge that we do have an access issue as it relates to the site plan. However, we've met with Charles Folch on numerous occasions and we've been unable to resolve the issue prior to this meeting. We are confident that we can resolve the issue to the satisfaction of staff and I 39 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 guess we pledge to continue to work diligently with staff...agreement with the city. Redevelopment here on the same side. I guess we respectfully request that the commission recommend preliminary approval of the platting for the Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as well as the site plan approval for the Perkins Restaurant and Taco Bell subject to the conditions of the staff report and the...conversations which we intend to have with staff to satisfactorily resolve those issues. Scott: Any questions or comments for the applicant? No? Good. Thank you very much. Tom Palmquist: We do have a perspective from, that does show the view of the site from a location on Powers Boulevard just south of Highway 5... Scott: Powers east with Target in the middle. So it's kind of. It's Highway 5 on the right and then there's Target's pylon sign. John Dietrich: Highway 5 is down. You're approximately halfway, maybe if you can. Scott: There's the West 78th Street alignment and it bends to the north. Mancino: Where is West 78th? Scott: West 78th Street. Mancino: It looks like... Scott: Well this is distorted. You see it looking straight down 78th. John Dietrich: No, we have Taco Bell on the left. Perkins on the right. So that would be approximately at the elevation if you were along Powers Boulevard. We've anticipated some landscape treatment would be occurring within the gateway elements yet to be defined. We're interested and to continue working with the city on the development of that but we anticipate with the gateway and the greenery, that that will be...element. And the third restaurant added would be back up in this area here and that has yet to be defined as a. Mancino: So what's open space there behind the trees will be a restaurant? John Dietrich: Yes. The site plans do identify...where that third restaurant would go but again, that would require site plan approval and go through the process until... Tom Palmquist: If I might correct one item on that third outlot. The contract for private 40 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 redevelopment that we have executed with the HRA provides that it could be something other than a restaurant. It could be a... Mancino: I have one question from the staff report. The drive thru should be buffered from all public views. Where's the drive thru and how is that being addressed? John Dietrich: In terms of the drive thru, the drive thru with Taco Bell facing West 78th Street is on the south side of the building and you would access it either into the lots or coming back up and around and then progressing out. So the buffer area or green space between the drive thru and this central entry drive would be green and these trees that are identified as ornamental would be going to canopy trees according to the staff report. That any trees we put in here should be, have like a canopy of tree versus an ornamental. The intent is that this green space and the trees would be the buffering to the Highway 5 to the south. Mancino: It says from all public views. How is that buffered from Powers? John Dietrich: From Powers we have a row of shrubs that are coming within this band space here and...future building structure. We only have to go within this area. There are utility lines and watermain, sanitary sewer and buried telephone cables that these sites have been worked around so that those utility trunk line utilities do not have to be relocated so the building location's pretty well set. Mancino: So you will have a buffer on that side? John Dietrich: Yes. Mancino: Would you go over the traffic flow? I mean like where are the stop points going to be into that drive thru on Taco Bell. If you're coming in one, from the south side or the north side coming around. How do the two come together to go through the drive thru? Are there stop signs? How does that work? John Dietrich: The intent would be as traffic would come in. Aanenson: Let me just make a clarification before you respond. That's, there's an issue there that that's...just so they don't misunderstand that. That's where the issue lies is the access to Target is further to the south and that was designed as a T access to service this property and that is an issue that we think we can work out internally. Staff and the applicant. But it's the engineering department's feeling that that entrance is too close to West 78th and needs to be moved. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: For stacking. Aanenson: Exactly. Where it was originally shown, which cuts into the Perkins site...they have a concern but we think we can work that out. Just so you're not misled when they show you that because... Scott: How would you propose to gain access to the third parcel? That is as an outlot. How would that happen? Is that just drive straight through and in or? John Dietrich: At this time, yes. It would be driving straight through and then we would anticipate some type of circulation into the center. Aanenson: Typically it'd be a common drive with cross access agreements is what we would require. All parcels have easements across each other... Scott: Okay, good. Mancino: Can you go ahead with the internal? John Dietrich: Certainly. The intent would be to allow the traffic flow to come in from the Target lane and access the two sites. In terms of exiting the site, the drive thru would be coming through on the south side and we would anticipate a stop sign so that the traffic flows through the parking lot and would be able to move out and they would be just yielding. Mancino: But you have two lanes that go into the drive thru, right? John Dietrich: I would like to have Maleah Miller, who represents Taco Bell to respond to the number of lanes. Maleah Miller: Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Maleah Miller and I represent Taco Bell tonight. Typically we only have one lane going through our drive thru. Mancino: There's two coming into it. Maleah Miller: We have the one. One is coming in. Entering into the drive thru lane and it's 12 feet wide and it wraps around the south side of the building. This is our pick up window at this point. They pick up their food and then they continue on and can exit out. Mancino: I'm sorry, I'm not being very clear. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 John Dietrich: I think I see your point now. In terms of you have the opportunity to access coming from the west side and also an opportunity to access coming from the east side. Mancino: Okay. So how do those two merge into one lane that goes through the drive thru and how do they...is my question. John Dietrich: In terms of the traffic coming through, since this would be on the right hand side, we would anticipate any traffic coming through this way would have the right-of-way. Perhaps we need a sign that would say yield to traffic coming through. Maleah Miller: There is quite a few stacks coming back to this point. Now in your drawing it has 7? John Dietrich: I believe 7. Maleah Miller: 7 stacks. Mancino: Can a car with a...on the back get through there. Can I get your opinion? I've never seen a drive thru having. Hempel: The turning movement from that direction, the outside, may be somewhat tight for a vehicle...opportunity to go the other way to more easily negotiate that turn. Aanenson: I guess my understanding is it was always cued to go the other way. I mean if you come in, you would go into the restaurant. You would exit that way, not through the drive thru...so in other words you can't go towards West 78th. We'd only be exiting on there. Mancino: How does the applicant feel about that? Just limiting it to access through the drive thru one way? Maleah Miller: We would probably just put our signs for the drive thru at this point hoping they'll, encourage the people to come through. I think it's very important for the whole circulation of the site that people, once they enter in here, they can exit out...so there's still the circulation of the site that people once they enter in here, they can exit out so there's still the circulation. Mancino: So there'd be a one way sign. Scott: Could make it one way? 43 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Maleah Miller: Yes. So we'll put the sign here saying drive through this way so a majority of the people will know to come in this way. This movement is hard to make... Scott: See a sign for one way, do not enter. Mancino: Yeah, or something. Maleah Miller: Or even this, when they get to that point, just drive thru with arrows that way. So people know to get to the drive thru when they first enter the site, it is coming in and going towards...encourage them to go this way. Tell them to go, this is the drive thru. Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Mancino: It seems to make a lot of sense. Scott: Any other questions or comments? Mancino: Bob, I know that you said that we're asking for a revised internal parking lot landscaping. What's being planted, and I'm sorry I haven't opened it up to the right page. On the parking islands, one of the things that we've talked about conceptually as a Tree Board is asking for vegetation on the islands as far as something like daylillies, hosta, instead of rock because the rock just carries the asphalt feeling more and what we were trying to do was to have some green space inside of our internal parking lots. Not overstory trees but also on the actual landscape islands. And is the applicant doing that? John Dietrich: As part of the revision the code, landscape code requires that the landscape islands be a minimal of 8 feet in width. And this plan..for example, those islands would have to be 8 foot in width where that is one of my... In terms of the ground planting, again a variety of materials that could be utilized so that we could look at a lower plant material so we'd like to have something that would be hardy. That would take salt. That would take snow loading so if it was not going to be a perennial like a daylily that would die down...die down completely. It would be something like spirea that could be...grassier, softer type plant material versus a woody type plant material like a lilac. Mancino: Or a juniper. John Dietrich: Or a juniper. Mancino: Versus rock, yeah. Just putting in rock into a parking lot. Okay. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Any other questions or comments? This is a public hearing so if I could have a motion please. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Scott: Would anyone like to speak at the public hearing about this item? Let the record show that no one wishes to speak at the public hearing. May I have a motion to close please? Mancino moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: I don't have much more to add. It sounds like the applicant is in agreement with staff's recommendations as in the discussion earlier. I think I'm ready to move forward with this. Scott: Okay, Nancy. Mancino: I feel pretty comfortable too. One of the things that I'd like to bring up is I'd like to make sure that Taco Bell and Perkins knows that when they do come in that they will, I would ask that they follow the new sign ordinance that will be passed when we pass it and that they abide by that and that for now obviously we follow the old one and when the new one comes into effect. Aanenson: We do have PUD standards that were spelled out for this project. When we put it together we said there could be one free standing sign and each individual tenant's limited to...and that it be architecturally compatible. That was already spelled out in the PUD agreement. I think that would be consistent with the sign. The one they showed you... Nutting: Did I see a pylon sign for Perkins on that earlier drawing that you had put up? Generous: Those, I gave you a revised plan that I put on your desk tonight. That should have a black and white picture and the pylon sign...the 34 foot height would not be permitted. They'd get a maximum of 20 feet on the pylon. Aanenson: And that one again, that was spelled out in the PUD for the entire Target and Outlot B. One pylon sign...for all three tenants. That was up to their choice and then 45 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 each...would just be given an extra monument sign. Nutting: How is that planned to be used? Is it just Perkins? Tom Palmquist: The intent at this point is that this pylon will be divided into three panels with each of the three users represented on some...basis. Conrad: Horizontal? Vertical panels? Tom Palmquist: It will be horizontal. Aanenson: I think we may want to see that again. We had some concerns with that as far as...Maybe the signs can come back as a separate. Nutting: It's laid out in the PUD in terms of the. Mancino: But that can come back separately. Aanenson: Certainly. That's something we haven't had a chance to review specifically except for what you've seen there...I guess we want to stay as uniform as far as if there's different logos on it... However, if they all their own corporate logos on it with unique colors and all that...we'd like an opportunity to review that. Again, it does tie in architecturally... Mancino: I'd agree with that. Are you done? Nutting: Yeah. Mancino: One thing about one sign per street frontage. Where is that in our staff report? I remember reading that. Generous: It's under the PUD standards. The development standards. They're only permitted two wall signs. Two elevations per building to get a sign. Mancino: Is this the sign we're talking about? Generous: That's the Taco Bell. Mancino: But don't I see four? Generous: You see it on the drawing but they're only getting two. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: Oh! Is the applicant aware of that? Torn Palmquist: As we mentioned earlier, we are in concurrence with the recommendations of staff in the staff report. Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for going over that... Aanenson: Can I just clarify...as far as the banding. We did go through these conditions when we wrote the report and what it says as far as, it says colors shall be harmonious and bright or sharply contrasting colors may be used for accent purposes and that's how we interpreted it...as long as it's an accent. It doesn't address what it's supposed to provide and that's how we interpreted this... Mancino: Thanks. Well I appreciate your checking. I don't have anything else. I think if we can work out the internal working and the flow of traffic. I'd leave it to staff to make sure that the interior parking lot landscaping is quality. Quality, quality, quality being this is a PUD and that's it. Scott: Good, Matt. Ledvina: I guess the only thing I would ask or maybe question relates to the landscaping and how it fits in with our proposed planting on this corner and you know essentially the Outlot A is reserved for our. Aanenson: The city retained ownership of that. The City Council and the HRA are working to do, this is one area they looked at gateway treatments. They have Hoisington-Koegler working on those gateway treatments. They may not go anywhere but we are keeping ownership and we are under obligation to landscape that... Ledvina: Well I guess what I'm wondering is, is there a chance to coordinate the landscaping of these buildings with what's ever done on the outlot or the gateway treatment if you will. I mean does it. Aanenson: You mean coordinating or signing? Ledvina: Coordinating it. Aanenson: Are you talking terracing? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Ledvina: Well yeah. Whatever. I don't know what that means necessarily but other than making it all kind of fit together. If you've got a row of shrubs and then something else that goes in in front of it that doesn't work on our chunk of land, you know. That we want to try to avoid that situation obviously. Mancino: Like compatibility of architecture. Ledvina: Right. Mancino: It's the compatibility of the landscape. Ledvina: Right, so how can we do that? Aanenson: I think we can work that out. As we've indicated, they need to look at those species and we can coordinate that with what Hoisington-Koegler is looking at as far as that..., we can certainly look at that before it goes to City Council. Ledvina: Okay. Tom Palmquist: If I may add. The intent is to begin grading this fall. The landscaping would not physically go in until next spring so there would be an opportunity to make adjustments or modifications to the approved landscape plan is that Hoisington-Koegler plan was not complete or you know to the exact level...this time. Aanenson: And you may want to make that a condition. Ledvina: Right, I was just thinking can we tack that on somewhere? Maybe condition number 20 I suppose. On the site plan? Scott: Ladd. Conrad: Impervious surface ratio has to be 70 or under? Is that what it is for impervious surface. Aanenson: Over the entire site. What we did is started with over. Conrad: 76. Aanenson: And obviously we picked it up... 48 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Conrad: And this site says 68. So 68 and 76, I don't know how it, I haven't been sold that we have the final numbers here. Generous: Well I think we're pretty close. I estimated that they were at 66% and with these two developments they needed like .05 acres onto the third site and that will be easy to make on that. Conrad: Okay. It seems like if we change the access point, and I don't know how much we're changing it but you're saying we're changing it. It changes the whole plan quite a bit. The access point, you know if you change it 2 feet, no big deal. If you line it up with the Target, it is a big deal so I guess I'm not sure. How much is this going to change when you start negotiating with the folks. Generous: Well that's...the Perkins parking lot doesn't change. I tried three different alignments for the eastern half. It's feasible. One of them you have an island that runs along the east. It's like, almost a boulevard type that would parallel the Target and then basically turning back up and then incorporate that middle boulevard area again for access to the third site. It would be changing the orientation. There is one alignment that Charles Folch would like that you'd sort of diagonally go through that property. Conrad: Well, you know we've spent some time talking. I probably should have talked first. Really if we change the road access we really don't have a site plan. Everything changes. I'm not, I guess I'm not saying I'm against what I see. Staff has some standards that they want to implement. Given the staff standards that they want to implement, I don't think I see a plan that is something I can react to. Second thing, when Target came in I really pushed for sidewalks and I don't think anybody, at least dividing the Target parking lot with a sidewalk down the middle and Target persuaded us not to do it, or somebody else not to do it. We don't, Vision 2002 talks about sidewalk access and we made Wendy's connect a sidewalk. I'm curious staff, we don't have sidewalks coming into here. What's our posture on that? Hempel: We do have sidewalks running along the south side of West 78th Street. Could easily be adapted to connect into the site plan requiring Taco Bell to open as a train of traffic there. Conrad: I guess I'd be interested. I'm not sure what we want to do with it but if Brad Johnson were here and said people don't walk, and that's kind of true. I really feel badly that we didn't do something in the Target parking lot so like it's been compromised there and so do I really care. But a lot of people are giving a lot of lip service to pedestrian traffic and here's a case where we got a chance to do that. I don't know that people are really going to 49 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 walk but on the other hand, I don't think we considered sidewalks coming in or going out and I don't know how I'd do it here but. Aanenson: I guess we've got the sidewalk on Powers too. Conrad: But that doesn't get you in. Aanenson: No. But...somehow get to the Perkins over there and up and around, I guess that's. Conrad: It's not like I'm going to make a case. I'm not going to make a case for this. If somebody else wants to make a case or are concerned, then we should take a look and see if we really do want pedestrian foot traffic coming in here. I always get uncomfortable when, you know when we put out 3 restaurants together. It just looks like a lot of stuff. You know it looks like we've got roads all over and no real pockets. You know if I, I wouldn't design it this way. It looks, it doesn't look like what you get out of a PUD but I don't know how I'd redesign it. Make it three restaurants. We have a lot of car traffic going in there. But it's, I guess my biggest concern is going back. We have an access to, we have an access point that's not really where it is on this plan and I think it's going to change it quite a bit. That's all my comments. Mancino: I want to respond to your sidewalk... Going to those Vision 2002 meetings, you're right on that we certainly don't want to deter or say that we're against obviously car traffic because everybody's going to drive to the center of the city but we also said we want to balance it with pedestrian traffic. And maybe someone would come and say well people aren't going to walk through here but we never created a space, a welcoming space for people, for pedestrians to walk and maybe they actually would take advantage of that if we do that. Scott: Well think about the outlot and having that as a landscaped amenity. Benches and stuff and I can see taking my fajitas over to the outlot. I mean something like that. I mean this is an element that it should be tied in with this and if we're talking about pedestrian walkways, I think topographically the outlot's pretty flat isn't it? Or will be. So that might be conducive to, I mean although it's going to be on a major intersection or something like that. And they're talking about some sort of a gateway treatment but from what I understand, we're reluctant to be investing any significant sums in a sign that says we're Chanhassen, you're not, or something like that, right? But yeah, I would have to agree with your comments on the walkway area. And once again the whole idea about planning is that we're talking decades here and 20-30 years, maybe the automobile is not going to be the method of getting around that it is today. I don't know but we can't forget that the idea of planning, 50 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 we're thinking decades, not just years. Mancino: So you'd like to see them investigate more of a pedestrian friendly walkway between the restaurants? Conrad: At least getting into them. I'd like to see the trade offs. If you put a sidewalk in, you take out vegetation. Ledvina: Yeah, and if it's just a couple of rows of sod. Conrad: Yeah. If we're moving sod then it's not a big deal. Scott: Is there a motion somewhere? Mancino: I'd like to move that the Planning Commission approve... Scott: Well there's two of them. Tom Palmquist: Point of clarification? Scott: Ah no. Mancino: That we approve, or recommend approval of#92-5 PUD for the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as shown on the plans dated July 25, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Conditions number 1 as is. Number 2 as is and number 3 as is. That's it. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? So at least in my mind you're willing to move along the PUD but not the site plan review. Mancino: Yeah. Because I want to add conditions to the site plan. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve Case #92-5 PUD. Is there any discussion? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Nutting: Can I have the ability to hear what he was just going to say? Scott: No. Public hearing's closed. Ledvina: Now this is the PUD. Aanenson: What you're looking at is the subdivision for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition which creates Outlot A, the city is going to maintain and then the Chanhassen Retail 3rd splits Outlot B into 3 parcels. Ledvina: Okay. Alright, just to make sure. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of#92-5 PUD for the preliminary plat for Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition and Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition as shown on the plans dated July 25, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall petition the city to vacate the old West 78th Street right-of-way which traverses the overall site. 2. The following easements shall be dedicated on the final plat: a. A 30 foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sanitary sewer alignment through the site. b. The existing drainage and utility easement obtained with the underlying plat of the West Village Heights 2nd Addition shall be maintained. These easements cover the City's existing watermain and one of the telephone cables. c. An additional 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be granted along the south line of the previously described West Village Heights 2nd Addition drainage and utility easement. 3. It appears that the northwest corner of the Taco Bell building would encroach into the proposed 20 foot drainage and utility easement and be approximately 5 feet south of the existing buried phone cable. The developer shall obtain approval from the phone company for this condition and if obtained, a subsequent encroachment agreement shall be executed for this condition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Scott: Do you want to make a motion on the 94-6? Mancino: I recommend we approve Site Plan #94-6 as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 19, a, b, c, d and I'd like to add number 20. That the landscaping plan for the Taco Bell site, the Perkins site and actually the future restaurant site, be compatible with the final plans that the city implements for Outlot A. 21. That the applicant and staff work through the parking lot realignment as it states in which condition Bob? Aanenson: 8. Mancino: Okay. And if there are big differences. If the sites become. Aanenson: Significant changes. Mancino: Changes that come again for the Planning Commission to okay. And 22. That the staff and the applicant work through the internal traffic flow of the Taco Bell parking lot in regards to one way in and one way exit. Especially a one way entrance into the drive thru. And number 23. That the applicant investigate a pedestrian friendly walkway that would tie the restaurants together. Or that would access the restaurants. Scott: Maybe just have the staff and then the applicant develop a pedestrian walkway system connecting the Perkins and Taco Bell? Mancino: And the future restaurant. Scott: With the existing what? West 78th sidewalk on the south side of West 78th? That was rough but is that. Mancino: ...my words. And the last one, I think it's number 24 and I guess I don't have to say anything about the new sign ordinance, do I? Aanenson: Well I think what we would like is to bring the signs back. The sign package. Mancino: Oh yeah. 24. We would like to see. Aanenson: We haven't seen what's going on it yet. If they're putting 3 logos on it or 3 name plates. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: Okay. So we would like to see the sign, all the signs for this property. And approve them. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Ledvina: I'll second that. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve 94-6. Site Plan review subject to the additional conditions. Is there discussion? Conrad: So that means you don't want to see it back? Aanenson: Unless there's significant change. Mancino: Unless there's significant changes when they do the parking lot realignment. Conrad: And the drive will swing how many feet south? Generous: About 100 maybe. Mancino: Now if you'd like to do a friendly amendment as to what constitutes significant changes, I'd be open to that. Generous: No, I don't know. Ledvina: Well perhaps if the staff feels that they can't come to resolution with it, considering the optimum traffic circulation, you know then maybe bring it back to us and say, what do you think? Whatever. We can't keep... Conrad: They'll be able to handle it. Ledvina: I think so too but in the event. Generous: And there will be significant changes. Conrad: But the rest will go to City Council. It may come back. Aanenson: ...there is some design constraints on the two northerly pieces as far as the footprints and maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong but we've got a lot of utilities running through there and there isn't a lot of movement for the Taco Bell and the other use. The 54 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 only flexibility is the location of Perkins and obviously they want to put it on that corner but not the parking, which we also want for Highway 5. We prefer to have the Perkins there as far as the visibility giving that a nicer look. And it screens the parking so, obviously...so we've been giving them some options that they're not happy with but you have to realize too that they need to split this property to make it easier for cross easements. The less crossing you do makes it easier for them so they're trying to make it as clean as possible to sell off the three lots... Conrad: Just out of curiosity, why didn't we push the Perkins and the future restaurant footprint to the outside of the property so the parking's internal? Aanenson: We can go way back when we originally looked at the Target. When they came in, we did the design charette when we had Barton-Aschman sit down when we learned Target was looking at coming into Chanhassen. So we did some designs as far as the Target in there. What would be the configuration of the remaining portion and that was one of the options that you looked at. A row of buildings screened and as you recall, originally we looked at this whole package. There was probably 6 outlots on the development and I think we threw 6 out right away when we were looking at it and then we came down to 5 or 4 and through negotiations with the city...But then you really start getting in again to some of those design things that we talked about with the utilities that run through there. There's some fiber optic cable and some of the issues that makes it really tough to try to locate some of those... and obviously Target has agreements as far as making sure them maximize views to their building and some of those issues all came into play as far as how they're laying this out. But that was a consideration as far as lining those up as far as visibility. That was originally looked at. Mancino: Because you could pull the Perkins building closer to Highway 5. Generous: 20 feet. Aanenson: As far as the Highway 5 setback was 50 feet. Conrad: So you accomplish splitting up the parking. Aanenson: Again, you have three separate tenants and that's what it comes down to. That market force of having 3 separate tenants having their own property ownership. Conrad: What's the potential. So we've got an exit from Taco Bell on the west. Or an entrance. And then the future restaurant is, is that roadway going to be a common roadway? 55 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Aanenson: Yes. Conrad: So we won't have an island and another roadway there. Aanenson: It will more than likely be a continuation of the... Mancino: What do you mean... Conrad: Well we have entrance/exit for Taco Bell on the left hand side and then we have another restaurant. But potentially they should be using the same street to come out or enter. I just don't want two side by side roadways there. Not logical to do. Aanenson: Ladd, maybe this will make it clearer. This is a... Mancino: It will go back. It will go west and go into that future restaurant so there will be one common driveway. Aanenson: Yes. But we're saying it needs to be down here where the curb cut was shown and it needs to curve up and then go over. Ledvina: Is that curb cut actually there for a new Target site? Aanenson: Yes. Generous: Yes. It shows up on your subdivision plan. Conrad: The outlots always worry me because when they come in, we sort of dictated how they're, based on what we just saw, we dictated how they're going to develop and that's too bad because there will be no leverage to make the road. You know the opportunity here is to minimize the number of roadways and cross traffic and again, I'm not a designer but I'd sure like to cut off some of the, if I were designing three restaurants in a group, I'd have one entrance to each one of them rather than multi entrances coming in and it makes it clear and less pedestrian, fewer pedestrian problems. So I guess I'm going to stop talking but you know, that's probably not my design that I'd want if I had three restaurants sitting on a semi circle or a square. I think there's a lot of benefits. There's a lot of good things. They're both good tenants that we're looking at and I think but it's, I don't think we've improved, other than space. I think we've got some green space down there but I don't know that we've really done anything in terms of sinking them together. There's a road coming in and we've got accesses off the road but anyway, those are my comments. The comment section was before. This is discussion. It's not coming back more than likely. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Mancino: ...the question and try to see some sketch plans along that...and see how it would work. Conrad: I wouldn't bring it back for that. Scott: And you wouldn't bring it back for the change in the entrance? Conrad: Yeah. Scott: You would? Conrad: Oh yeah. I think it's major. I don't, you've got stuff flinging around and I don't know how they're going to do it so. Mancino: So you would like to see if there is a change, it back? Conrad: Again, I think your motion is valid. If it's a major change it should come back but it's all, in my perspective, it's got to be a major change. It's going in a road down here. You're changing some, I don't know how the traffic patterns go through Perkins lot and gets you up to Taco Bell and then swings out to the future restaurant. I don't get that. Mancino: Is staff comfortable enough with that so we get it back if there are major changes? Generous: Yes. Scott: Should we vote on the motion and see how it goes and then. Ledvina: Yes. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #94-6 as shown on the plans dated July 19, 1994 and subject to the following conditions: 1. Developer shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary agency permits associated with the development of this site including but not limited to watershed district, PCA, MWCC, Health Department. 2. All proposed storm sewer and sanitary sewer and water services within the site are considered private and shall be maintained as such. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 3. Developer shall submit to the City Engineer drainage calculations and a drainage map for the entire site showing areas and quantity of flow to the Target pond and to the County Road 17 pond that are consistent with capacities of the existing storm sewer system. 4. Stormwater drainage from the Taco Bell site to the West 78th Street storm sewer shall be directed into the easterly storm sewer lead from West 78th Street immediately north of the parking lot. 5. Developer shall indicate any quantities of borrow material and/or material to be hauled off site including a proposed haul route. 6. The applicant shall develop an erosion control plan in accordance to the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for development. 7. Developer shall be responsible for all costs associated with protection of the existing public utility facilities within the overall site. Developer shall also differentiate on the final site plans which lines are public and which are private. 8. All internal streets and drives within the overall development are considered private and shall be maintained as such. The main entrance to the site shall be located farther south to align with the existing curb cut across from the entrance to the Target parking lot. 9. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated as per the Fire Marshal's recommendation. 10. The developers shall enter into a site development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. 11. Construction access to the parcel shall be from the existing Target driveway and not West 78th Street or Powers Boulevard. The applicant and/or contractor shall install and maintain a gravel construction entrance until the access driveway is paved with a bituminous surface. 12. but the parking lot for Taco Bell does not meet the required 20 foot setback for parking lots from West 78th Street and must be revised. 13. The applicant must also verify that the height of the pitched roof element will screen the rooftop equipment from the high point of Highway 5 and from the high point on West 78th Street. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 14. The developer must provide a trash enclosure location for the Perkins site. Trash enclosures shall be architecturally compatible with and of the same materials as the principal structure. Trash enclosures shall also be vegetatively screened from all right- of-ways. 15. The applicant must revise the landscaping plan to replace all ornamentals and evergreen within the vehicular area with overstory type trees. 16. The developer shall screen the trash enclosure for Taco Bell with evergreen plantings. 17. The minimum peninsular landscape island width is 8 feet. One tree per each 250 square feet or fraction thereof of landscaping area. Each landscaping island must be a minimum of 200 square feet and must contain at least one tree. The applicant shall install an aeration/irrigation tubing, see figure 11-3 attached, in each peninsular island. At least one peninsular landscape area shall be provided along the northern parking lot stalls for Taco Bell. 18. The applicant is permitted wall signs on only two walls per building up to a maximum of 15 percent of the wall area. Taco Bell and Perkins elevations shall be revised to comply with this condition. In addition, one pylon side is permit for the three lots. Each parcel may have an individual monument sign on their lot. 19. Fire Marshal recommendations: a Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations. b. Install "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and paint curb yellow in designated fire lanes. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact locations of signage and curb painting. c. Submit turning radius to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. d. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. 20. That the landscaping plan for the Taco Bell site, the Perkins site and the future restaurant site, be compatible with the final plans that the city implements for 59 Planning Commission Meeting - August 17, 1994 Outlot A. 21. That the applicant and staff work through the parking lot realignment as it states in condition 8 and if there are significant changes made, that it come back to the Planning Commission for review. 22. That the staff and the applicant work through the internal traffic flow of the Taco Bell parking lot in regards to one way traffic flow through the site and into the drive thru. 23. That the applicant investigate a pedestrian friendly walkway that would tie the restaurants together or would access the restaurants. 24. The sign package shall come back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mancino, Ledvina and Nutting voted in favor. Conrad and Scott voted in opposition and the motion and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Scott: Reasons for voting nay Ladd has expressed. I would agree. That's it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 3, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor, except Ladd Conrad who abstained, and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. Kate Aanenson reviewed the Report from the Director dated August 11, 1994. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 60 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1994 Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, Nancy Mancino and Ron Nutting MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Harberts and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Bob Generous, Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer (Nancy Mancino removed herself from the Planning Commission for the first two items on the agenda due to conflict of interest.) REZONE 37.92 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 37.92 ACRES INTO 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND PROPOSED LAKE LUCY ROAD EXTENSION, 6730 GALPIN BOULEVARD, ED AND MARY RYAN, SHAMROCK RIDGE. Public Present: Name Address David Struyk 1941 Crestview Circle David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. Martin Gustafson 6691 Galpin Blvd. Lynn Rothberger 6681 Galpin Blvd. Chuck Plowe 2725 94th Avenue No, Brooklyn Park Frank Kelly 351 2nd Street, Excelsior Sam & Nancy Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Charles R. Stinson Architect, Minnetonka Clarke Nickolson 2051 Crestview Drive Eric M. Rivkin 1695 Steller Court Mark Williams 1655 Lake Lucy Road Peter A. Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd. Debbi & Neal Wunderlick 7011 Galpin Blvd. Jerome Carlson 6950 Galpin Blvd. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. 1 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Questions for staff. Ledvina: Bob, what led you to change your opinion as it related to the Lake Lucy alignment? What now makes this an acceptable proposal in terms of the alignment? Generous: It's the best we can get. Since they're not willing to go along with, the preferred development pattern would be to outlot that property but you cannot force them to do that provided they provide us with a feasible alternative. This way they at least leave in some of the topography whereas if they go in and have the southern alignment, they're going to...so they can put their housing pads in and then we'll either have large retaining walls on that side or a steep slope there. Aanenson: If I could just expand upon that. The intent was always to preserve the natural topography as much as possible and our first choice would be to...property to the north. ...so this way we felt, at least we're getting preservation of that area by swinging the road to the south. Whatever you need to maintain the 3:1 slopes, that would give you the preservation area along the northern boundary...So if they would be willing to wait until that did change, that would be the best way to do that but we can't force the issue. Generous: And we couldn't persuade them. Ledvina: Okay, thank you. Scott: I'm just taking a look at some of the preliminary grading plan and my big concern is we just had sent on a bluff protection ordinance and from visiting the site and from viewing this, it appears to me that there are some steep grades that fall within our bluff ordinance here and that's, I didn't go out and measure them but I'm going to need somebody to tell me that they have been measured and they don't, the bluff ordinance does not apply to the northerly section of this property. Generous: I did a cursory review. I did not measure all of it and at least the places where I...it didn't meet the...It has the elevation change but not the slopes. Scott: Okay. Questions? Comments? Would the applicant or their representative wish to make some comments? If yes, please identify yourself and give us your name and your address. Ed Ryan: My name is Ed Ryan and I'm the owner-developer of the property. And my wife Mary. I'm sorry I missed the last meeting. I had an accident on my property which I'm recovering from now and that's why I missed the last meeting so I apologize for that. Mary 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 and I have taken great care in developing our property. I mean we've been in Chanhassen for many years. We appreciate our property very much. And in working with staff and suggestions from our neighbors, during this whole process we've been focusing on a number of issues when we put our plans together, which have been revised many times. Tree preservation has always been a concern of our's, especially up along the north line. We have, from the original proposal that we had a few weeks ago, we have dropped the road significant to the south to accommodate those grades and the sloping of the road. We've also in our proposal have tried to preserve the wetlands to the south. That whole wetland in there is a natural wetland and by having the road to the north we don't do any disturbing of that roadway during the building process or the grading process so we felt that was important. We have large lot sizes and we tried to preserve the rolling topography of our property. It's a beautiful piece. Mr. Chair, I think you've seen it. It's very pretty, rolling type farm acreage. It has significant trees to the north and it has trees, significant concentration of trees in front of our property which we have preserved. We've also tried to take into account how Lake Lucy current is. This is going to be an extension of Lake Lucy and if you drive Lake Lucy from Powers to Galpin, you'll notice how that road curves and winds sort of gently and it rolls with the topography. It's not flat. It's not straight. That kind of roadway would be I think a disturbance to the neighborhood so I think this plan accommodates that. As the staff has outlined, they would recommend approval of our plat, which would include the northern alignment if we would agree to all their recommendations. Chuck, our engineer, will be addressing some of those issues after I speak and we have met those or in the process of meeting all of those conditions. Still though we find that there is I think some general confusion regarding this whole city original feasibility study. And I think through the process that we've gone through, we feel that the original feasibility study that was addressed, it takes on a different light. The study was prepared by Bill Engelhardt, as you know, and he's an independent consultant. An engineer that was asked to design a roadway from TH 41 to the touchdown spot where Lake Lucy is now. That's what he was asked to do. Now Bill was not charged with developing a developable plan for the western property or for our property. He wasn't asked to do that. He was asked to find a way to connect these two. And he did so, and he did a fine job. However, as the western plat developed, this alignment changed and the reason it changed is because ownership changed with that western section. And so the road had to be configured. Had to be changed. There were some modifications there. The original feasibility study was reviewed by the City Council on June 13th. And at that , meeting the sole southern alignment proposed for the property was changed to include the northern alignment. This was called the supplemental feasibility study. That's what was approved by the City Council. At the Council meeting the city approved the study. Not the original feasibility study which showed a northern route and a southern route. And it outlotted the eastern section of the western development so that, in their words, this will give maximum flexibility to the Ryans when their property would come to be platted. This is the history of that feasibility study. I'm sure Bill did a fine job but he did not have a 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 development in mind. He couldn't have. And we have. And with that development we've taken input from staff and our neighbors and other input to try to accommodate and make it a pleaseable plat and a nice development. Chuck, our engineer will share with you why the northern alignment is preferred. We feel it's preferred. And let me turn the podium over to him. Scott: Okay, thank you. Chuck Plowe: Mr. Chair, fellow members of the Commission, my name is Chuck Plowe and I'm the project engineer for Shamrock here representing Mr. and Mrs. Ryan. Do you want this just out front? Scott: I think you put that right in front of the podium or over to the side. Chuck Plowe: Allow me to hand out something that I jotted down in writing in regards to the reasons for the alignment that we prefer. Anyone else that wants copies, you're welcome to grab one. I think most of this has been covered in some fashion or another in this report but let me just reiterate a little bit, and basically I've put down something in writing that I believe I've stated...That southerly alignment we feel is not the appropriate location for the following reasons...Filling of the wetland will occur. The trees along the north, on the north property line will not be preserved. The final lot configuration, as you see these red lines on this particular plan here, which show Lake Lucy Road to the south, is less pleasing for the residential development within the community of Chanhassen. The residents would not enjoy the view of their backyards abutting the...wetlands, and I think that's important. For the community I think it's important. The proposed northerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road, which is underlined here, will preserve the trees along the north and also will not impact the wetland in any way. And we've met all the staff conditions for their approval of the northerly route with the exception of a couple things Bob has mentioned that we need to look at a couple items as he has indicated tonight. But let me further go into this item with Lake Lucy Road to the south. I've drawn a line, you can see here. I call it Section DD. What I've done is along that line I'm showing on another drawing the existing ground line and the final ground line after development with the elevation of Lake Lucy Road being approximately like what staff had indicated in their report that it would be if it were along the southerly route. Existing ground line is the blue line. And proposed ground line is the, I call it the orange line. The bottom of the hill, being wetland area down here. Top of the hill being the treed area up here. Generally what happens here is we do encroach into the wetland with the roadway. But to construct a roadway with Lake Lucy Road being there, there's definitely going to be some fill into the wetland. In fact I shorten the boulevard up to 10 feet and there's still fill into the wetland. With 3:1 slope, which is... At the other end where we come up the hill with the lots, I've tried to show you, again to kind of give you a 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 physical feel for where things are. This is the center of the cul-de-sac street. The curb would be about here and then the right-of-way, front yard lot line and then the approximate location of the house pad. And then the back yard with the 3:1 slope. As you can see, it extends up into the trees and it probably would be much worse than what I've even shown because I haven't really given that...back yards at all. It just immediately starts going up to the trees. So this is, I'm trying to demonstrate to you in a more physical view, other than us just talking about it, how this fits. Scott: Can I ask you a question? On the, you see where the tree line is. And the existing, it appears to me that you're planning on grading into the trees on the north side of the property. Is that, or am I reading that incorrectly? Chuck Plowe: Here? Scott: Yeah. Chuck Plowe: That would be correct. In order to avoid that we would have to raise this street up, fill into the wetland further. Some things would have to give someplace. Because we're using our maximum slopes at both ends. This is going to probably require retaining walls to even do this. So I'm looking at a combination of retaining walls and going into the trees with the grading because we're probably going across the property lines into the property, although I haven't shown the property line on here. It's approximately right there. I guess that's about it. This is the tree line that I'm trying to show you there. The property line's not going to...and it continues to rise. Any more questions on this? Scott: No. Chuck Plowe: This is the northerly alignment which is the plan that I changed or resubmitted just before the last week. And we did do some curvature of the street to try and align it better with the future road that would connect it down here. As Bob indicated, it needs to be curved a little more than what we've shown it and I've discussed it with Dave. There is flexibility to do that. We didn't do a detailed study of exactly how everything hooked together but we did start curving it where before it was straight. This lot is large enough where we can do this. When I compare it to the one we just looked at, I've drawn a line through the cul-de-sac again. Generally falling the same location. Showing existing ground lines and proposed. Again the wetland is at the bottom of the hill. Trees up here. We are able to extend a cul-de-sac here. Lake Lucy Road up on the hill. We are able to maintain actually from the curb...to where we begin our 3:1 slope, we're 110 feet so we do have a pretty nice lot and we do not encroach into the wetland with the bottom of the slope. We don't impact the wetland with any fill. And again on this end we're not encroaching into the 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 trees as well. Now as Bob indicated, there was a problem with this that didn't quite fit. As I understand you were saying there was still some problems here. Can I ask what those are? I guess what maybe you're getting at was that the boulevard wasn't the full 20 feet or 21 feet here. Okay. And that's true. I have about a 12 foot boulevard which allows...a trail if it has to be on that side. But this street will meet State Aid standards. I did discuss with Dave the possibility of having the trail on the other side and that was a possibility and I think it would, appropriate decisions do that because when we're dealing with this kind of terrain and this kind of design, why not put it where there's less resistance. Why not go with the flow but in trying to put it up here would certainly be more difficult than putting it on the other side. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when we compared the two, the north to the south, this is the environmentally favorable plan. I guess I can say it all I want but I was hoping I could show you. I don't know whether there's any real need to go into the items that Bob mentioned but we do have two pipes discharging into this pond here as we indicated and staff, we can combine those into one discharge pipe. That's not a problem. A 4:1 slope getting from the cul-de-sac down to the access there, would simply be a matter of adjusting a couple...here so there's plenty of lining up from top to bottom to achieve a 4:1 slope and that's not a problem either. We've had, as you can see, gone along with a private drive in lieu of the lots fronting on Lake Lucy Road. We feel that...and the lots are not going to be impacted doing it that way. As a matter of fact, Lot 14 is better than it was before as far as the grading's concerned. We eliminated some retaining walls which were difficult to fit a pad on that lot...because it was a driveway coming off of Lake Lucy Road in the back yard...and difficult to work with. We've now eliminated the retaining wall so it's much better in that respect so Lot 14 actually became a more viable lot. That was my comments unless someone else had a question. Ledvina: I have a question Mr. Chair. Under staff recommendations related to eliminating driveways onto Lake Lucy Road. I guess how were we going to do that for Lots 4, 5 and 6 that you relabeled on, what block is that? Oh, just that area that you were talking about. Where does the private drive come from? Chuck Plowe: We are now extending, rather than having a cul-de-sac in here, we've been asked to extend the street for the future extension to the north. So we've done that and that actually made it a little easier for us to do what staff is asking us to look at. And so what we are proposing is to weave the driveway through the 130 feet of lots. Whatever that is. Ledvina: Oh, that didn't show up very well on my plan. Chuck Plowe: It is hard to see. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: Yes. Chuck Plowe: That, in most cases, is not fixed by any means. It would be...minimum amount of trees...That's what would happen there. This is only a concept. Ledvina: But that represents about the only alternative for accessing those 3 lots then, is that right? Chuck Plowe: In lieu of going onto Lake Lucy Road. That was felt that that was a better option... Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments? Excuse me sir, are you a member of the applicant team? Frank Kelly: Yes. Good evening. My name is Frank Kelly. I'm the attorney for the developer. First of all I wish to thank the members of your planning staff for working with us in trying to find solutions for the problems with this development. This is very complex and there's many problems connected with it and we appreciate the efforts that they have given us. We feel that we are ready to accept, and will accept all the suggestions and recommendations as set out by the Planning Department as shown on page 4 as well as the additional ones that were called to our attention, at our last meeting. And by accepting those recommendations, the planner indicates that...conditions would make the applicant's proposal acceptable. Now we're not asking for any variances or changes or special privileges in platting the property...of the city ordinance and in so doing, the plat, as far as the planner is concerned, would be acceptable to the plat. And if there are any required changes which the Planning Department deems necessary during the course of development of the plat, we certainly will be working with them...to meet those and will meet those, whatever... However, we do ask that you consider this plat and make your recommendation on the plat to the Council favorably. There's nothing more that we can do than meet the requirements as recommended by the Planning Department, and we have done that. We only ask that you approve it subject to those recommendations. Without any reservation whatsoever. Thank you very much. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of the applicant? This is a public hearing. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Can I see a show of hands for people who have come to speak at this particular public hearing? Okay, great. Step up. Identify yourself. Name and address and we'd like to hear your comments. Sam Mancino: Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Blvd. We are the neighbors immediately to the north. I'd like to make a couple of comments...whichever way the plan is finally recommended. The first point has to do with the fact that with the grading here there are only a very few number of trees being preserved the way it's presently situation. There is a recommendation for a 30 foot tree preservation easement along the north property line. I want to just clarify that that is to be a 30 foot from the northern property line extending south for the full width, east to west, on that property line. The request that we would have is that any private drive that is intended to service the other lots, does not encroach on that...whether that is...right-of-way for that private drive. Second point I'd like to raise is that we've been advised by a consulting engineer that a utility hook-up will be necessary to service our property if we ever choose to develop it, which we don't at this particular time. The easterly portion that will be shown as a right-of-way and utility hook-up will serve the eastern portion of our property as well but our western edge there is a requirement for another utility hook-up to avoid trenching the center of the ravine that goes through our property. We're told there are other ways to be able to do that but we haven't had a formal...survey but we're requesting that. Perhaps Dave, you could help clarify whether that would be feasible. Hempel: The plan before you this evening show a street and utility extension over the eastern portion of the Mancino parcel with the extension of Jennifer Way. The Mancino parcel does have a high point at right about Lot 6 there's a high mound. Then it starts to gradually break off there...westerly boundary of the development. The existing ravine takes storm water drainage across the north, right to the west of this development. Actually...development and that area there is the low point of the neighborhood. And we envision seeing extension of storm sewer along the ravine area and possibly sanitary sewer to service the adjacent parcel to the north. The Mancino parcel also will be serviced from the future sewer and water line provided in the subdivision before you here tonight called Brendon Ponds, which is the westerly portion of this site. We're providing at this time 2 out of the 3, what we believe are utility service connection points. Ledvina: Dave, with this development then, are we providing that western utility stub? I don't see it here. Hempel: No we are not. We're providing an easterly connection. At this point we believe the appropriate time and place would be with the future development of the outlot that you'll see on the next subdivision called Brendon Ponds. At that time that parcel develops, that would be extended northerly. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: So when that develops, that should provide adequate utility service that's needed here for this portion of the Mancino property? Hempel: That's correct. Sam Mancino: The issue, again we're not engineers but whether you trench through the middle of a wetland...or whether you take it off of another area that wouldn't violate that ravine quite so badly...The third technical point that we'd like to question is that the future potential for road connection, which will also serve to be our utility hook-up, which I believe comes in through Jennifer Way, will terminate at the edge of their private drive and will not be paved completely up to the edge...is that correct at this point? Hempel: That's our intent as long as we extend the street service from the edge of that 30 foot easement at this point and leave the option open. Whether to extend that street in the future...or connect a street to service that...lot and private driveway. Provide both options. Sam Mancino: A couple of other points. One, moving the road 60 feet south from where it was originally intended. 60 feet from the 30 foot tree easement. We understand but don't believe it will hold 3:1 slopes and be able to do what was originally intended, which is to provide the road bed, the right-of-way and a trail system. And I guess the question of the trail system is that as this area develops, more kids are there. Their natural route would be to the north to the school and to put that roadway to the south would probably require to cross a major collector road. So that's a point that we would like to have considered because it bears on the grading and the setbacks...There was a request by staff for some planting of sumac and seeding of the graded property. I guess in addition to that we would request, because I'm not sure how effective this seeding would be or how quickly that will take root. The sumac will be a very good idea but we'd like to request some spruce and other conifers near the top of the slope to hold the soil. Also to be able to, there's a sound and visual buffer...Those are really the technical points I think that we'd like to mention at this time. I think there are some broader questions that we have. The thing that seems to be driving this development is the density. The need to get as many lots as possible and more density seems to get more grading and we don't believe that, the intent of the comprehensive plan probably took into account average situations. Didn't particularly take into account this topographical situation. I don't believe that this has the creativity applied to it to develop it to the sensitivity of the rest of the land. Another global, broader point is that we'd like to see Planning Commission recommend to City Council, in light of the development that we're going to see in this area, particularly with this development, with the Gestach-Paulson, a noise and construction activity limitation that limits it to weekdays so that there would be no noise generated weekends. That could either the form of an ordinance or as a development contract because that would be good for all of the neighbors. I think that I'd like to invite our architect to help us do 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 some thinking about this. Charles Stinson to address some of the things that we've seen at this presentation by their engineer. Charles Stinson: Hello. My name is Charles Stinson. I'm the architect working with the Mancino's. I specialize in custom homes on unique property and I get involved with some land planning on certain properties that, in which we're trying to save the trees and respond to the topography. I wonder if I could use the, your demonstration board for a minute. Just to clarify. I think Sam commented, covered everything about technically pretty well as far as the trying to keep the 30 foot preservation zone from the top and in doing so, and whatever we have on private drives here skate off of that zone because right now as private drives, if they went over it, would wipe out all the trees in that area, which would mean that this property would have to come down this last lot. I guess Lot 1. I guess the other thing, just trying to clarify, and this is aside from that project. This being a guy that tries to save the natural topography whenever I can. Just to clarify the study that was shown as the bad alternative here I think the, what the city was actually recommending or the staff was that I think the southerly drive came up just a little bit higher so it wouldn't be quite as steep as this. And I think in showing this process here, I think if the road was a little bit over here, as they proposed, the grading wouldn't be quite so steep going down to the wetlands. There would be some fill here but I think this whole cut is just based on if there's a cul-de-sac going up there. If you're trying to put a road out there, then you're digging out the whole site but I think there's perhaps a whole nother option there that if we could save all that, save that and do some filling where the roadwork is here, then I'm just curious if the owners, developers and the engineer considered the fact that the possibility, if a road went on the southern area and you left all the wetlands the way we have and then at that point we perhaps this cul-de-sac came over this way to service the homes around here and then the private drives just went to the remainder of the out parcel and then leaving the natural topography and the views without getting into anything, was that one of the studies? Ed Ryan(?): Not that I'm aware of. Chuck Plowe: Let me, I couldn't see exactly what you were just. Charles Stinson: Okay. Well, and maybe I'll go to the, some of the concern, on the plan that's proposed right now, there is a cut here which is substantial and pretty substantial going up to the trees. Does this show your property line or is this the property line? Chuck Plowe: This is the property line here. Charles Stinson: Okay. So you're saving the first 30 feet and then dropping down from there? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Chuck Plowe: Yes. Charles Stinson: So there's a cut there but at the bottom of the property, the way it's proposed, or that road area. Not the entire property but this area we're concerned with. The fill that we're talking about is perhaps 8 feet higher than the ceiling. About 20 feet of fill that would occur here? Chuck Plowe: At the maximum point, that'd be in the very front of the house near the wetland...11 feet which is about where the road grade is when you... Charles Stinson: So here would be cutting about 12 feet. Here you'd be putting back about 20 feet... I guess the thought I had was, and I'm not speaking for the Mancino's but I'm just on my own here. Thinking about the environment. If the road went to the south, kind of curving up here a little bit so there's enough grade for that wetland, would it be possible to take this cul-de-sac. Leave everything the way you have it here. There's maybe 10 feet of fill at this point but just taking this cul-de-sac over, feeding the lots here, here, here and here and then just have a private drive go in to more homes over here. Wouldn't that give you pretty close to your density or if this perhaps makes a few more valuable because they such views? Chuck Plowe: Well I think we avoid private drives as much as possible...and that's a totally different concept than what we're looking at. If we did go along with private drives and eliminate the frontage on Lake Lucy Road, and we did look at several options too. As a matter of fact, we went through them with staff. We showed how they wouldn't work. Taking the road up into here and leaving Lake Lucy Road down there and that ended up getting a lot of drainage and also some lots with streets on both sides of them so that just didn't work out. Charles Stinson: Okay that, again I guess most of the developments I get I end up doing private drives, or a fair amount of private drives. The reason we do it, and many communities are getting more receptive to it, it's a way of saving more of the topography. More of the natural grades etc. And that's again, just to go over that again, keeping it low, there would be very little grading going down to the wetland. This would all be saved and the cul-de-sac coming here and private drives. Perhaps this is a different concept of private drives and I'm not sure how you feel about it. We've done it quite successfully and if anybody's interested, I guess...there's one on Oakland Road in Minnetonka that I did with Streeter and Associates and it has worked out quite well. And that's it. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Eric Rivkin: Hi. My name is Eric Rivkin, 6095 Steller Court. I'm about, I don't know, 1,000 yards east of the property and I look out onto it into the sunset. Beautiful sunset. It sets over the hills that they want to take down 80 feet or whatever. And I also am not opposed to the development but I think that it could, the Ryans could have maybe hired this wonderful architect here as an adjunct to their team, this planning team because I don't think it has enough regard for the natural landforms and I'm opposed to the massive earth moving. I like you to favor the alignment for the road to the south. I think it should, I agree with them completely that the road could meander up a little ways so it isn't so straight but I don't think the plan has got, I don't think the plan's compatible with the surrounding developments. Lake Lucy Commons and these other large estates which have gone to great lengths in the community to maintain natural landforms and preserve forested areas, open spaces and wetlands. I think this is a butchering of the land, just plain and simple and I think much more sensitivity needs to be applied here. If they have to go back to the drawing board, I think maybe they should employ on their team an environmental designer because we have city codes that in my opinion, and I think maybe your opinion, would require them to meet these philosophies and I was one of the people that helped develop the comprehensive plan 5 years ago to try and get laws that would preserve, prevent this kind of thing from happening. The area between TH 41 and Galpin is a recognized natural resource corridor for wildlife who regularly travel in all seasons of the year between two great naturally preserved areas. Lake Minnewashta Park and the Lake Lucy area. And we all enjoy that in this northern part of Chanhassen and we want to see that preserved. I represent, as a Co-Chair of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and we enjoy wildlife. We have osprey. We have bald eagles. We have great blue herons. All kinds of wildlife. Fox and even an occasional, the DNR said a cougar. But anyway there's no natural corridor between these planned in this development and it will be too greatly disturbed and devastating. I don't think any authorization should be given to this development that destroys the natural features of land, be it corridor, wetlands, wildlife habitat or vegetation lowland form. I think the developer should be required to propose and concept to a plan which meets the city codes and protection of environmental features and relates to the site's natural resources. And above all gets respect as to the existing development pattern set in the community. I favor those...lot sizes. I think that their, the access alternative from the north or this long private drive, I think it's a good alternative to consider to preserve that hillside, the top. I don't think it needs to be destroyed... I was at the top of that hill last night. I walked the site with the Mancino's and I don't think that there is any economical hardship in doing that. I would result in a lot less grading problems and if you look at Fox Hollow, there's plenty of examples of tuck under houses on top of hills that sell for a half a million dollars that have spectacular views of the Lotus Lake area. Here you can see 2 miles from the top of that hill. It's one of the highest points in Chanhassen...and it's absolutely magnificent and I don't think they'll have any problem with maybe even cutting down the lot density up there just to preserve that and get their money of the property. The trail system. I paid $660.00 for a trail 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 system which I don't have and I expected with the Lake Lucy extension to have a really nice trail, a real trail. Not a sidewalk on a street and not a sidewalk, but a real trail through natural area like they have in Minnetonka. Anderson Lakes and in Jonathan where people will walk in peace and harmony with nature. Enjoy the wildlife and everything. It's much more an amenity to the community and will increase the lot values I think considerably if they do that approach rather than just blow it off as an afterthought. I think that by aligning the Lake Lucy Road to winding around the southern portion gives it more opportunity to connect with the property to the west. Also for this corridor to, the trail system connect up with Lake Minnewashta would be perfect. So you could have spots to enjoy the wildlife areas which would be given to the public as conservation easements and sell this thing with the natural corridors and sell this thing with the trail system that people want and I think it would satisfy the community and needs and wants and desires for this that we've been having for years...at this podium many times complaining about. Let's see. Trees. I don't know what kind of tree planting program they have but I think it's pretty clear in the code that we should have a restoration that should have native species only that is native to this area. I don't mean Douglas fir or Colorado spruce and things that are not suitable for the soil and...conditions. If there are, and I don't mean like army landscaping where you've got just rows and rows of sumac but take the groves of trees and replant them and restore these corridors so they're intact and that the disturbance is at a minimum, both to the wetlands and to the tree cover. One question that I have for the developer, and the engineer. Is there any drainage intended to go east of Lake Lucy Road from there? Either under the road or over the road. Or excuse me, Galpin. Chuck Plowe: Yes, to the Lake Lucy watershed... Eric Rivkin: Is there the surface area of water area, is there estimates of how much surface water there is...to the Lake Lucy watershed? Is it existing? Plans for existing or go beyond that. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, maybe I can address that. The applicant's original design...the city is in the process of adopting the Surface Water Management Program which will provide city wide comprehensive storm drainage which has water quality...to preserve wetland areas as a comprehensive plan. We're trying to implement that plan with this ponding. This is the first year that we're implementing this program and this development is providing storm water quality basins to treat storm water runoff and will better discharge the water underneath County Road 117 to Galpin Blvd to drain towards Lake Lucy basin area. The volume of water will increase the velocity of water but will not restrict the impact to the culvert underneath Galpin Blvd. Potentially there will be a trunk storm sewer system from Galpin down to Lake Lucy with the remaining part... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Eric Rivkin: Okay. I'd like to propose, I have a map that shows the watershed to Lake Lucy, okay. Can I put that up? Scott: Sure, go ahead. Eric Rivkin: ...I want to show the engineer first. This shows the Lake Lucy watershed area. This is Galpin Road right here, CR 117. This is all the... Aanenson: I really think the questions are best directed to our engineer. Eric Rivkin: Okay, this is Lake Harrison. There's Galpin Blvd here. You could pass this map around while I'm talking. The point I'm trying to make here is that, the western part of Lake Lucy Highlands development runs into wetlands which are on my property and Prince's property and Class A wetlands and they're very sensitive. They've got rare plants in there. There's already a sedimentation problem now where the culvert is overflowing with sediments from the existing driveways and streets, whatever, sand you know from salting and stuff, and I want, as a representative of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, we would like to have a condition that prevents any additional water runoff from this development into the Lake Lucy watershed. You have plenty of mitigation area planned for this development and I think every bit of this water is going to carry pollutants from fertilizers from lawns and the nutrient runoff from development which is going to pollute the wetlands like you wouldn't believe. It's already over loaded. The culvert every spring, which is always full and has not been cleaned out by the city as it should have been and...storm water management program and the conditions of the development, the Steller Court development which was passed in 1986. There's not supposed to be an increase more than 2 tons of sediment coming out of that culvert and I'm going to make sure that that is upheld. I don't think that engineering wise it's going to work by having any additional runoff, other than what is naturally occurring right now. And what is going off right now, even though there's fertilizers from the farms that are farming now, it is filtered by dirt and plants and vegetative material. If you're adding street runoff and we all know that that stuff is highly polluting and I do not want to see any more water coming from this development into the Lake Lucy Watershed. We've already got enough stress as it is. The Walker Ponds over at Willow Ridge do not work because you do not have natural vegetative areas surrounding the wetlands. The storm water just ran through the holding pond and then overflowed right into that big pond by Lake Lucy Road. And then into the Lake Lucy through an outlet through a massive 10 acre wetland and still caused algae growth. That's how much pollution there was from the development and it's still going on today. So I think it needs to be taken from a preventive stance and I recommend that no water or all the water in that development stay there and be dealt with and conclusively. Another thing about the wetlands, the material...man made wetlands must be sure to make up for the ones that you're replacing. I noticed the mitigation areas with this 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 plan. Is that correct? Okay. I think whatever standards there are to help make sure that they are completely natural in development of...thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Jerome Carlson: My name is Jerome Carlson. I live at 6950 Galpin Blvd or Road, depending upon which post office you talk to. In following the proposal to date, I'm struck over and over again by the feeling that there is nature and the development are not in sync. As I look around at development that's going around that area, Lundgren Bros as you know purchased the Song property and this is 100 plus acres...and I believe the density that they achieved on that very interesting piece of property, which I think is fairly well known to this commission, was about 1.1 houses per acre. We have 25 acres bordering TH 41, part of which the new Lake Lucy Road would come through, which is the old Westside Baptist parcel. And in reviewing that with a few different developers we have again arrived in terms of preserving the naturalness of the land, which is one of the perquisites frankly before I'm going to sell that property to anybody. You end up with about 1.1 houses per acre in the final analysis. You look at the Gestach and Paulson, all this terrain is the same. It's different but it's the same. It's very hilly and it's very interesting and it's very beautiful. The Gestach and Paulson, which is right on the north side, so I've talked about the south, the west and now the north side of where we live. They have 25.85 acres with 3 outlots. They're looking at 21 single family lots. So you throw in the 3 outlots and maybe that will bring it up to about 1.1 houses per acre in the final analysis. It feels like there is almost some agreement that exists somewhere that dictates x number of lots and on and on and I submit to the Ryans and to this commission that there does not need to be an economic hardship concern in my view at all. I think that the property, if developed in a manner which fights nature less and leaves the natural beauty present, for a potential homeowner in fact increases the value of that property enormously for someone who desires that kind of a setting for a family home. And therefore I would really suggest that this commission take a look at what has been transpiring and what is transpiring, if you will, right around that area as far as the type of land, the topography and how that has ended up equating to actual lots in the final analysis and I think you'll find that 1.1 is probably a fairly accurate number and the reason is because of the topography. And I submit that these other folks have worked hard at protecting it. I can tell you that the Lundgren Bros have to the south of us because I've been a big part of that , process with the Song's. I don't really want to live right next door to, having spent the money and the time and the effort to protect the environment with our home site area there, which is substantial. We've protected it I think as well as anyone can. And then have the adjacent field leveled off and fill with houses is destroying the flow and the rthym of that particular area. I just, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think there's an economic hardship question at stake at all. That there are buyers out there who will enjoy and will pay the price for that natural beauty. And there are other areas that simply don't have that kind of terrain 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 to that extent. Severity that exists in that area. So I would ask that the commission give that some thought and consider the ratio that has been working for other people in the immediate area as a maximum. And I don't know that that property even, I don't know what the ratio should be on this particular piece. 1.1 there may not be absolutely accurate. I haven't sat down and figured it out because it's not...Relative to the views from our property looking north. Until there is more of a plan that exists and this commission and others perhaps are seriously interested in approving, I don't think I need to spend your time talking about whether or not some sort of tree barrier or some sort of screening is necessary or not from my point of view. But I don't know that that's been discussed at all up to this point and I would simply like to be on record as saying that may or may not be an issue...spills down into something specific. Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes sir. Peter Davis: My name is Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Blvd. I'd like to reiterate several of the points that have been raised by Sam Mancino and some of the others who spoke here tonight. I'm representing myself as well as several neighbors who weren't able to make it to the hearing tonight who all have a deep concern over the original concept or design of this proposed subdivision. No one has an interest in standing in the way of the development because we all know it's coming. But it seems like in the case of some of the sections of the City Code, particularly when I call out Section 1860, which specifically says, it talks about the lots should be placed...to protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses and historic areas. I believe the intent of that, and I really kind of look at the intent as being lots should be placed. Not we'll take some land and we'll put as many lots on it. And I wanted to reiterate a deep concern that this seems to be driven from the standpoint of trying to increase the density for the number of homes rather than really trying to preserve that land and all of the other constituencies that represent an ecosystem or the wildlife as well as the aesthetics of the area that this...represents. That was really the extent of my comment. Was to reiterate the one section of the code as it related to sort of are lots and topography and coming in which order...subdivision. Scott: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Yes sir. Marty Gustafson: Good evening. My name is Marty Gustafson. I live at 6691 Galpin, which is right on the northeast corner of Lake Lucy and Galpin Blvd. I'd just like to restate what the previous speakers have said. That the beauty of the land that the Ryan's own is in the rolling topography. And to go in and bulldoze that and just kind of level it all off, to me is just like raping the land. If you look at the development south. I can't recall the name of it but south of Prince's property, that land was pretty much flat to begin with and it just, it's not unpleasant but it's just boring. You know you've got a difference in elevation of 20 or 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 30 feet probably in the whole development and everybody can look out their front window into their neighbor's front window and right on down the street. And it just, to me is boring. And most every night I can watch the deer walk through the Ryan's property and it's just the roll is just beautiful to watch the sunset through the trees and I would hate to see that get leveled. My other concern is drainage. If the wetlands are filled in, where's that water going to go? I imagine it's either going to go through my property or through Mezzenga's. Both of us abut Lake Lucy Road. Is there going to be massive trenching or digging? And if it is, it's all going down into Lake Lucy. You know that swamp is filling up fast. The lake is filling up fast just because of all the vegetation. You can watch it from year to year. And pretty soon that's, there isn't going to be any water showing at all. So I would like to see whatever drainage is required stays on the property and not get drained off and create problems for someone else. Thank you very much. Scott: Would anybody else like to make any comments? Yes sir. Lynn Rothberger: Lynn Rotherberger. I'm at 6681 Galpin and really only had just one comment to make. I've heard a lot of the speakers tonight speak of the surrounding properties. Lake Lucy Highlands, etc and matching the topography that is there. It seems to me that there is minimum acreage requirement on that land of something about 2 1/2 acres and the plans that I've seen, I don't see any attempts at all to be a match of that in the proposed development and I just would have a concern about the density or the amount of density and population of housing that's going to come into that property. I too very much enjoy the wildlife and the sunsets and the topography itself and I guess I have to agree with all the rest of the speakers that you're going to have to pretty well flatten that out to put housing in there and that concerns me. Scott: And your comment, part of the matter in front of us is the rezoning of the property from RR to RSF, which means Rural Residential which is big lots. RSF is 15,000 square foot minimums so that's part of the process. Good, thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: I think it's, I don't want to get into details tonight. I think there are a lot of details here. Staff has covered them. The applicant has covered them. There are a lot of things that can be tweaked with lots. A lot of things that can be tweaked based on staff report and I guess I'm not going to spend my time going through item by item because that would take quite a while. I think when you note what the property looks like, you know what a real natural asset it is out there, and I don't see this plan really taking advantage of the natural 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 assets so you know really bottom line, I have to turn it down. I'm not getting into the details in terms of the individual plan tonight. They preserve very few trees. There's massive grading. They did not fit with the surrounding neighbors. And you know, those three things just all by itself Mr. Chairman make this, I don't think this is an appropriate subdivision at this time. The other thing that I'm concerned with, and I want to make it a natural amenity. The area is just so beautiful. I want to make sure that when it does develop, that our trail system is taken advantage of that throughout. That's real important so I think we not only have, the developer has an opportunity to not only make the money and not only do it well fitting with the natural environment, but also to give the community something in the process. And again, a lot of us have been out there. It is just a terrific area. It is one of those unique spots in Chanhassen and I don't think we, this plan meets any of our base criteria for a subdivision fitting with the natural surroundings so Mr. Chairman I'm going to be as brief as I can and say this subdivision should be turned down. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: Thank you. I have some questions for staff. Last time we met we discussed the feasibility study and I heard the applicant talk about a supplement feasibility study and preferred northerly route. Dave, could you give us a little more background and what was the actual feasibility recommendation. I don't want to get into it in real detail but I just want to understand exactly what was the preferred alternative. Hempel: The feasibility study looked at two alternatives for extending Lake Lucy Road from Trunk Highway 41 to Galpin Boulevard through what was called the Westside Baptist Church site which is on the far west side immediately adjacent to Trunk Highway 41. That was the particular parcel that was, the two alignments were discussed. The southerly alignment and northerly alignment. The southerly alignment was closer to Mr. Carlson's property and had a base and a slope and significant trees to the south of it. There was also a graded wetland that was... The northerly alignment through that parcel with the existing driveway access on the site, it tended to meander the road a little bit more. The only alignment that I'm aware of through the Ryan parcel is a southerly alignment but potential for the northerly alignment was also given through this outlot of this Gestach-Paulson development, Brendon Pond to leave the flexibility for Lake Lucy Road to be extended through the Ryan parcel somewhere in this area. It wasn't officially mapped but the consulting engineer reviewed it and the proposal for the feasibility study showed the southerly alignment for the Ryan parcel. The two alignments that were reviewed by the City Council was the northerly and southerly alignment across and into the Westside Baptist site and the Gestach-Paulson site. It's leaving the opportunity open as you continue to the east. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: So there really wasn't two alignments that were mapped out for this property, is that correct? There was only this southerly alignment? Hempel: As far as I'm aware... Ledvina: Okay. And then as it relates to the alignment, the applicant has suggested that that would amount to a wetland filling. Was that also identified in the feasibility study? Hempel: My understanding, based on the conversations with Bill Engelhardt that there was no intention of filling the wetland with the southerly. Ledvina: Okay. So in other words, it would be relatively easy to realign that roadway slightly to the north, whatever it takes, 10 or 15 feet or 20 feet, to avoid that wetland filling. So we're really not talking about trading off wetland filling in choosing that alignment, is that correct? Hempel: That's correct. Ledvina: Okay. Now I want to understand the conservation easement. You've got quite a long description here Bob and does it cover, does it indeed describe the northerly 30 feet of the plan? Generous: Yes. Ledvina: It does, okay. That's really all I need to know. Okay. Because it talks about a lot of different chunks here and that's the legalese of describing which lot that covers I'm sure. Your recommendation number 16, it says plat the land west of Lot 14, Block 2 as an outlot. Are you talking about, now I know this relates to the western portion of Outlot 6 as they've hand drawn it here. Now you're saying put a property line and make that long narrow chunk an outlot, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Ledvina: Okay. I wanted to make sure that was clear. Let's see. I think overall, I'm leaning towards some of the core issue as it relates to the development of the site as proposed. I would agree with the commentors from the public. Also Ladd's comments. I feel that as we discussed and recommended the applicant pursue last time, we all agreed that the Lake Lucy Road alignment provide the most sensitive course for this road through this parcel of this site. We suggested that the applicant go ahead and look at alternative ways of preserving that hill in that western portion of the property. And I do like the idea of going in 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 with a street off of Jennifer Way with potentially some private drives. That way I think that could provide access to that area and again preserve that. I don't know procedurally how I would propose to do this. If we would add conditions and send it along or that in such a condition that we'd want to see it tabled or I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit on procedurally how this might be handled. But I think overall we need to have some work done on this plat before it can really be viewed as an acceptable environmentally sensitive proposal. Scott: What would you like to see? What would you suggest for the applicant? Ledvina: Well I don't, I'm suggesting that we table this and see a rework of the design for this western portion and we've made that suggestion previously and I don't know where the applicant is at with that but I'd be willing to look at it one more time. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Some of Matt's questions answered some of mine. I think there are a lot of details. I think the plan we're looking at is, I think counsel for the applicant has indicated that you know we're being asked to approve what staff has recommended and I don't think staff has recommended this as their first choice. They've done a second choice because there was not a willingness to look at the preferred southerly alignment of Lake Lucy Road. Having been to the site and looking at it and from our recommendations last meeting, the southerly alignment seems to make the most sense to me. With that in mind, and I guess I echo Ladd's comments and I think that of a lot of the citizens here. I don't think this development does the best job of dealing with the existing topography or the surrounding developments so whether it's a tabling issue or a chance to rework or that we deny it, I think that's maybe a procedural question that I'd put to my other members but I'm not ready to go forward with this plan. I am open to seeing a rework of the plan. Scott: And what sort of direction would you give? Nutting: Well, I can't develop it for them. I'm not a developer but what I see is not consistent with surrounding developments and topography. There have been some suggestions put forth but that's really for the developer and their advisors to look at. If it's an extension of James Court into the westerly portion of the land, I can't say for sure and I can't sit here and try to visualize it and say do this and all will be well. So I guess the main concern is just that it doesn't make sense with the land and the surrounding development. Scott: So you're thinking primarily make better use of the existing topography? Is that one that you're getting? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Nutting: Absolutely. Scott: Okay. Nutting: Which will impact density. There's a lot of issues there. Scott: Okay. Just a question. Kate, when was this preliminary plat and rezoning, when was that presented to staff because I know we've got a, we have two different timeframes that we deal with. Aanenson: The ordinance states that you have 45 days to make a recommendation to the City Council...and I believe that date was August 17th. So accordingly...you have one more chance to review which is September 21st... Scott: Okay. I'm not going to echo any comments. I'd like to have a motion please. Unless you want to discuss. Obviously tabling we'd get it back. We may see the same thing all over again. Denying it automatically sends it to the City Council with our comments on why we're denying it so. Nutting: I would be open to tabling it. I think the property is going to be developed. I mean it's not an issue of developing it or not. It's a question of getting something that makes sense so. Scott: Okay. You're thinking tabling? Conrad: Mr. Chairman, why don't you ask the developer what his choice is. Ed Ryan: Do you want me to step up to the podium? Scott: No, that won't be necessary. Ed Ryan: I guess I would prefer you approve it obviously but if you're not willing to approve it, I guess I'd prefer you deny and then we have the opportunity to go forward and, that's what we want. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Conrad: We do have a rezoning. I'll make the motion to deny the preliminary plat but do we need to discuss the rezoning issue? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Aanenson: Yeah. Scott: Yeah, we could not, this preliminary plat would not fit RR zoning so. Aanenson: If you don't approve the plat, then the Council wouldn't have. If the Council chooses to approve it, you haven't recommended on the rezoning... Conrad: Why should I recommend approval on the rezoning if I don't like what's going to go on it? Aanenson: You can make a different motion to...whether you choose to approve or deny the Council's still going to make their own decision so in principal, if you want to go on record and make some recommendations...but not to make any recommendation. Conrad: I'm not sure what signal I'm sending when. I not saying that this shouldn't be rezoned. It's just that this particular plat is not what I want to see so that's always been confusing to me. You know it's like what signal am I sending. Scott: Usually it's more consistent if both are acted upon the same way. Ledvina: Well if you look at as a package, I guess. Is that how you would prefer it? Aanenson: Yes. If you don't...no matter what motion you state, whether you approve or deny the rezoning, Council still has the right to... Conrad: Well we'll just administratively go through this. I make a motion that we deny the rezoning of Case #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we deny the rezoning. Is there any discussion? Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Rezoning #94-3 rezoning 37.92 acres from RR to RSF. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Can I have another please? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Conrad: Yes, I make a recommendation the Planning Commission denies approval of Preliminary Plat #94-7 based on our previous comments in terms of the plat's lack of sensitivity to the surrounding, which includes the mass grading. It's lack of sensitivity to the neighboring community and it's non, and the fact that it didn't incorporate our primary location for Lake Lucy Road. Scott: Okay. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Conrad moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Preliminary Plat #94-7 based on the previous comments regarding the plat's lack of sensitivity to the surrounding area, mass grading and the location of Lake Lucy Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Councilman Mason, thank you for taking notes. Just a. Generous: There's a WAP, wetland alteration permit. Scott: Don't use that acronym in that way again. Ledvina: I move that we deny, or we recommend denial of Wetland Alteration Permit Section 20-407. Scott: Okay, is there a second? Nutting: Second. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny Wetland Alternation Permit #94-3. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Editorial comment. The reason why we're denying this and passing this on is that we did not believe that we're going to get anything better back from the applicant so we're basically dumping it on our colleagues in the City Council and I would encourage any of you to follow the issue because the final decision is not made here. It's made at the Council level and I'd like to thank you all for coming for this issue. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 REZONING OF 25.85 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 25.85 ACRES INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, T 116, R 23, NORTH OF HIGHWAY 5 AND EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, BRENDON POND, GESTACH AND PAULSON CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Lee Paulson St. Bonifacius Dennis Clark 6651 Hazeltine Blvd. David Stockdale 7210 Galpin Blvd. David Gestach Brian Klingelhutz Sam Mancino 6620 Galpin Blvd. Peter Davis 6640 Galpin Blvd. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Any questions or comments? Conrad: Maybe I have one of Dave. I've got to talk about Lake Lucy. It's deemed a collector street. Did we do a traffic count? When it was reviewed, do we know what it has to, what the future traffic's going to be on it Dave? Hempel: A few years back there was a Eastern Carver County Transportation Study predicting the traffic flows and counts eventually throughout the city providing east/west connections. North/south streets and designating...arterial kind of collector street. This area has been designated as a collector type of road. I don't know off the top of my head what the traffic projections are. Conrad: There's no traffic to the west that is really going to search this out. I can't, there's just no traffic that's going to seek this road out so it really is servicing only this area that we are now looking for development. The Carlson's may be another development but really this is a roadway that's just going to serve the neighborhood basically. Hempel: Well it does provide for the east/west continuity between Galpin to Powers Blvd versus going all the way up to Highway 7 or going to Chaska Road. This is actually a vital 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 connection, east/west connection. Another east/west connection through is being provided to the south through the Carlson/Song/Lundgren development where it was part of the... approximately 2 miles south of this location. Conrad: Okay, it's an east/west connection. So when you say that to me does that mean you're saying it's serving more than the neighborhoods? With that 4.0 houses, this street will service 100 houses in this developing valley. Hempel: That's correct. And additional city wide traffic. Conrad: Going where? Hempel: Going to another connection from the northwest part of town to get to the downtown versus going down Trunk Highway 41 and Galpin to Trunk Highway 5. It's not making any shortcut I wouldn't think but it does provide a viable east/west travel route. Conrad: Have we made any compromises by terming this a collector? Have we, are we forcing a major road in when a major road is not necessary? Hempel: The roadway section that we're proposing to build here is not much larger than the standard street right-of-way. Our standard street for a residential neighborhood is 31 feet wide. This street is proposed to be built at 32 feet wide. There is additional right-of-way though that's being required with this to provide when the trail/sidewalk, the 8 foot wide trail/sidewalk will give us larger boulevard areas for planting... Conrad: Okay. That's all. Scott: Any other comments? If the applicant would like to make a presentation, please do so. It's not a requirement. If you'd like to, please go ahead. Dave Gestach: Dave Gestach, 8001 Acorn Lane, Chanhassen. I guess basically we just...and we hope that you do approve it so we can go to Council. Scott: Good, thank you. This is a public hearing. Just a show of hands. How many people are here to speak at the public hearing for this particular project. Okay. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing please. Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Dennis Clark: My name is Dennis Clark. I live at 6651 Hazeltine Boulevard. I was wondering, Sharmin could we use that overhead again and possibly enlarge that. Enlarge it a little bit. Al-Jaff: I don't think we can do that. Dennis Clark: Okay. Actually I'm kind of Johnny come lately on this project. For some reason I was not served notice on this development. I received my first notice last Friday. I've been out of town since Friday. Came back in town Sunday. Had Tuesday to even prepare for this. Staff has been giving me a crash course on this and I definitely have some concerns just because probably I have gone over staff notes and gone through everything but I kind of made a wish list here of what are some of the concerns I have. I think I'm just going to mark on there where my house lies on the 8 acres that I have. Scott: Yeah, that would help. None of us see our home from that vantage point very often so. Dennis Clark: You only see my house in the winter time. I've been pretty much aware that this has been tabled before or presented before but frankly I was a little shocked that this was going through this fast. From August 17th up until today so obviously there's been quite a bit of preparation by staff on this and maybe this thing is a done deal. But I guess a couple of the specific issues that I have which concern my lot are the northwest development of the property that we're talking about which seems to be somewhat ignored in the notes that I've seen. I see very little addressing to the northwest lots in regards to the trees. I had an opportunity to talk with a few people and what type of homes are going in here. I'm hearing anywhere from $250,000.00 to $500,000.00 homes. I question, I'm not a realtor but I have been here for 2 1/2 years. I was in the market. I question who's going to spend that kind of money on Lot 13 and 14 next to probably a 100 feet from a Minnetonka basketball court. So there's some issues that I'm questioning, plus the fact that according to the way the plat is here and the way the foliage is or the way the excavating is, it can't be done without taking a lot more trees that don't even show up on this plat. A lot more trees. Very mature trees and I'm specifically talking about Lot 12. I'm concerned about Lot 11, which if you look at the contour line of Lot 11, and maybe you've never had a chance to be back there. Lot 11, where the house is, is a gravel pit. It's probably 20 to 30 foot drop so when I look at the notes and see where you're talking about significant grading, I think that's a pretty lame word. We're talking about very significant grading and I guess I don't understand how it's going to lay in the contour of the land the way it is unless that's being filled or I don't know. I haven't had enough time to get these questions answered. The tree inventory. I think that even as of today, I don't know what the tree inventory is. I don't have the updated notes, if there is some. I don't know if it's been presented but I think there's considerable more trees 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 than what are shown on the map and I guess from where my standpoint is, the front and back of my house. Now when I come to my driveway, from what I understand, I'm going to be looking at, there's quite a bit of elevation. I'm going to be looking at the backs, or the backyards of 3 homes. These people will be kind of hovering over me. So be it but am I also going to be looking at 3 Menards pole sheds coming into my yard? Is it going to look like Milacs Lake or what, I don't know. I'm very concerned about that. I think for the acreage that I have, just specifically in getting to some of the points, I'm going to be looking for some concessions and some buffer trees and I think this should be definitely an issue before we continue with this. Not well we'll take care of you. I want to know that I'm looking for some year round buffer trees that are bordering my property if this is a done deal. I think I deserve that and I'm thinking evergreen type trees, 10 to 12 feet tall. This is going to give me some of the privacy that I deserve with that size of a lot. This will devaluate my lot if this does happen. I cannot develop this lot that I have. This acreage is, it's a done deal. You can see it's kind of laid out a little goofy there and it is a nice lot. I've kind of been in this movie before. I just came from probably one of Shorewood's most embarrassing developments. I lived adjacent to one that took 7 years, 4 townhomes. Christmas Lake Woods. And there was a lot of promises on trees and trees that weren't going to be removed and in the final, it didn't happen. And the saws were going until 10:00 at night, on Saturdays and Sundays and the townhomes were $170,000.00. Way over priced 10 years when they started the thing. The market fell 14% and the project sat. So again I'm not a financial wizard on this stuff but I question, to me this looks like a trailer park layout and from Highway 41, the way these homes are going to get stacked across here, again I need to know a little bit more about the project. Maybe I'm coming in here late and I don't even know what my legal rights are as far as getting my notices and what have you. I would recommend to the city that these things be sent certified. Jerome Carlson, who just recently purchased this plat over here, his name is on the plat but the person I purchased the plat from 2 1/2 years ago, still his name is on this plat. So I don't know where things are slipping through the cracks there. The trees in question on the south side, in Lots 1. Or I'm sorry, 13, 12, 11 again was a gravel pit. I'm talking about probably 100 trees that are fairly mature. Anywhere from 12 to 30 feet tall. Evergreens again. In other words, they hold quite a bit of cover. I've done some measuring today. Took the day off and went out and measured this stuff. Working with the contours and that. A lot of trees got to be taken out. The next thing that I'd like to point out is, there's already quite a bit of forestation on this property this , summer. This thing was clear cut in a day. The whole 25 acres of popals that have grown up over the years. So you can see right away where I have some question about, I don't know if I'm going to use the word trust but I think we would have been further off and maybe what we had here for foliage. These were anywhere from 7 to 12 foot, even taller popal trees. Maybe they're worthless, I don't know but didn't like it. Just put it that way. There's been no communication from the developers on this project. I think that's rude when they're going to go in and if you can't even talk to the people that you're getting up against. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Maybe from a developer's standpoint, don't talk to the neighbors. I don't know. Just my opinion. I'm kind of on a lowland. I'm below this, you can see all this drainage here where it does go back out on the lake again but I'm kind of what I would consider a lowland. When you start taking this square footage on house roofs here, right next to my property line is my drywall system. I had an opinion done on that today. When you've got water coming down these hills and you've got natural vegetation, I've got a sump pump in my house that runs continuously when it rains. You know what's going on there. I've always wondered how my drywall was doing. Now I'm even going to have more concerns about the drywell when you start taking this type of square footage and even sending that much more water down, particularly on my lot. A couple other questions that I've got is, I'm trying to get the Minnetonka School system to quite using fertilizer on their lawns up there. They've got the most beautiful lawns in the world. No dandelions, nothing. All that water comes right down that drainage ditch into that pond. That pond is getting worse and worse every year and I think we've got, we're making some headway there and this pond is turning in to be a green slime ball. It does hold fish. I do feed it minnows. I spend about $300.00 a year throwing spawn...minnows in there for crappies and what have you. And when I look at this buffer around the lake, this 10 foot buffer. I mean I don't know what the regulations are and where we're headed on this stuff but this pond's going to be ruined. Just plain and simple. When you start putting lawns in there, you've got a problem. 10 foot buffer means nothing. We've got problems coming from Minnetonka so again this is just another point that I have concerns about. I don't know if it's been addressed or what the situation is. Is there going to be docks on this pond? How is this pond going to be preserved? Can...put a dock on this thing? Can he fish off it? What's this going to look like from the road? You actually do have a public access from the road. You can fish from shore. From the highway side so I don't know what this is going to bring. This feeder road. My kids get on the school bus on this road and we've had near accidents with a stopping red flashing light. When cars come over that hill going north, trucks, 70 mph easy. 80 coming over. When this road goes in here, you're going to have some problems. I'll go on record on that. You're going to have problems with that road. The road's in, that's great but unless there's going to be some lights there, people coming in and out of there, there's going to be accidents there. Just they can't help it. It's a blind spot. So when you're coming over that road and...70 mph is not even, they go faster than that coming over. I would like to see that whole thing, with the park in there and with the school. When you get down by Chaska and that school system and that's all 40 mph. This is still 55. And so I think you should look at slowing that traffic down on TH 41. I don't know what powers you've got in that. So I guess my main concern is, getting back to my own personal problem, is I am definitely looking for something that is going to assist my view of what once was fairly...woods and nice woods and a meadow to buffer that all and I'll leave it at that for now. And I again, like I said, I'm kind of looking to see an update on this tree survey because this isn't close. It's not even close. And I would say you're more than welcome to walk some of the...lot. It's not on there so I've got 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 a problem with staff saying we're ready to approve. All you've got to do is work a few things out. I'm not ready and I've had 24 hours to do it. Basically a bad night's sleep also because I think this is going pretty fast. Maybe someone has some other comments. Thanks. Scott: Good, thank you. Just a couple of comments. One question I think since we're talking about preservation... I think it's entirely appropriate to consider a 30 foot preservation area along the westerly sides of Lots 11, 12 and 13. If there's significant vegetation there, there's no reason why that can't be continued around. Dave, drainage. My understanding is that the drainage from this development will be conveyed down a storm sewer running down whatever street that is into the holding ponds down below so conceivably there could be some drainage going off the back but that'd be through lawns or something like that so you don't have a concern about Mr. Clark's property as to drainage. Okay. And 10 foot buffer around the pond, that seems not to be in keeping with our wetland plan. Is it actually 10 feet? Is it more than that? Or is it because of the nature of the wetland. Aanenson: No, it's the buffer setback into the wetland. Building setback. What you're talking about is...minimum landscaping. Scott: Yeah. So from the actual property we could be looking at 60-70 feet. 50 feet. Okay. And then speed limits on state highways. The State, that says it all I guess. State of Minnesota. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Any other comments on this particular issue? Yes sir. Peter Davis: Yes, I'm Peter Davis. I live at 6640 Galpin Boulevard. Part of the, this Brendon Pond development includes a recommendation of some park dedication land that would tie the street to provide an access into the Minnetonka school. I was hoping to get more recognition made to the fact that when the Lake Lucy extension goes in, that this is going to be a fairly active path and I was hoping to see more recognition to the trail system as part of the outlots that would be placed on the north side which would provide for a very natural path for a lot of people extending east all the way to the other trail systems because you can go out through the top of the school where there's already an extension into other parts further north of Chanhassen. I was hoping to see more language in the recommendation that would provide from where that road alignment of the trail system...pedestrian standpoint, make more of a route. Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm not following you. Peter Davis: Right now what's going to happen is there's only language that talks about an access point up in here to the school. In terms of when Lake Lucy gets developed in this direction to the Ryan property, I was hoping to see more language built that would pull the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 trail system to the north so you'll have more of a natural... Aanenson: That's the plan. That's the plan for Lake Lucy that there's a trail system along the northern side. That's what the Ryan's engineer was saying, they would prefer to have it on the south side but it was always planned to have it on the north side because that's where... Peter Davis: Okay, I didn't see that. Aanenson: That's where we believe most of the traffic will be going. To get up to the junior high. Peter Davis: Right. Okay. Hempel: There's also a sidewalk being proposed along the west side of the street to connect from the trail from Lake Lucy Road north. Peter Davis: That was my question. It really wasn't clear how that was going to tie back in. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Any other comments? Sam Mancino: Yes, Sam Mancino, 6620 Galpin Boulevard. Over the course of the last few months we have been pleased to be able to work out most of the issues between ourselves and Gestach-Paulson people with the help of staff on this and I think that we've got the right contingencies for future potential development if we ever chose to do that. The one issue that I'd like to raise here, you are considering platting, as it is properly laid out here. There's a portion called Outlot B which will be considered at a later date. The reason for Outlot B is to allow future alignment pending determination of the way that Lake Lucy Road extends to the east, which is the Ryan property. If in the course of that decision the road takes the northerly route, what will probably happen is that it will have to cross that finger of wetland and trees which can do a fair amount of damage there. The question before us I guess is, would that lot by itself allow enough room for mitigating the damage done there or would that have to be taken into account now. A question. Aanenson: Are you talking about wetland mitigation? Sam Mancino: Yes. Because you will be going through, if the road takes the northerly alignment, would it require some wetland mitigation that this lot would not be large enough to accommodate or wouldn't be appropriate to accommodate here? And does that then argue 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 for the southerly alignment of that road to avoid that problem? Hempel: I guess first of all it'd have to be classified as a wetland. From our guidelines from our Water Resource Coordinator, the wetland...would have to review the site to determine if it qualifies for a wetland status. It would be, if we're impacting it with...assume that we would have to mitigate for our impact. Sam Mancino: I guess this was an issue that if the road takes a southerly alignment, it's probably a minimal concern. Aanenson: ...it would have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act but that doesn't mean it has to be done...I think your point's well taken and that goes back to our...trying to preserve wetlands on the site. Sam Mancino: Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment? Sir. Brian Klingelhutz: My name is Brian Klingelhutz and I was involved with Dave and Lee. We bought the property about 10 years ago. We've been working on developing it since then. You know off and on. Not constantly but when we bought the property it was all, Mr. Brendon made his living off of farming all that land so it was just all fields and there were trees around the borders but where they have the 30 foot section there protecting those trees, that is protecting all the trees that are mature. So there is a lot more trees there but there's just little scrub trees that you can't even walk through so. I want to point out that we've worked with Mr. Carlson. We've worked with Mancino's. Maybe we didn't address Mr. Clark enough. He wanted to buy some property from us. We never made that deal. I don't know if he's upset about that or you know, but you can't please everybody you know. I pulled in his driveway this afternoon to talk to him. I was in his driveway looking over towards our property. The property that's going to be developed and you couldn't even see that property from his house. You know there's so many trees between his house and the property right now so, I mean it wouldn't do any good to plant any more trees there because you'd wipe out some of the trees that are really there. So I'm just saying that we've done everything we could. I hope you, you know we have nothing against Ryan's development but we've been working on our's for a couple years and so I just don't want you to tie our two together. We've put a lot of planning into our's. Just because you tabled their's, because we're right next to each other but we've been working. As you can see that it's 25 acres and we only have 19 lots in there which...so I just hope you pass it. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? Seeing 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 none, can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Nutting moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Well I guess I was pleased to see that the property owners and the Mancino's and staff were able to address the issue of the outlot and the private drive and to get that resolved. I'm not tying this project together with the Ryan project. They are connected by the Lake Lucy Road but I think what we, the consensus from staff and the people up here is that the southerly alignment made more sense and that's the alignment that we're talking about with this plan. Short of some new concerns or issues that were raised tonight, I think I am in a position to go forward but I guess I have a little bit of confusion on the tree inventory and exactly what's there. We've taken great pains to address that issue on the easterly side bordering the Mancino's property. I don't know if staff has any input to this but I'd like to just understand a little bit more about the impact that we're going to have on the property owner to the west because we've been careful in this development to address the needs of everybody and I just need to, I'm not saying I'm not ready to go forward with it but I just don't know enough. Al-Jaff: We can work with the applicant to make sure that all the trees that are on the site right now be reflected on a tree survey and then we will...would have to be replaced according to our ordinance at a rate of 1.2. But I think that this is an issue that we can work out. Nutting: Okay. That you, with the developer and the property owner to the west, okay. Okay. I have no further comments. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: In regard to the tree inventory. Is that accurate and I guess what is the level of accuracy in terms of the size of tree and have you reviewed that? Sharmin Al-Jaff's answer was not picked up on the tape. Ledvina: Based on the comments that have been made here, you said you've been out to the site to look at that? Okay. Al-Jaff: There were some trees, spruces located to the west of the site that are not shown on 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 this and we will...that they be shown between now and the Council meeting. Any trees that will be removed would have to be replaced at... Ledvina: Are those spruce trees within the grading limits, do you believe or are they outside? Al-Jaff: Some of them are. Two of them are within the grading limits because... Ledvina: Okay. The adjacent homeowner had a comment about pole sheds or whatever and I just would want him to know that of course the city has ordinances as it relates to a construction of buildings and out buildings are, you know have to be done by permit and size limitations, etc so, and in a residential, high quality residential neighborhood you will not see that scenario, I don't believe. I think the request for additional buffer trees, if they're necessary, would seem to make sense. Have you had an opportunity to assess that need at this time? Al-Jaff: There's going to be over 100 trees that will need to be planted on the subdivision. So I'm sure that there will be some trees that we could add there if there is need for it. Ledvina: Okay. Maybe we could add a recommendation to that effect directing the applicant to intensify year round plantings in that area. I think that might be appropriate. I don't want to be real specific but again, I want to make sure that that screening does occur if needed. And just a follow up on drainage. Again, the adjacent homeowner is correct. There will be increase impervious area there, and it seems to me that if I look at the plat and the topography for Lots 10-13, Block 1, it would appear that a drainage swale along the back of those lots would be very easily done. You know within the grading limits there and provide or prevent I should say run on onto his parcel and potential problems that may occur. Dave, did you have any thoughts on that? Do you think that's a reasonable thing or do you see any concerns with that? Hempel: I actually believe that the amount of runoff going to the west of this development will actually be lower than the natural conditions that are out there today. The front yard area, the front half of the house will be directed towards the street which will be conveyed then through storm sewers to a sediment basin. It will only be the back yard grass areas essentially that will continue to drain to the west. The westerly edge of the cul-de-sac appears to be about the high point of the natural terrain out there right now. It's probably actually reducing the amount of runoff running west. Ledvina: Okay. Even with the construction of the houses in that area? Hempel: That's correct. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Ledvina: Okay. Well maybe perhaps we can direct the applicant to evaluate that condition to make sure that we're not causing a run on type of situation to the neighboring property. I wouldn't want to see that occur. The issue as it relates to buffer around the wetland area or the pond area. Now how do we classify this pond? Is this like an ag urban? Al-Jaff: It is an ag urban...buffer that wraps around the wetland. Ledvina: Okay. Is that by definition or is there some leeway in establishing that buffer zone? Aanenson: They're at 20. The average. Ledvina: Okay, but it can range 0 to 20, is that what you're saying? Okay. Would there be any down side in increasing that buffer area to 20 feet in that area? It appears to me that that's a conservation, much of that area is a conservation zone. Scott: Tree preservation. Ledvina: Or tree preservation and also there doesn't appear to be grading in that area so it appears that that buffer strip could be increased to 20 feet. Aanenson: ...in the conservation easement, you can't... Ledvina: Well from what I, you know there is the entire area here and I don't know if that conservation, tree conservation easement encompasses the entire shore area of that pond so. Aanenson: That's what we would look to evaluate...go back and evaluate that... Ledvina: Is it reasonable at this time to recommend 20 foot buffer or are you saying you need a little more time to evaluate that? Hempel: The only areas that I see a concern with that would be on Lots, for instance Lots 1, 5 and 6 where the grading essentially was within 10 feet of a... Ledvina: Right. Yeah, I can see that. Hempel: Potentially that area would be left to grow natural after the grade is in. Aanenson: And we establish vegetation. Ledvina: I guess I don't want to see any, and I agree with the homeowner here, is people 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 mowing all the way to within 10 feet of the wetland area and if we can bump that back, that would seem to make sense. Aanenson: I think you can make...conservation easement from the wetland buffer. I think if you...just add on as far as screening...the trees closer to the home so I think we'd like maybe some time to evaluate that more closely and get your concerns. Ledvina: Okay. Alright. Overall I feel that the developer has been fairly responsive to our comments and believe that the adjustments that have been made have benefitted the plat. I think with a few more conditions, I think the concerns of the neighboring homeowners can be addressed and it can be a good situation for both the developer and adjacent lot owners I should say. One question I did have and I forgot to bring this up. For Outlot B, is there a conservation easement along the north boundary of that lot? Al-Jaff: At this point we did not... Ledvina: Okay. Do we want to do anything there at this time or do we have to see this lot back again if it's developed so we don't necessarily need that at this time? Aanenson: I think you'd like to wait and see how Lake Lucy aligns. Ledvina: Okay. That seems reasonable to me. That's the extent of my comments. Scott: Thank you, Ladd. Conrad: I have nothing new to add. I agree with most of Matt's comments. Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion please? Ledvina: We've got two things here. We've got a rezoning. Okay, start with the rezoning. I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning #94-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994. Do we need to modify that? No, that's it. August 30th, 1994 subject to the following conditions as outlined in the staff report. Conrad: I second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 of Rezoning #94-5 for property zoned RR to RSF for Brendon Pond as shown on the plans dated August 30, 1994, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The development contract shall be recorded against the property. 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #94-10. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: Can I have another motion please. Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following modifications and additions. Number 2 to add, this plan shall include a list of trees and their size. The plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Does that get what we need there? Okay. And that relates to the tree replacement and reforestation plan. I guess with that I would also like to add that the applicant shall review the need for screening along Lots 10-12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west. Conrad: Can you change that to have staff review that? Versus the applicant. Scott: Also perhaps in addition to the extend the tree preservation area which would take into consideration 10, 11 and 12 to preserve... I don't want to make it too...If we see that there's something there that we need to preserve and then we might not have to spend a lot of time on it. Ledvina: Yes. I would, that condition I would have staff review the need for that screening. Aanenson: ...from the wetland. Ledvina: Yes. Yes. Let's see. Condition number, add to condition number 18. That any wetland alteration be mitigated according to city ordinance and state laws. And that as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road, however that ends up, and if there are wetlands encroached in that area. Adding condition 25. That the applicant evaluate, applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10-13, Block 1. I guess that's essentially it. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Good. Is there a second? Nutting: Second. Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve staff recommendation with additional conditions as so stated. Can I have a second please? Nutting: It was. Scott: Is that what that was. Not that we don't pay attention to everything you say. Let's vote on it. Ledvina moved, Nutting seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brendon Pond for 19 single family lots and 4 outlots with a variance to the street grade of 10% on Pondview Court as shown on the plans received August 30, 1994, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 2. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on the site. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. Tree conservation areas are shown on attachment #1. The applicant shall provide the city with a legal description of these easements. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. A total number of 185 trees will be required for the forestation and tree replacement on this site. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city will be required to ensure compliance. This plan shall include a list of all trees and size proposed to be removed. The plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. Staff shall review the need for screening along Lots 10-12, Block 1 as it relates to the existing single family home to the west. 3. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 4. Building Department conditions: 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with final plat conditions of approval. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, Carver County Highway Department and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval. 7. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to storm water ponds or wetlands shall be a minimum of three feet above the 100-year high water level. All storm water ponds shall have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 slopes thereafter or 4:1 slopes throughout for safety purposes. 8. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 9. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9-1. b. Pending review by Engineering staff, fire hydrant locations are acceptable. c. Radius of cul-de-sacs shall be 45 feet, not 42 feet. d. Fire hydrants shall be located a maximum of 300 feet apart. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 11. Park and Recreation conditions: a. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of Pondview Court extending north to the school property shall be incorporated into the construction plans for Brenden Pond. The applicant is to construct this sidewalk and convey any and all easements required by its alignment to the city. b. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 12. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity user fee of $35,501 assuming 17.93 acres of developable land. The water quantity and quality fees may or may not be assessed dependent upon the Lake Lucy Road improvement project assessment methodology. The water quantity fees will be negotiated based on the developers contribution to the City's SWMP for the site. SWMP fees for water quantity and quality are pending formal approval of the SWMP by City Council. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 13. The existing outbuildings and any septic system or wells on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 14. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 15. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat review. 16. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and , utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 17. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. Any wetland alteration be mitigated to city and state laws as it relates to the orientation of Lake Lucy Road. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 18. The applicant shall provide detailed predeveloped and post-developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins/wetlands and individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. 19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 20. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the City ordering Improvement Project No. 92-12 and awarding a bid for the contract. 21. Outlot A shall be conveyed to the City for access to the Mancino parcel. A private street shall be designed and constructed by the applicant in accordance to the City's private street ordinance over Outlot A. This private street shall serve a maximum of 4 single family homes. Utility service (sanitary sewer and water) shall also be extended to the east line of Outlot A. 22. The applicant shall dedicate to the city at no cost the future right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road through Outlot B. 23. The developer and/or property owners shall waive any and all procedural or substantive objections to the special assessments including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and any claims that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property." 24. That the applicant and staff evaluate potential concerns as it relates to potential run on for the adjacent property owner from Lots 10-13, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 9.7 ACRES INTO 50 LOT SINGLE FAMILY TWIN HOMES AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 25 STRUCTURES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE, POWERS PLACE, JASPER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. Public Present: Name Address David L. Wasson 8789 Flamingo Drive David & Donna Clough 1521 Lake Susan Hills Drive Betsey Jenkins 1511 Lake Susan Hills Drive A. M. Stene 1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive Ronald Ziebell 1561 Lake Susan Hills Drive Philip Jensen 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive Tom Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court Mona & Doug Jacobson 8551 Merganser Court Mary Beth & Jerome R. Reutzel 1481 Lake Susan Hills Drive Bruce & Shirley Bowman 1541 Lake Susan Hills Drive Craig & Janet Cariveau 1501 Lake Susan Hills Drive Jeff Zahn 8461 Pelican Court Terry Bolen 8451 Pelican Court Gary & Sharon Condit 8440 Pelican Court Lolita Tolliver Rogers 1571 Lake Susan Hills Drive Wendy Nelson 8411 Egret Ronda Pierre 1591 Lake Susan Hills Drive Todd & Marianne Loader 1584 Lake Susan Hills Drive Leslie Jensen 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive John Williams 1531 Lake Susan Hills Drive Pat Victorian 8530 Merganser Court Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Scott: Questions or comments for staff. Okay. Would the applicant care to make some comments at this time? 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Phil Youngbuth: My name is Phil Youngbuth. I'm with Greatland Homes and I'd like to introduce myself in this way because we are in a joint venture with Jasper Development on this particular property. They are the developers of records. We will be building the units, both in terms of the design and construction. We are formerly from Joe Miller Homes. Working with Joe for several years. I've been here before. I would like to make a couple of points that hopefully will help to clarify some of the issues. As to the actual size of units, the units are 67 feet wide and 65 feet wide fitting on 71 foot lots and 73 foot lots. And the reason I bring this up is so you don't get confused. It shows on the plat the lot size, okay. And the reason the units are narrower is because you have to have a minimum of 3 feet from the lot lines to the windows. So that's why we're narrower than the actual lot size. We have tried to do our homework in designing this particular housing unit. I did meet with Sharmin a couple months ago and from our initial meeting I did take the original plan that you see here and we've designed a few more architectural elements into the plan to make them more interesting. Work a little bit better with the neighborhood. They are a rambler sized and what we call 1 1/2 stories. This keeps a lower profile if you will so that from the street you're not seeing 3 decker townhomes or something similar. And for the folks on the hill, they're not going to be staring at 2 and 3 story homes. These are nice low sillohuettes. We've added things like gables, dormers, decks, patios. There's optional 4 season porches to the plan. Scott: Yeah, you might want to tip it one way or the other because I think it's glaring on the camera. Yeah. That will work for the folks at home. Phil Youngbuth: I can hold them up too. Scott: That's fine. Phil Youngbuth: As you can see by the porch, which is an option, the deck is standard. And it's not just your typical cedar 2 x 2's...2 x 6's, etc. It will be a smooth cedar with some turret posts...things like that so that they're a little more interesting. A little more fitting with the kind of traditional flavor to them. Not just your slap them up kind of porch. That alone makes for a more interesting back view if you will. Several of the units back up to Powers Boulevard. They are walkout style so from the back, this is a rambler with a walkout. This is the front elevation and you can see some of the things that we've done to make them more inviting. Friendly. On the back you can see that we've changed the roofscape. We've added gables to extend the gables as to bring out a porch over the deck. There are many windows so that in other words we're talking about something that's more interesting and pleasing to look at versus...or something like that. More interesting side elevations, etc. Additionally the product itself is probably, you know the final prices aren't in yet but we're looking at $110,000.00 to $120,000.00 base price. I know that, in the early stages of conversations 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 these were talked about being $80,000.00 townhomes. Now I know that affordable housing is a necessity. It gets to be more and more difficult to do that and please everybody. So they're intended for single, single professionals. Perhaps not retired but a little older people. Easy to live type of homes. Again, the density that we're talking about is an important factor to be bringing up like we did. When we're talking about, what was it, 9.3 units per acre. The reality is, there is a way to get to that with 30% or 35% coverage. And it happens just down the street and that's when you start building up. So I think that this is a reasonable and well presented answer to a unique site and I'm hoping that together we can move forward and get this job completed. That's my report. I think it looks good and we'll help with you. Do you have any questions? Mancino: Yes, I do. Thank you. I see that you have two type style houses. The Itasca and the Voyageur. Can you tell me, as I look on your preliminary plat, I mean the houses that are on the eastern side of this development, they'll line themselves to Powers Boulevard? That's all one style house? Phil Youngbuth: Correct. Mancino: Okay. So we're going to see a row of, the rear elevation from Powers as we're traveling. Phil Youngbuth: Correct. I'm glad you bring that up. What's nice about these particular townhomes is that although they're identical, they'll be in several different colors. Okay, but they're not like all pink or you know. Mancino: And what are those colors? Phil Youngbuth: Well, there's only about a half dozen colors that are even earth tone. Reasonable light earth tone colors. Mancino: Do we have samples? Do you have samples of those here? Phil Youngbuth: I don't have those here. They're vinyl. It's vinyl siding, called Greenbriar. It's a very smooth, high quality premium siding. And we're looking at white windows. Or I should say white windows with white grids on all of the units. As far as what one may look like from the other, the reality is that they're no closer together than any of the single family homes you see here. Between the units is 15 feet. Single family homes, from one to the other is typically 15 feet. And if they were all split entries or multi-family, or I'm sorry. Multi-level and split entries, they're very similar in design. Especially from the back. So what I'm saying is that this is not much of a variance from that. In fact it might be more 43 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 pleasing because it will be constantly maintained. This is a maintenance free exterior with a homeowners association. Mancino: Staff, did you ask for samples to be brought so that we could see the siding and that we would know exactly which ones of these lots have what colors because I know that we've brought up several times, especially when they're in rows, we want to see a variation of tone and color and not just. Do you know what I'm. Al-Jaff: I recall asking for the rendering. I really can't remember if I asked for samples. Mancino: Do you also talk a little bit about landscaping or is that someone else on your? Phil Youngbuth: Well, we can talk about it. Mancino: Can you tell me a little bit about the, those are walkouts on the back? Phil Youngbuth: On the Powers side. Mancino: On the Powers side. And you have balconies there that will put some of these up high. How are you going to screen the back of those walkouts from such a big street and the noise and the traffic and the lights? Phil Youngbuth: Well my understanding is that there will be berming all along Powers Blvd, at least from some kind of a meandering berm that's to be worked out with the staff and whatever trees that they are recommending that go in. At a minimum that's what's happening. Additionally we'll be doing extensive landscaping around all the units. Mancino: And that's something I think that you have in your conditions? Sharmin, to work with the developer on that. Okay. Those are my questions right now. Scott: Good. Any other questions or comments for the applicant? Do you have someone else on your development team that would like to make a presentation? It's not a requirement but if you would like to do that, that's quite alright. Al Rader: Thank you. I'm Al Rader with Rader and Associates and we're working on the civil engineering and the land surveying portion of the plat. And I guess I can answer any questions you might have directed related to that, you know those questions but basically as far as the roadway system goes, being that this site is up higher on this end than actually Powers Boulevard, would bring the grades up on the main entrance here. Bring the grades up...this cul-de-sac. Running them back down at a slight grade to turning down on that 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 northern cul-de-sac. And that water will actually, the drainage pattern will run the same way so the water will come down, be picked up by an intermediate...down to a pond at this corner here which will have an overflow...storm sewer system. The units along Powers have their garages directly entering onto the internal private drive here. These units here, here, these two clusters have their own private little driveway...and the southerly most cluster of the 8 units of 4 buildings, they'll just be one short cul-de-sac. Basically that pretty much defines with the water pattern will be. There will be retaining walls needed along the back side of some of the units here and those will be engineered walls. They'll be handled by an engineer...and probably be a terrace type thing. Scott: What's the, one of our big concerns with any sort of development is the impact on the neighbors and I'm familiar with that area. Basically what is the difference in grade inbetween let's say the top of one of those units and perhaps, I know there's a number of homes along the side. Just roughly. Are we talking 20 feet? Al Rader: I guess I can't, I really can't relate to the top of it. Scott: How about just grade to grade. Al Rader: Grade to grade difference being about a 9 and should reach...as far as we've shown with the 954 and we have 939 for a garage so about 15 feet. Over on this side it looks like it could be 20 feet. Scott: Any questions or comments? Okay, anything else? Al Rader: The other thing I had was, any of the wetlands, the ponding, we'll address it with the city staff...and those are all pretty much issues that they'll do and tell us... Conrad: Talk to me a little bit about the retaining wall. It's hard for me to visualize what you're doing there. I guess I wish I saw a profile of this project versus, it's really hard to understand what you're doing with the retaining wall. Al Rader: Basically we've got to take up the difference in grade along, this is the property, line of the project here. It's kind of a random pattern here. We've got to take up the grade difference between the property up here and the maximum you can get these up to so there's a percentage grade we can share. We've got it down to the property line to a point where we've got to stay away from the building a certain distance so the difference between those two will be taken up by the retaining wall. Some of the walls will be shorter but in other areas there will be higher walls. But it won't be in one wall. It will be a stepped, terraced type pattern. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Conrad: Is this a wood? Is this concrete? What is this made out of? Al Rader: I guess that would be up to the design engineer. What they recommend and what the developer wants. I'm assuming it would be a pre-fab concrete...field stone retaining wall. Something, but it's going to be done well so that it's going to be fairly, it will be maintenance free. They're not going to have to repair it. Conrad: And it's set into, at the top of that retaining wall, is that where the grade takes off again? Al Rader: It will take off at the top and go on up to the common property line with the adjacent neighbors. Conrad: So given you're backed up to a neighborhood, how do you prevent, you know again. It's hard for me to visualize this. Are we, we've got an 8 foot berm or a 10 foot drop? Al Rader: 10 foot. Scott: Per step? I'm envisioning. If I lived there, I would be falling in there. Mancino: Are these planted? Are they going to be planted terraces so that kids can't, I mean kids come to the edge of the property. Al Rader: I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. If they should be planted or be left wild, native grasses. Native plantings. Conrad: But how do you prevent, and again. Maybe this is not a big deal but how do you, as you abut a neighborhood, how do you keep people from actually being injured? Is it just that obvious. You can see it. You know that there's a wall there. A retaining wall and you're going to be careful or is it a hazard? I guess that's something that I'm not convinced of yet. Nothing's been presented to show me we solved a drop of 10 feet or whatever. Al Rader: Walls are used on a lot of subdivisions. If you look on a lot of subdivisions they'll have the same type situation. They're stepped but they'll have the building pad elevation will drop down 5 feet to another building pad and drop another 5 and that's basically the same thing we're doing here except for you're not going to, you probably won't have that 90 foot spread building pad. You'll have a landing terrace. I'm sure the city staff will have some recommendations on it because they're going to be reviewing this. They're going to have to look at what we design. And work with the construction... 46 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Do we have any indication as to the position of adjacent homes relative to this? I mean that's something that we're sorely lacking in basically every package we've received in the year and a half I've been here. We do not have a clue as to whether this is encroaching on neighborhood's property lines. We don't have a clue where the houses are. We have no idea, and I mean I look at that as a potential hazard depending on how it's handled. And you know once again, if we can't, if we don't see it, we can't do anything with it. Aanenson: Well you can't encroach on the neighboring property line. That is the plat line. Scott: Yeah, but we don't have a clue as to where the homes are located in the whatever addition of Lake Susan Hills that is. It'd be nice if it were just sitting there with nothing around it but there's no clue. I don't have a clue anyway. Aanenson: You have to have at least a 30 foot setback. Al Rader: I assume that those lots would be 140 feet deep. You take 30 foot from the setback and take about a 40 foot house so you've got 70 off of there. 40 feet and probably have a 50 to 70 foot range back yard on those adjacent properties. Mancino: What if somebody built their house back a ways? Scott: So are there, the entrance, I don't know what the street is but the entrance. Is it, you have your two entrances and then there's another entrance into I think it's the 4th Addition or Lake Susan Hills West. I'm just trying to get a picture of where the houses. Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills Drive. Scott: Lake Susan Hills Drive and I know there's a home kind of set up on a hill. Is that the closest? I'm just trying to get a clue as to. Okay, you've got to do it so north is west. Mancino: The house is back. Scott: Okay, so there are houses back in that entire, okay. Al-Jaff: This is the concept PUD. Scott: Okay, because I don't think there are homes built on the north side. I'm just trying to get, okay. Al-Jaff: No there aren't. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Scott: Okay. Where do the homes actually start? Is it about maybe a third of the way from Lake Susan Hills Drive. Al-Jaff: I can try putting these side by side. Scott: Well those are platted lots but I don't know if they're built on. Al-Jaff: There's Lake Susan Hills Drive and again this is Lake Susan Hills Drive. The lots, the first lot is right here. Scott: Those all have homes on it. Al-Jaff: And then it goes all the way down and around. Which is fairly similar to this. Al Rader: Basically I guess just you know, on a preliminary plat I was showing where the lawns are actually located. I'm not showing houses but you can see how many houses are lined up along the edge of this subdivision. Any other questions? Scott: None? Al Rader: Thank you. Scott: Thank you. Would anybody else from the development team like to make any comments? Good. This is a public hearing and I would like to have a motion to open. Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. MI voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Bowman: My name is Bruce Bowman. I live on Lake Susan Hills Drive. I'm the 7th one of that. Coming up from the south side. South side of...7th lot. Al-Jaff: Lot 10? Bruce Bowman: Yeah, right there. I have several questions regarding this but I notice the time and I notice that at 11:00 you just stop. Scott: That's unusual when we stop at 11:00 but we'd appreciate concise comments. Bruce Bowman: Well I just didn't want to get us all involved here and going and so forth and then find out that we had to stop in the midst of it. So that was my main reason for 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 getting up right away it you wanted to. Thank you. Tom Rasmussen: My name's Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531 Merganser Court and we've done a lot of the homework already on this. I had a meeting in my house approximately a week and a half ago in which I had most of the residents along that side there and also some adjacent properties come over to my house and we discussed amongst ourselves the issues relating to this development and what we've got here is kind of a summary presentation, if that's alright. Instead of everybody speaking, we'd like to tell you what our issues are and at this point I can't believe staff is making a recommendation for approval of this at this stage and we would like to go over and make a presentation. Helping me here do this will be Phil Jensen and also Ron Ziebell. What I'm first going to do is talk a little bit about our association. We passed around a petition addressing our concerns and we've got 50 residences. Not individuals but 50 homeowners. Everyone along the strip, and some others beyond it, that are concerned about this development. Have signed up and agreed upon what we're discussing here tonight. So it's not just me. It's 50 residences. Why are we here? Well first of all when we heard $80,000.00 townhomes we all had a heart attack for that. We were the ones that were concerned our property values might decrease. We are the ones who have children living there right now that could potentially be injured by this development off the retaining walls. We are the ones that are putting up with safety and noise issues along County Road 17. Right now. Today. We are the ones that have to live with the decisions of your commission and of the City Council. And why are we here? Actually because we care about improving the quality of life, not only for ourselves along the sides there but we do have a concern. We know what the neighborhood's like for the people that will be moving in here and we do look out for their interest too. Not just for ourselves. For them. What we're going to talk about are safety issues first. Environmental issues second. Development issues third and we have come up with a list of recommendations. We didn't want to leave anybody hanging for that and I'll conclude with that at the end here. Phil Jensen: Thanks Tom. I'm Phil Jensen. I live at 1580 Lake Susan Hills Drive and I'd like to make one comment. I feel a lot better...so it's nice to see Phil. I've known him for years. The first thing, our concern on safety happens to be that we're a young community of course and of course a picture's worth a thousand words and Phil is familiar with Joe Miller Homes and he built a community for us and he had all the block parties that he celebrated with us for. This is the...I'd like to pass around. Just in one short block, the first very short block there, there are 28 adults and 26 children. Just in the first block. Not to mention the rest of that street that backs up to the property and our first concern primarily is to how we will be able to handle our children and our perspective was no different than your's quite frankly. That we didn't know if these retaining walls were going to be 20 foot drops or what they would be. We were very concerned about that. We'd like to see that addressed in some fashion. Whether it's a profile of it or something so we feel a little bit more comfortable 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 there. Then in addition to the block wall, as I scan from my outline here. In addition to the concerns we have about the retaining wall, is that we have all experienced structural damage. Most of us have experienced structural damage in our community, whether it's by sod or wash away from our own soil or water drainage into our home and so on because of our community. We've got those bruises that have happened. We don't want that new community to have those same bruises. We want your building, that you're building, to go through the same experiences that we went through so our concern is in this engineering design of these retaining walls. That if they're not done correctly, of course it takes the pressure away from the hill that we're all living up and around, if it takes away the pressure that's holding the land in place, we may see some pressure coming away at our foundations and the hill above it starting to show some stress problems. Some seal problems and so on. In addition to that, our watershed and I would just utilize a couple more pictures in this that I would hand to you and these are just a couple illustrations of local yards of what we experienced from watershed from above when we were laying sod. We'd have a stake cutting party quite frankly where as soon as somebody laid their sod, dog gone it, we just got out there the next morning and we'd take our bucket and we'd cut out a bunch of stakes and put in the bucket and we'd go to our neighbor and help restake his new yard and that's because that watershed will just pull all these thousand rolls of sod right off his yard and go right down the hill. I personally used my kids toboggan to pull back over 1,000 rolls of sod back up the street. I don't want my new neighbors to have that same problem so I'm very concerned as to how this retaining wall will affect that. In addition to the retaining walls and drawing children to that, we have the traffic concerns as far as our safety. And if I could get that one graphic back up first on the. Actually that one will work just fine. Let me walk over here and I'll point out exactly what we're referring to. And that is that CR 17 is becoming an expressway and one thing that our community is aware of is we know it's going to go to 4 lanes. And that's to be to get everybody to Target and Byerly's. Well that's great. It's going to go to 4 lanes and help with the traffic flow and all this other jazz but what we're concerned about is the driveways here in these different spots that have access to it. If it doesn't turn to a 4 lane highway, these driveways will be a one way turn only. They're not going to be able to cross 2 lanes of traffic to make a left hand turn across on a 4 way as we envision it and street lights we don't feel are an answer to place that's 50 mph speed limit now that people are traveling. There's already people that wait at Lake Susan Hills Drive, right here at this corner as much as 10 minutes in the mornings trying to get on CR 17. Just trying to get onto it. And that's because there is no stop sign. We're not advocates of street lights. We don't want them. We'd just like to see the speed limits come down and stop signs. I'm already consulting Larry MacKenzie at the Department of Transportation for Minnesota. He informs me that we merely need to request to the County an audit be done. They in turn will ask the State to audit it and they will tell us as to the date what the traffic flow what should be designed for that, for 4 lanes and whether stop lights exist or not. So in this area of outlet to this Lake Susan, they're going to have to only make right hand turns and 50 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 then they're going to get down to a sign where they're all going to make U turns. So we're a little concerned how that traffic flow goes and we'd like to see how that is going to be developed by our city or the County or whoever is involved in that. The next thing is that... We really hope that there's nothing but families that join our community because we're really, really supportive of that. We want a whole pile of kids to be here. Well if all these kids are here, they're going to want their own park. Well if this is a 4 lane highway and the park is supposed to be here, how are they going to get there? Well, I'm not going to bore you with the photos but I've got all kinds of photos and one of the first things we heard back was they can use the tunnel. Have you seen the tunnel? Do you know where it is? We had to find it ourselves. It's, I'm guessing but it may have been a tunnel that was used for cows back when there were farms here. It is not passable and I have the photos to prove it that just, they were taken last week. So the tunnel's not an idea to get people across to this park and I certainly am not going to send my kids across CR 17 to get to that park and I sure wouldn't want my new neighbors to do that. That's not a good idea. So we're here to recommend, as Tom gets into the second part or the third part of this, what our recommendations are to gain access to the park. The other side is we're going to be crawling the retaining walls we don't know about yet and trying to get through our yards to get to the other parks. So we want it to be a safe environment, not only by the traffic flow but also by some type of a profile of those walls. The last thing I would have to say is, in my commentary is, school bus loading area is also right down in the bottom of that hill where I point out first is the very bottom portion of that graph. That's where the school bus stops and this is also where that traffic blocks up today because there is no stop sign on CR 17 and that speed limit is 50 mph. I don't want to get too emotional but dog gone it, it's my town and this is our town. It's our community and people are just passing through it. We live there and we would strongly ask you to make recommendations to the county for them to have that section of highway audited for it's traffic flow with our new neighbors joining us and the new neighbors across the street coming, we want to make sure the speed limits come down and we have the proper stop signs there so they have access in and out of their community and that makes it safer for our kids as well as their's. I guess from the safety standpoint, I think I've addressed mine and I would pass it back to Tom. Tom Rasmussen: The next thing on our outline here that we'd like to talk about would be the environmental issues and our first thing, as you've heard a million times already tonight are the issues of trees. We don't have much but we do have a beautiful little cluster right the middle of this development and although they have made some efforts to retain those, if you look at their grading plans and their landscaping plans, they have homes that are encroaching into the trees on both sides and if you also look closely at it, they're planning on removing most of the under shrubs and only keep a few of the larger portion trees there of that. Our recommendation is they just leave the whole thing as it is with brush and everything along in there and we have pictures showing the trees and how they sit right there. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Our recommendation is that they don't encroach into the trees and they don't go in there and start thinning them out either. The next issue that we have is on the grading plan they're showing a wet pond, retention pond. Whatever you want to call it. I've got a problem just reading the grading plan. I see, what is the elevation the pond's supposed to be at. There's no invert elevation shown on the 12 inch outlet pipe. We don't know what the normal, the 100 year flood elevations are. We don't know what the emergency overflow elevation of that is. They have got some serious problems already along Egret Court along there with drainage problems already and this pond is making those residents extremely nervous, as it is right there like that. Right now the other issue that we have is that there is poor soils in the vicinity of Egret Court. As Phil had mentioned, they've led already to drainage and structural problems. All you need to do is drive in there, in that Court and see for yourself. But they want assurances that they're not going to get any worst. We don't feel comfortable right now at all like that. Those residents recommended...were their concerns. Other concerns with this pond were raised about stagnant water. Odor problems. Mosquito breeding grounds. All of those things. The residents along there feel that the city and developer need to address these issues and get answers back. The next thing here is something I haven't heard mentioned yet, although I can't see why it wasn't. There is wetlands present down there where this pond is supposed to go in. That is a wetland in my mind although I have not seen a wetland delineation and assessment report yet to document that. I realize we need to have the vegetation. We need to have the soils. You need to have the hydrology to classify it as a wetland. I have not seen a report that does that. However, we did go out there. We surveyed the vegetation there. There's foxtail, reed canary grass, aster, cattails, marsh golden rod. All of those types of vegetation that indicate it is a wetland. There is standing water there all along the line. I have not seen any delineation report yet. I think it needs to be done for that. I think the hydrogology must be there or else this wouldn't be existing. The question then comes along the lines of soil. The next thing is that there is approximately about a 1/5 acre of wetland located in the middle of the project. Fairly small but however under the wetland conservation act, anything less than 400 square feet area can be filled in. I believe this exceeds that. And again that should be part of the wetland assessment report which has not been done. Thirdly we get into the area of, we mentioned this already on the safety. However under the areas of erosion control...This tells you the type of soils we're dealing with and these are moderate slopes. Not even close to the slopes they're proposing for the development. These are the type of issues that we have come across already. Like that. Slope failures are inherent to the neighborhood and I don't want that happening below my house like that. Next, if this is determined to be a wetland where they're proposing this pond, we need to see some on site sedimentation basins to protect that wetland as is required under the wetland preservation act. With that, the other thing that we want to see is some type of implementation schedule that after they go and do the grading, how long do we have to stand around and wait until they start...seeding, putting the hay on the ground and protecting along those measures there. I know Joe Miller's development across the street had 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 that stuff but I watched it every single day and I thought that was fairly poor erosion control measures across the street there. From my eyes. Lastly we do, we talked about percent impervious and all the density and stuff like that. In our minds, when we look at the plat, we think it's being crammed in there. That's from our eyes. That's what everybody along here has...so although the developer threatened in my mind, about how they could build more and build the units like going up next to Byerly's here, we still think that there's an opportunity to provide more green space and less dense units in here. Next we'll get into the development issues. I'll turn it over to Ron. Ron Ziebell: Ron Ziebell, 1561 Lake Susan. Lot 13 on the southern end. I really like to shorten this. One of them's already been addressed. We're concerned, first of all with the maintenance free type of environment, both from the building and the landscaping. My reading of the proposed plan of the back of my lot, which now has a slope. Incidentally, the slope runs from my lot down to CR 17...extensive excavation to put the development in there. And I don't have a real problem with that except from my lot down to the steepen and down there will be some retaining walls and...14 feet down to 8 feet. And this will be...others will be close to it and I'm concerned with the safety issue with the children of the neighborhood. Some sort of a safety measure, whether it be fencing or whatever. Natural vegetation...to help terracing is a big relief to me. I think that would help and anything along those lines. With respect to maintenance free, with the retaining walls and the steep slopes, I'm concerned with the maintenance of the property itself. The retaining and...development area. We're concerned also with the property becoming rental units. We would like to maintain them as an owner occupied with some assurances along those lines. We would suggest items like building sprinkler systems to enhance the maintenance free aspect of the property but also to give some assurances that the rapid development for ground cover and retention of the soil for the development...excavation and slope that you're going to have to build into it. And we're concerned with the planning. It may not be the maximum density permitted. We feel that they are a little bit crammed in and the cookie cutter approach to the units. We'd like to see a little bit of variance on that. Across Highway 17 and Powers Blvd, there are some townhomes in there... In fact there would be no reason why similar units couldn't be integrated into this particular rental unit here. I guess...the proposal part of it and... Tom Rasmussen: One of the things we thought of is we don't want to leave you hanging here thinking what is on our mind. What do we want to see for that. So therefore we have come up with some recommendations to kind of put up along there. This is something that we decided and talked about. We would like to see, personally we want to see the elimination of all retaining walls and steep slopes and we want to retain the existing slope coming down from our units as much as possible. Like that. We want to decrease the number of units to prevent intensification and traffic congestion issues that are along CR 17. We want to require more green space. We want to preserve the wetland. We want to 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 preserve the woods and we want to preserve any type of green space, especially along the slope as much as possible. Like that. What do you do with water from the site? We're recommending that you put a pipe in across from the development over to CR 17 to the existing ponding system with the Joe Miller Homes development. There is ample storage in there and we believe that that would help solve all those issues. That helps...before it goes into Lake Susan. We would like to request that a closer look be taken at County Road 17's traffic and safety issues. We would like to see the speed decreased. We want to limit the number of access points coming out from this development. We want to install 4 way stop signs at both Lake Susan Hills Drive and CR 17 intersection. And what we would like to see is we would like to see a pedestrian foot bridge coming from this development across to the park over there. We see this as the only alternative to get over there safely. Right now there is no green space. The children can't play in here. We don't want them coming through our yards...There's a nice park proposed across there and we think that that's the only natural safe spot...Again our recommendation is that they continue on with the maintenance free exterior and trim and I was part of a townhome before I came out here to Chanhassen and believe me, the underground sprinklers are an excellent idea ahead of time. The time to do it is before you do any grading out there and think about that. When we first started off we hired some children, or some kids that were off during the summertime and you get such an erratic pattern of the way the development looks. It's just a nice, lot cleaner, better looking development to just go ahead and work those in from the beginning. Right now we're under some maintenance guidelines and covenants that apply to Lake Susan Hills on the west side there. We'd like to see at a minimum those type of guidelines be applied to this development. We would also like to see along the edge here, where we've got in here, is we do want to see some type of a buffer. We want a year round screen. That is not proposed right now on the landscaping plan in any manner whatsoever. We feel that that's a must. We addressed the issue already about no recreational space within the development for the children and we also want to recommend that you impose stringent townhome association guidelines so we can be assured that they will have the capital necessary to take as much pride in maintaining their buildings and their yards as we currently do in our's for that. Right now in conclusion we're asking you to table this. Right now none of the plans we have seen, they don't have any of this tiered retaining wall system. They haven't done anything like that. No berm is shown along CR 17, although I heard a lot of stuff being mentioned from the developer. I don't see it on the plans. Sorry. But right now you can't give approval to anything that's not on the plan and has a chance for us to review it. We've had a lot of patient people here tonight. Waiting. We've had two meetings in ourselves to try and eliminate the time that we're here talking to you. Along those lines, we've come up with a design we think is feasible with one access point. One common driveway that has a berm between there. Then you just go ahead and rotate the units in. This way you preserve the slopes as much as possible and the units could face each other where these arrows are would be a common driveway. Thank you for your time. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Mancino: Excuse me. How many units are you proposing? Tom Rasmussen: Well, right now it's just a schematic but I just thought that, if you look at the pictures, there's the slope coming down and there's a flat area. All their recommendation is is that they sit there and try to work within the flat area as much as possible. That way you don't need to do the retaining walls and if you sit there and you rotate the units in a little bit, you can maybe like the larger blocks might be units, maybe 3 or 4. Instead of twin homes they could be maybe units of 3 or 4 townhomes and the smaller ones might be the twin homes and have them served by a common driveway there. That way we get a little bit more... What it is, I'm just throwing it out as a schematic but to me this type of a design would address a lot of our concerns. And that's why we wanted to throw something back that they could possible work with. Thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anyone else like to speak at the public hearing? Yes ma'am. Wendy Nelson: My name is Wendy Nelson and I live at 8411 Egret Court, which is the first lot. Up at the top in the northern part. And my husband and I really have concern about the retention pond. I'm not too familiar with retention ponds except that I know that there's water which generates mosquitoes and da, da, da, da. But I'd like to know, and I don't know if the engineer can tell me this, how close this is to my property line. Because from where I sit, there's not that much room from my property line and CR 17. So if someone could kind of tell me. Scott: We have the scalemeister is calculating it as we speak. The only problem is with something like that, it could either be 100 miles, 100 feet, 100 yards so but being the competent individual that he is. Hempel: Scaling it off the plan, it appears to be the normal water level of the pond would be approximately 20 feet from the property line at this point. On the proposed plan but I have to back up a step and maybe address a couple of the issues that have been thrown out in terms of storm drainage and wetlands and so forth. The staff report does take into account wetland delineation and storm water ponding issues on the site. We've made some recommendations very similar to what the association had concerns with and some of their recommendations...at our's. That is classified as a wetland area. It's a very significant graded wetland area. There's been a sanitary sewer line run through it approximately 3 to 4 years ago. It's been regraded and filled in to maintain the drainage from upstream in Egret Court down to the county road. It has taken back on it's wetland characteristics as a pond...through that area. That area is designated as a surface water management pond as part 55 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 of our city wide comprehensive storm water management plan. The applicant would be required to...banking the city or another developer. We're looking at some banking area would be Powers Boulevard...involved in that project. There's also another storm water pond potentially in the center of the site which we are considering buying the...to limit the number of ponds on the site to one. That area may be a wetland. It's something that we've required...have a professional biologist and wetland...and research the site and come back to us with a survey of that. Storm water pond will be tied back into the Joe Miller's 9th Addition which is on the east side of the street. We made provisions for that development to take the storm water runoff from this side of the street. It pretreated the water quality treatment ponds prior to discharging into the wetlands there before into Lake Susan. So we have a step up on that. Wendy Nelson: Well David, the retention pond, you said that's 20 feet from my property. Hempel: Property. Wendy Nelson: Property line. Hempel: That's correct. Tom Rasmussen: Is that normal? Hempel: That's the normal water elevation. Tom Rasmussen: How high would it be with a 100 year storm then? What's the emergency overflow? Obviously you got better plans than what was given to us. Hempel: It appears to be about 5 feet away. 5 to 10 feet away from the property line. The 100 year flood elevation of the pond before it would overflow and go out to Powers Boulevard. Scott: And then as part of our surface water management plan, all of the retention ponds have got minimum slopes. Or maximum slopes. 1 to 4. Mancino: 4 to 1. Scott: Yeah, 4 to 1. It starts to taper and my guess is, as far as mosquito control, because that's obviously important to everybody. From what I understand, and I'm not a mosquito expert but I believe that these ponds are designed so that it doesn't allow for the shallow calm water the mosquitoes to breed in. But I think usually because of the size of the ponds, 56 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 it's really not a good environment because it's usually exposed to wind and wave action which is not the best place for mosquito breeding but you know, there's our expert over there. I think that has something to do with it. Hempel: There's a couple different design parameters that we can employ. We do employ a safety aspect of it...where we have a 10 to 1 slope for the first 1 foot of water to provide a bench around the pond. That area does occasionally grow vegetation, cattails and so forth in the shallow water. The other type of ponding design, they've come out with a 4:1 slope. A more gradual slope that doesn't provide that shallow water shelf. It's a gradual slope. So if someone was to fall in, it would keep...3:1 slope. Those are some of the things that we... Wendy Nelson: Is it normal for retention ponds to be that close to the property line? If that is normal, could you give me an example somewhere in Chanhassen so I can have some idea. Aanenson: Lake Susan has plenty of them. Scott: Yeah, it's real common. Hempel: All the storm water ponds in your neighborhood. Directly across the street. The water treatment ponds that are in the back yards... Not the property but it's in the back door. Wendy Nelson: One other thing. I know Tom mentioned the problems in our cul-de-sac. I don't know if many people are aware but there are lots, I don't know how many houses are in that cul-de-sac... Yeah, and out of those seven, how many have had problems? Five. So that's another concern about the building in that area. Because we are shifting of land. If anything were to happen, I mean who would be responsible for the houses that are still standing there and aren't having any problems? Where will we go if there's a problem? Scott: Good question. I don't have an answer for you but I think that. Wendy Nelson: Major problems in that cul-de-sac. Hempel: We're familiar with the problems. You've been having soil corrections way back apparently to they oversized the house pad on the lot type situation, is my understanding... Mancino: So that we're sure when this is built, that that will be investigated to make sure that it certainly won't repeat itself. Hempel: Well certainly if the soil corrections that went in, it's difficult to determine the 57 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 ramifications from this development alone to this existing neighborhood. Scott: Is this something where soil borings be one avenue of determining that or? Hempel: Right. We do require some soil borings from the applicant, Any kind of soil correction measures...prior to issuance of building permit. Scott: What about, is there a permitting process for retaining walls? Hempel: That's correct. I believe the ordinance is for any kind of retaining wall that exceeds...obtain a building permit prior to construction. Depending on that height, if it does exceed 5 feet, I believe it needs to be engineered by a professional engineer, structural engineer. For safety measures. Scott: Okay. Well thank you. Would anybody else like to comment? Loleta Tolliver Rogers: Hi. My name is Loleta Tolliver Rogers. I live on the south side, fourth house off the corner. I know we said we wanted to keep our comments short and sweet...or whatever but this is a burning issue and we as a neighborhood have not been presented with all the facts. As we came in today we were told that townhomes were going to be $80,000.00. The developer says $100-110,000.00. As we were told we were going to have retaining walls, we don't know what they look like. We don't have a perspective of them. I personally have two children. One 5, one 3. Very curious. I can see them playing in the back yard saying, I race you to the top of the wall. And what's going to happen when they fall over? Once again, where is the liability? Who's going to assure me that my children are going to be okay? I think when it back to their representative today, a flyer from what we need as an association have been given are not the same. We have not seen the... paths and before this can be taken any further, I feel that we as a development need to see what's really going to happen. He describes this, the back of these homes are going to be against Powers Blvd. Multiple colors. I was born in a large city. That sounds like row houses to me. I did not move out here to live in row houses. I did not move out here to live in a section divided. To live with a different class of people. There are too many unanswered questions I think that need to be resolved before this can go any further. Thanks. Scott: Good. Thanks for your comments and that's the reason why we have public hearings. So your comments are appreciated and we do pay very close attention to what people say. Yes sir. Jeff Zahn: My name is Jeff Zahn. I live at 8461 Pelican Court which borders the property. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 I just had a couple quick things. ...approve this project when retaining walls haven't even conceptually been thought of by the developer. Not materials. Not whether it's tiered or what so I'm a little amazed at that. A lot of talk about water drainage but I haven't heard much about the upper lots. How that water can flow down into this development. My back yard, when it rains, it pours in just like a river back there flowing down that hill. The retaining walls there, I don't know where that water's going. I pose that question. Just one last thing. This developer, and I'm not even sure who they really are. They talk about a joint venture. My concern is they're going to be doing major excavation right next to my lot. I want to know who they are. Who their contractors are doing this excavation and whether the city requires liability insurance...to protect us in the construction process. Thank you. I guess that's all I have. Scott: Good, thank you. Would anybody else? Yes sir. Gary Condit: My name is Gary Condit and I'll just point up here where I am. I'm Lot 24 here. It goes from this corner to this corner. Just very briefly, I think the issue of the retaining walls has become a major issue. You can see how the land juts out. If you've got a map there with elevations on it. I have maintained the mode that the whole top of that hill around, I planted trees on it and I see from our lot line, the back of these homes, 25 feet. Now if you take a peak at the elevations, it's 20 feet down and 25 feet this way, what's that? ...it looks like a 45 degree slope. Now if you go out 25 feet and down 20, that gives you an idea of what the kind of steepness in this retaining wall is going to be. And I think at this point it's a major design error and I would strongly recommend, like our recommendation before is to move them out more into the flat land area and go with more of an idea like that. Scott: Thank you. Yes sir. Bruce Bowman: I guess we're on a first name basis by now. Bruce Bowman. I have a house that backs up to what is going to be continued woods, or woodland area. That's one question. The retaining walls are something I cannot get through my head. It's going to be a lasting thing, first of all. And secondly, how in the world it's going to be safe when they don't even know if they're going to have any fencing, trees or anything else. I think that at best it's a very premature thing. My personal opinion, looking at that rendering, they didn't take into consideration the topography of the land. They're taking dirt out of there and as someone already said, if you're going down 20 feet or 14 feet or something like that, and then just a short distance to the back of the house, I don't know how that would work. I have another concern. I like to work in my yard. Everyone else along that street likes to work in their yard. At least keep it up. Have pride in ownership. What's going to happen to these woods? That they're going to leave there. Are they just going to forget about it? Is there a homeowners association that's going to take care of this? What's going to happen? 59 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Chanhassen is a nice community. I moved here in 1978. I lived in another area. When I moved away in 1989, the area I live in now wasn't even there. But I think that there needs to be some more planning. Personal opinion. I think there needs to be some more planning on this situation before they just blindly go in there, start digging dirt out. Making walls and making no apparent safeguards and no apparent way of making it into a part of Chanhassen as we know, a valuable area and a nice community. I thank you. Scott: Good, thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir. Ron Ziebell: I'd like to expand a little bit about what I said before for the record here... The wooded area, if you draw a circle around that, is an area that slopes from Bruce's back yard in pretty much a uniformed grade down to Powers Boulevard. The retention of the wooded area is going to cause some problems that should be addressed in the plans. First of all that the woodland is going to be retained, that means they're not going to be graded. The land right next to it is going to be graded rather severely and...retaining walls and the...and the woods. The consideration should be for overall landscaping. How do the woods blend into the retaining landscaping, particularly along the top of the or along the border between the existing housing and the proposed development. There should be some sort of a planned landscaping scheme that considers the retention of the trees and blending of that particular area in with the surrounding neighborhood. Scott: Good, thank you. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing please? Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Scott: Ron. Nutting: Where do you begin? I can't personally pass this along. I need to see it back. I need to see stuff on the retaining walls. I'm still new at this game Kate but I see, there's a lot of stuff in this report I don't think most of the residents have seen in your recommendations are there to address the issues regarding wetland and landscaping and everything else. But I guess there's enough issues and enough concerns I'd rather see it back with some of those issues visualized for us so that we can better respond to the concerns of the residents. Rather than to move it on and not have a chance to see it back. Scott: Nancy. Mancino: I guess I have quite a few questions. Thank you for all your remarks and questions. Dave, can you talk a little bit to all of us about Powers Blvd and the 50 mph 60 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 speed limit. It seems to me that in Chanhassen we have a lot of big wide roads that just encourage us all to go faster and we have them through our neighborhoods. I have a huge concern about that. We're building bigger, wider roads. People are going faster and they're right in the middle of our neighborhoods. And this is one that I think a lot of citizens here tonight have brought up and what can be done about it. Hempel: Commissioner Mancino, there have been steps taking already in fact to address the speed limit issues on most of our major highways within this city. This past spring or summer the City Council, in a joint effort with the Carver County public highway department petitioned the State to perform speed studies on all of our county roadway systems in the city. Galpin Blvd, Powers Blvd. To review these. They haven't been reviewed in a while. Plus all this development we've had over the last few years. Have a lot more traffic. Lot more residential neighborhoods abutting these streets so it is being addressed. Will be looked at by MnDot here and we hope to have something back shortly. Powers Blvd is in the process of being widened and upgraded. The construction plans are being drawn as we speak. Carver County is the lead agency...participation. The consultant engineer that the County has hired, I did speak with them on this issue with regards to access. They are undecided at this point where they'll be limiting the access points to a right-in to a right-out or one of the access, maybe the...will have the full turning movement. That's something that we're looking at taking the sight distances and distances between access points. Carver County did supply us with a memo based on the access issues. The storm drainage issues so these will be addressed here in the upcoming month here. Their construction plans and the developer. I think one of the conditions that we put in the staff report was the applicant meet with the County and the City to review the access issues and storm drainage issues and so forth. Powers Blvd definitely will include pedestrian trails/sidewalks on each side of the roadway. There's been some talk tonight about accessing the parcel on the east side of Powers Blvd. It's my understanding that they're looking at a pedestrian crossing with a tunnel. There's an existing cattle passage if you will, on the north end that's been used. It needs some work. There's some erosion that's occurred...bad shape. There's a similar proposal I believe to occur on the southerly portion of Powers to access and provide a pedestrian access across Powers Blvd without having to cross. The pedestrian bridge, great idea. The cost of something like that unfortunately I think, we're well aware of what's taking place in the downtown with the price tag of that one so I don't know if that's reality. There is another park system that's essentially larger and it's probably going to draw these neighborhood children as well and that's in the Lake Susan Hills development...hill. That's already been developed and the Lake Susan Hills residents are enjoying already. I'm sure they can all use little parks... Mancino: And that's being addressed. Will the stop sign issue on Lake Susan Hills Drive as it goes into Powers Blvd be addressed? 61 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Hempel: I did ask the consultant and they're looking into that. There was no immediate talk. They didn't feel that the warrants were there to justify a signal intersection. They will be looking at that though. They will be providing the mechanisms in the construction of the upgrade of Powers for future signalization so I don't...warrants are met. But at this point we don't consider any traffic controls at this intersection. Mancino: Okay. Do you have any time line when you think MnDot will get to act on the speed limits on Powers and Galpin and our major roads. Hempel: I'd have to check further into that. See where they're at. Mancino: Retaining walls. Sharmin, did the developer and staff, I mean how does staff feel about and do we have it in other places in Chanhassen where we have 14 foot retaining walls abutting? Al-Jaff: We...with the applicant and we expressed our concern over the height of the retaining walls. Mancino: What was the applicant? Aanenson: That's why we want to terrace them... Mancino: Okay, to go with the terrace. Al-Jaff: We also...put fencing in. Mancino: So fencing at the top of the highest point of the terrace and besides fencing, because we also know what fencing looks like. Some sort of arborvitae or some sort of conifers. Al-Jaff: ...approval. Landscaping plan. Mancino: Okay. Did the applicant look at all about doing a sloping down a little bit and then terracing? Come down a little bit more gradually, and I know that that would probably lose some land for developing but was there any creative look at that? Developing it that way. Al-Jaff: When we met with the applicant, which was Tuesday of last week, we recommended that they revise the plan. That they show us a terraced retaining wall and we left the design issue with them. That they would have to come back to us with a design that was 62 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 satisfactory. Mancino: And we don't see it, right? Hempel: Maybe if I could expand on that a little bit. Nancy, I'm sorry to interrupt...we did throw out some suggestions to try to break up the row of houses. Meander a street through there. Possibly providing all the units onto the west side of the street. Move the street closer to Powers Blvd and act more like a frontage road if you will and provide sufficient buffering then between Powers Blvd and that frontage road if you will. That resulted in losing quite a few units there. They felt it was going to, they thought the grading was going to be approximately the same. They still have the units on the west side but, bring that road closer to Powers Boulevard. If you bring the units down the hill somewhat and I think reduces some of the impact. But it does knock off quite a few of the units being proposed. Aanenson: Can I just comment on what Dave is saying too. I think there's an appearance that this was dropped in our lap and we just reviewed it. We've been working with this applicant almost a year. This thing has gone through many evolutions. It's a very difficult piece to try to develop. There's an inherent density in there and he feels there's an inherent value in that property. Okay, so we're trying to come up with...resolve but it is, there's some tough issues there. We're trying to... Hempel: I'll touch on that a little bit more. The applicant was given the opportunity to revise his drawings...he'd like to bring it out onto the table and see what issues are actually out there so if they do go back, they can take into consideration all of the issues and go from there. Mancino: That's helpful information. Aanenson: This is an opportunity to get public input. Go back and respond to it. It goes back to that thing, should we put it on or wait until everything's finalized and then come back and you get them in a different order or bring it out in the public hearing and get some direction from everybody and go from there. Mancino: I just have a couple more questions. Sharmin, on the tree plan here. Are we suggesting that there be custom grading in some of the areas where it abuts the existing trees? Al-Jaff: Yes. They would lose some trees... Mancino: On that side. And quite a few on the north. 63 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Al-Jaff: Well it will probably be more than that. Mancino: So you're going to take off about a quarter of the trees that are there. Al-Jaff: Correct. However, all of this will be replaced at a rate of 1.2 as required by ordinance. We are also requesting additional trees being placed on this site. One thing that might help is, by realigning those units, it could potentially minimize grading with those units and it could also minimize impacts on the stand of trees. Mancino: Trees. Okay. And when I see this tree plan, it has 10 trees that look like this. What's that telling me? I mean they're going to take all of this but what does it mean? Are those the specimen trees? Al-Jaff: Correct. Mancino: Okay. Aanenson: Going back to the canopy coverage. Mancino: So these are the trees that are larger than 12 caliper inch that they have designated they've shown. But the rest of the underbrush, the saplings and everything else will be saved and they may not go in and clear cut the underbrush? Aanenson: If that's how we define the conservation easement outside of our grading limits. We've indicated that some will be taken out that are shown on the plan. Mancino: Okay. But then the rest en masse will stay. Excuse me, I wrote down notes as everyone talked. I think that's the end of my questions. Scott: Matt. Ledvina: As far as retaining walls are concerned, another aspect that I'm interested in comes from what I'll call the Oak Pond effect and after seeing those townhomes go up, I'm just wondering what really happened there. But the retaining walls are going to be a major visual feature if they're built and I want to know exactly how they look when they go up because those will be viewed all along Powers Blvd, if indeed this gets constructed like this. So I think that's going to be extremely important. This is a PUD and I think it's important that that be very well defined and we understand how that's going to look. Comments regarding the landscaping. Staff has indicated the deficiencies. I guess I would like to, when this comes back I would like to see a very detailed landscaping plan which resolves those 64 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 deficiencies. I think the plan is quite difficult to follow and I think it could use a lot of improvement there. The idea of the retaining walls going into the treed area. To put in those retaining walls there's going to be all kinds of grading beyond those areas. Equipment and essentially many, many of those trees would be lost in that area so you know I would not support those retaining walls within that treed area. I think that probably defeats the purpose. Let's see. I guess overall I think the residents had a lot of good comments and I'm not going to try to respond to each of those other than I think many of them have quite a bit of merit and I'm sure we're going to go over those in detail. They've put their thoughts down on paper which I think is great. They're very well organized and have a good handle as to what they feel is important for their neighborhood and I certainly appreciate that. The one thing that was, or another thing that was brought out was the runoff from the upland area. The other neighborhood and I would, we really haven't addressed that anywhere in the staff report that I've seen and I know it's a matter of course to consider the watershed regardless of where the property lines are but I just want to make sure, in this case I think it's extremely important because there is a tremendous amount of water that will come off from the upland area that I want to make sure that gets addressed. I'm sure it will but just to emphasize the importance of that in terms of incorporating surface water control features into whatever retaining walls are built or whatever and that would be kind of tricky. But that would have to be done in this instance. I can't imagine for stability sake water cascading over those retaining walls so, that's the extent of my comments. Scott: Good, Ladd. Conrad: Ycu know when you look at the footprint that we got, it wasn't bad. When you think that this has really been negotiated to have 9.3 units on it, it wasn't bad. It's coming in at 5.1 and unfortunately it's probably not meeting the real need for, the real reason for having medium density and that becomes affordable housing. And if we're at $110,000.00 which, as a minimum, I'm sure the neighbors appreciate that more than the $80,000.00 unit but really when we put in a PUD and we put in medium density, the reason was to make affordable housing and we planned that for years and years and years. That's why we do our plans so that people know. It's there. It's been there for years. I said that and then I look at the retaining wall and I look at some issues when you start playing around with landforms, that if you were here when we talked about other parcels and that starts to bother me. When we start playing with the landforms again and putting in a retaining wall. That's when, what I thought to begin with kind of breaks down. It's to the point though where I want to see if it works. It looks like it could but I'm not totally convinced of it, and that's why the applicant has got to bring back some better. We have to visualize what this looks like. We have to, as planning commissioners and as neighbors, have to understand what we're doing with this retaining wall. We have to see how the landscape plan affects that and how it moves from this medium density to the neighboring low density. So it may not be acceptable but on the 65 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 other hand it just may but given what we've been given tonight, I don't have a clue. And given that fact, we have to table this. We have to. There's just no doubt. We have no other choice. My only other issue, I think a lot of the issues from the neighborhood, I think they're resolved or they're close to being resolved. If you saw the staff report, we've dealt with, you know the staff is dealing with speed limits. Staff is dealing with tree preservation. Staff is dealing with wetlands. I think we're concerned with construction and I'm concerned with construction and what it could potentially do to the neighbor's houses and liability there. I think we have to let the neighbors know what it is. Who's accountable and we'll do that. My only other issue though is the variety of designs that abut the street. You know I really don't, I really don't want a row. It's not what we need there. I think generally I didn't have a real problem with the house designs. I think they're, but I don't want a row of houses abutting that street. There's got to be some kind of variety and I don't think it's just color and I think the developers have tried to put some gables in and some different variations but still they've got a great potential of a lot of units sitting exactly the same distance back from the street and it is, it's a wall. That bothers me a little bit. So we need to see it back and see what the developers can do but the big deal is, we have to visualize what your perspective is of that retaining wall. We have to see it because you're changing a landform that we really don't like to, or at least I don't like to play around with the land that much. I kind of like to leave it as it is and if you're to change it, then we've got to see how you're doing it so we can all say, yeah. That makes sense. So anyway, because again I started out, the reason I started out with density, they contractually can put that kind of density in here and you have, there's some other alternatives. It may not be economic for them to do it right now. There may not be a market for the higher density right now but they have some, contractually we're liable for putting in some units so when they come down to 5.1, that's not bad. So we just want to make sure they're the right 5.1 units that are going there so again, I say that to the neighbors. There's some other options that aren't as good but again, we have to make sure that this works. In a transition to your area and that's why I want to see it back. Mancino: I'd second that. Scott: It's been sort of moved and sort of seconded that we table this item. Is there any discussion? We're pretty much had it. All those in favor of tabling. Yes ma'am. Mancino: One thing that we never brought up and we may need staff...some direction about and that's impervious surface. Excuse we're 5.1 unit gross but the impervious surface is over what the PUD states. Scott: Is it 30 on the PUD? 66 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Mancino: It's 30 on the PUD and they're at 34%. Conrad: We can enforce that. Yet on the other hand, we could enforce that. Aanenson: We went over on the other one... Ledvina: I think I'm willing, personally I'm willing to be flexible on that given the type of design that I see. If we were looking at another design, maybe 30% would be more appropriate. So I think the staff recommendation as it relates to that is appropriate for, in my opinion, for this particular development. Conrad: Yeah, I agree with Matt. Mancino: Well it's probably one of the reasons why you get the row of houses also. I relate the impervious surface percentage to that and lining up the roads. Ledvina: It's very, I would agree with that and I think something needs to be done to break up the wall. And if that means losing a unit and staying...or losing more units or however it's done and also in relation to the severity of the slope differentials. In the final analysis, retaining walls may not be the appropriate way to develop and the density would come down. I don't know but I think more sensitivity and analysis there will provide some answers. Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to table action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 9.7 acres into 51 lots twin home multifamily development for Jasper Development Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Scott: We'd like to see this back as soon as the applicant can do what we've suggested but just in summary. I believe it would be very helpful for us to see a perspective view, a westerly view of the, not necessarily the whole development but at least significant sections of the development where the difference in grade is very severe. Number two, if it is at all possible and we all have to understand that this piece of property is pretty much a basketcase to try to develop and I think that this initial pass that we've seen is a good effort towards it but if there's any way that we can get the street to meander a little bit so we have more of a wave effect instead of just the row house, that'd be important. We'd like to see building materials at the next meeting and. Mancino: Detailed landscaping. Scott: Yeah, and the other comments I think are on it. Okay, good. Thank you all very much. We appreciate your. The public hearing is closed sir. I'm sorry. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Resident: I understand that but I need to ask one question. Can we get the information that we're asking too? Can we as homeowners? Aanenson: Yes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: No Minutes were available due to a copying machine problem. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Kate Aanenson updated the Planning Commission on what occurred at the City Council meeting of August 22, 1994 and the Commission had some questions regarding the Entertainment Complex presentation. Mancino: My only concern, publically, is that they reviewed it much like we did. Remember we reviewed it. It was very long. We started at 5:30 and we went until 11:30 one night or 12:00. Aanenson: But this is just a concept. This is just to say, we should spend some money to do some drawings. Mancino: Exactly but I also want to say that it was too bad that I think that they did it like at 1:00, 12:30 at night too. So I mean there's nothing to be done. I'm just saying that it's too bad that. Ledvina: Was it really that late? Mancino: Yes... Aanenson: A 2 hour snowmobile issue... Kate Aanenson also reviewed the legal issues involved pertaining to gifts presented to public officials with the Planning Commission. Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director 68 Planning Commission Meeting - September 7, 1994 Prepared by Nann Opheim , 69 CITY OF 10;1r.1CHANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: September 14, 1994 SUBJ: City Council Update On Monday September 12, 1994 the City Council took the following action: 1. Approved the final reading for the code amendment regarding interior landscaping for vehicular use. 2. An interim use permit for Admiral Waste Management was approved. The council capped the number of dumpsters at 100, down from the requested 140 and that it be limited to Admiral Waste dumpsters only. 3. The city council had requested a legal opinion from the city attorney regarding what rights the Halla's have to proceed with a different plat. The attorney's opinion states that they have the right to proceed with the preliminary plat from 1987. The city council voted to allow the Halla plat to proceed as revised. This is the proposal that the Planning Commission recommended preliminary plat approval of. 4. The Business Fringe District use amendment was approved with cold storage use eliminated from the conditional uses. 5. Shadow Ridge Subdivision development of 17 lots off of Lake Lucy and Yosemite was given final plat approval. 6. The council approved the wetland alteration permit for County Road 17 between Highway 5 and Lyman Boulevard. 6, CITY aF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: September 15, 1994 SUBJ: Planning Commission Terms Please find attached a list of the Planning Commission terms. The following members term expires on December 31, 1994: Ladd Conrad, Diane Harberts, and Joe Scott. Please let me know if you are interested in being reappointed. PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS Three Year Terms Name Appointment Date Term Expires Ladd Conrad 2/81 12/31/94 Jeff Farmakes 1/91 12/31/96 Diane Harberts 1/93 12/31/94 Matthew Ledvina 1/92 12/31/95 Nancy Mancino 1/93 12/31/95 Ron Nutting 1/94 12/31/96 Joe Scott 1/93 12/31/94 Q � • r CSG ' O t 00 C C C • L: N Z 0 > z0 > N • CJ �. O U E- ,r) V1Wi 4. N 0. N Q C7 - X < X X X X Q C7 rn < X < X X Q N X X X X X X X Z X X X X X Q X -- Z X X 4' X X < IIIII Q0. 4: neinenni 111011111111111 Q N 11101112111 LI. Cal an MIMIX Li, Lz7 W N 1111 MENIMENInna X 0 V