The URL can be used to link to this page

1987 07 08 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING _JULY 8, 1987 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart and Howard Noziska STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER TWO CLASS A WETLANDS TO CREATE STORMWATER - -- - - RETENTION FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONE[)BG, GENERAL BITSIN~DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT THE END OF WEST 79TH STREET, ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN~ Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item. B.C. Jim Burdick: I'm the sole owner of the property on the south side of the railroad tracks. I didn't come here expecting to agree with Dr. Rockwell but I most certainly do. She says after this becomes a ponding area it's not going to be a wetlands. Too steep a slope. They're going to have an antivegetation campaign. They're going to aerate it. I think just <<> .ased on her report it should be voted down without citing anything else. f the City's going to take it, you're talking about a very short period of time. possibly. Quite possibly not which I won't go into. Some things in this report are quite erroneous. For example under public comments, there just seems to be error after error. One part is both parties are currently in the acquisition process with the City of Chanhassen. There is not current acquisition process I assure you. Please turn to the next page, page 5. The City Attorney's office will be concluding that the land acquisition processes with the two affected property owners in the near future. That isn't correct. You saw last time the Carver County Judge has ruled they can not use a quick take process. A good part of the copy was thrown completely out of it. It can be started again and it could drag on for two or three years. If you have a competent attorney and the City is one of your members who can tell you about this better than I can but you've probably had experiences too. Where things dragged on. Further down that same paragraph, the quick take process initiated by the City. There's no more quick take process initiated by the City. Judge Henning said there would be no quick take process. I don't think he's the type to change his mind. The City can appeal in the next year or two but that most certainly isn't a quick take then so this is just simply erroneous. The second reason, let's assume the City is going to take this property. Okay, fine. Take the property and they can do what they want to with it but why do they want to try and do something with it before they take it? Now, as far as this being wetlands, there can be wetlands on a number of different places. There can be wetlands on a high plateau but there can not be wetlands on ~nly 6 acres of ground. I've talked to varying engineers. Some of the Fish ~nd Game about this. Schoell and Madsen. What have you. There can not be Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 2 -wetlands on a piece of property on which end is 38 feet higher than the paved road on the other end. Actually there is 45 feet from the high to the low. It's 6 acres. 6 acres isn't that large. It's quite a slope out there. There isn't such a thing. Conrad: Barbara, is this on the official wetland map? Dacy: Yes sir, it's on the official wetland map and in 1978 the Soil Conservation Service did an inventory of all the wetlands that were identified on the map and verified that the area in question is a wetland. Conrad: Everything we've got says it's a wetland so between now and when this gets to City Council you better line up some experts that say it's not a wetland. It's on the official wetland map. We've got technical experts going out saying it is a wetland. I think if you have somebody that says it's not, I think you better take that to Council and make sure they hear that. What we're being presented seems very ligitimate. Seems very authoritative and we have to assume that it is. I see no reason not to believe that it isn't right. Now Mr. Burdick, anything else that is pertinent? Mr. Burdick: As I say, about 1978 this Chanhassen Planning Commission and Chanhassen City Council approved a Chrysler dealership on this property. It wasn't wetlands, it was going to be a Chrsyler dealership. It was all ~pproved. I know the approval has never been rescinded. I don't know how ~ong it's good for after approval but that most certainly is not a wetlands. Conrad: How long do they have once there is an approval? Dacy: To be honest, I am going to have to refer to the file on that. Even if it was approved in 1978, the City adopted the Wetlands Ordinance in 1984. There is no construction on the site now and that's how it's being based for acquisition. Mr. Burdick: By entering into any arrangement on wetlands there, you're just complicating the taking of this property. If the property is condemned, the owners are compensated. Also, if property is down zoned, zoned wetlands, zoned agricultural or made to stay that way, it's being held up because of this, the property owner is to be compensated. I don't like legal actions but I no doubt will have one for a long period of time over the condemnation. I don't want another one over the wetlands. There are two Supreme Court decisions based on California action that purely established that. Just hit the nail right on the head for this situation. That's the owners become compensated so I'm looking for compensation for the wetlands and then for the property. No action would make it just one simple thing and as I say, let the City take it. They say they can take it so quick, let them take it and let them do anything they want to with it. They can dig a hole and put the whales in there. No problem. In other words, calling it a wetlands just makes it a bigger problem. Last, there's one ~hing that I don't like. They refer to the City of Chanhassen initiating ~his. Well, of course it's my property but if you look at the front page it Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 3 ~tates City of Chanhassen c/o Gary Ehret, BRW, 300 Thresher Square, 3rd Street, Minneapolis. What business do they have out here trying to establish wetlands on my property or anyone elses property? I would just like you to think about that and I would like to have you vote not to have it wetlands. That's all. Gary Ehret: I am Gary Ehret with BRW. We are the consultants for the City on this project. One thing that is not in the Staff Report, the implementation of the storm sewer plan that is being presented was reviewed by the Riley/Purgatory Creek Watershed last Wednesday and it was approved. What you are seeing tonight as a part of the Comprehensi ve Plan has been reviewed with the Watershed and approved. Conrad: Just before we start tossing this around on the Planning Commission, just for my clarification and maybe Steve you can jump in, right now it is still Mr. Burdick's property and I guess I get confused when the City is doing something and we're asked to review a request when the City still is not the owner. Can you clarify that for me Barbara? Dacy: All that I can say Mr. Chairman is that I reviewed this application with the City Manager. He advised me that the Planning Commission should trust Staff to file this application in advance of going through the appropriate legal steps to construct the storm water activity. If the Commission feels more comfortable, if they want to make some type of ~tatement to the Council about any type of reservation on acting on this ~pplication, all that I can tell you is that contrary to what Mr. Burdick said, is that we are proceeding to obtain the properties so we can have access to it and then settle on the value of the taking. I guess we're in direct conflict to the statements that Mr. Burdick made tonight and requesting that you proceed and take action on this tonight. Headla: I understand there is more water coming in than we can really adequately handle or there will be. The run-off if going to be greater. Dacy: What I was referring to and Mr. Ehret can clarify if you like, is that the Wetlands Ordinance states that the amount of run-off going after construction should not exceed the rate of run-off prior to construction. The pond is sized to accommodate the proposed run-off from the drainage area. However, that amount of run-off coming out of the pond does exceed the natural rate of run-off that exists right now. Gary Ehret: The wetlands in question do not at this time receive water from the entire downtown area. After this project is completed they will. It is being designated or we're attempting to establish it as the location of which all downtown water will proceed. So the rate going now versus the rate that will occur will definitely increase. Headla: will the quality be any worse or better? Gary Ehret: I think in general the quality will be worse because the 4IJowntown with growth will see more traffic. More parked cars and more Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 4 ~eaking oil. More sand. More development. More trash, etc. It has to go somewhere. This pond is being designated or proposed to accommodate that kind of issue. Otherwise, it's going to continue down the chain to Rice Marsh Lake or Lake Riley. That is part of the intent of this pond so in general, you will see in my opinion more degregation or poor quality water going. Headla: The second one is I understand that on the north side there are plans to reduce the area of that pond? That wetland? Dacy: Yes. Headla: So more degregation yet. Dacy: Yes, in that sense, of the two areas, the wetland on the north side of the tracks is in the greatest state. Concrete and bituminous have been placed in that area over a long period of time and it has adversely impacted the wetlands that is there now. What we're saying tonight or what Staff is saying is that you should anticipate another application in the future related to that proposed site plan on that area. Headla: On these lots though, recommendations that we can't follow, are they all of equal value of important or the ones that we're not doing, are they of utmost importance? _acy: I think all of them are related to trying to recreate a wetland area after you have altered it. Staff wanted to be very honest with the Commission and Council in terms of our ordinance as to what actually is going to occur there. As I said earlier, some of the things that are being proposed will not encourage recreation of wetland vegetation. It's going to be geared more toward a mini-lake. An aerator installed to keep the water looking clean, etc. and provide an aesthetic amenity along TH 5 and the entrance to Chanhassen. Wildermuth: There's a statement in there that says given that there are no viable alternatives to the proposed system. What are some of the non-viable alternatives? Dacy: The alternatives, if the City would have to make a statement that those wetland areas should be preserved and create upland areas or other storm water management areas upland of these existing wetlands and that involves significant amount of acquisition of commercial property. That proposed pond on the south side of the tracks is proposed to store 33 acres of run-off that is including the entire area of the downtown. Wildermuth: In view of the fact that the existing property or existing intended storm sewer basin is already designated a wetland, what would happen if the other alternatives would be pursued? That wouldn't change in regards to this property, right? It would still be considered a wetland on the wetland map so if Mr. Burdick wanted to do something with that property, 4IJe would still have to... Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 5 4Itacy: He would still have to file a wetland alteration the downtown storm water management plan did not exist, made application today, he would have to go through the permit form. If or whatever, if he same process. Wildermuth: Because of the fact that his land is already designated wetlands on the wetland map? Dacy: Yes sir. Wildermuth: Are there any other alternatives other than just moving it to another spot? Dacy: There is the standard alternative that we use in evaluating options is a do nothing approach and if nothing is done with the downtown storm water, it's going to continue to significantly degrade Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley. Gary Ehret: I might add one thing to that. Barr Engineering did a study on this drainage area for the City and there is another alternative, that would be to upsize all of the inplace storm sewer. I can't honestly tell you where it goes from but I know it's a substantial run. Literally thousands of feel of 42 inch pipe that is in place comes from Rice Marsh Lake up through a number of the subdivisions up to south of TH 5. It then splits and goes into two 24 inch pipes. One of the alternatives was allow the ~ater to run off directly. Do not pond upstream. What is the impact? The W!mpact is that the downstream by itself on TH 5 would all have to improved, upsized or additional pipes added. In their report they conducted, their recommendation was quite strongly that ponding upstream was the best solution. It treated the water and it allowed for the cost impact are minimal as compared to what would have to occur with the downstream system. I don't know if I could add too much more in terms of cost, etc.. I don't have those right off hand. Wildermuth: If the line going to Rice Marsh Lake would be increased in size, what does that entail? Does that run through the residential Chanhassen Estates area? Gary Ehret: It runs right from south of TH 5, everything south of TH 5 down to Rice Marsh Lake I believe would have to be increased or altered. Dacy: Also in the storm water management plan, under the ponding scheme they had also proposed another pond in the Ward Estate's property. When this area develops, another ponding area will be required to be installed in that area. That would further help to hold back the volumes before it gets downstream. This really represents a significant first step in the improvement of the whole process of the downtown area. Gary Ehret: One way I might be able to relay it to the Commission, in sizing of the storm water system to handle the downtown area, what we have ~roposed for construction right now, coming in through this wetland is a 72 ..,nch storm sewer. That accounts for roughly 350 cubic feet per second of Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 6 e water. We are proposing to come into the storm water detention basin, be detained there and then outletted at a controlled rate of about 60 CFS. So we're reducing it by roughly 300 CFS. The downstream pipe is 42 inch so if we were to take the 72 inch at 360 and translate that into the impact continuing downstream as the downtown develops, and then place the 42, it's a substantial increase. I don't know if you follow me there. Headla: Marsh? Does that mean we have very poor water quality going into Rice Wildermuth: At the present time. Headla: water? If we follow the storm sewer route with that very poor quality Gary Ehret: I'm not sure I understand your question but if all of the downtown water were not routed through what we're proposing as the detention ponds here, I think that there would be still be the intent when to instal a temporary facility here and I'm not quite sure what else exists between here and Rice Marsh but there's no question that all of the pollutants, sands, silt, oil, etc that appears downtown is going to continue right downstream and get to Rice Marsh Lake. Dacy: There was a sedimentation basin required at the base of Hidden Valley ~ubdivision where the existing creek is down in this area. In this little ~ob here there is a basin prior to getting to Rice Marsh Lake. If you remember that whole subdivision process the Council commented about the phopherous floating into Rice Marsh Lake and about the volume of water. This again is helping to address that whole issue. Wildermuth: Any other alternatives? Dacy: It's either acquire more land, commercially zoned land or do nothing. Emmings: In talking about the quality of water that's coming into this ponding area, and talking about it being for filtering oil and all these other things, assuming that that's there and it is an amenity, are the things that are going to be going in there... Gary Ehret: One of the things that we're proposing to do, the construction plans call for the main pipe coming from downtown, paralleling the north side of the tracks and going into the wetland on the north side which is the smaller area of the two proposed ponds. That's just proposed to be about 7 acres piece. The south side of Mr. Burdick's property is proposed for about 26 acre pi ece. Our in ten tis tha t most of the poor ma ter i al would set t Ie out on the north side of the tracks. The south side would be cleaner as we could reasonably make it. We have critical volumes we have to pass through. Our intent is to keep the pond on the south side as clean as possible by deposition of the bad material on the north side and the installation of an 4IJerator to keep water moving. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 7 ~mmingS : You don't think it will be a major problem? Gary Ehret: The pond on the north side, it may necessitate cleaning on a routine basis. By routine I think generally two years would be, I don't think any more often than that but there's no question that road salts, particularly as downtown development occurs, you have new sites opened up. You have run-off. You have siltation from each site that is opened up at time of building. That pond may have to be cleaned out definitely. Emmings: But that is taking stuff that if we don't catch it and clean it out at that point it's going to be a problem down the line? Gary Ehret: It's either going to go into the south side or it's going to be a problem further down the line. That's part of the intent of this entire plan is somewhere along the line you want to catch this material. It's going to be there, it's just a question of how far does it continue to move down the chain. What we're attempting to do is designate that as a location. Emmings: Where does the water go from this southern pond? How does it get from there to here? I see, future storm sewer outlet right on the corner? Gary Ehret: What you mentioned is correct. The intent is, if and when development occurs on the south side of the tracks, there will be a storm ~ewer system necessary for that area. That would also come into this pond. ~e haven't worked out the final design but the intent is that either this system that would be installed would act basically as a two way system or there would be a separate system. It would outlet the water over to the ditch line would be roughly in back of the motel, maybe slightly to the west. It will be outletted to the ditch on the north side of TH 5. There's two 24 inch culverts that cross underneath TH 5, tie into a 42 inch that continues east and south. Emmings: Right now where does all the water, do we have a storm sewer system in downtown now? Dacy: No. Emmings: So all of it just runs over ground? Gary Ehret: There is a small system in the West 78th/Great Plains area that goes to the east. It also goes down, this system is extended down behind the Kenny's market and St. Hubert's school but west of about roughly Bernie Hanson's store, there is essentially no storm sewer. Just a few culverts here and there. In general, the water makes it's way down the tracks. Dacy: There is typically a large puddle in front of the Riviera. When there's a heavy rain it collects there. Gary Ehret: It's all essentially overland flow. Some of it ends up in the 4IJorth side wetland. Others end up ponding alongside the north side of the Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 8 4Itracks. There are a couple of culverts under the tracks if I recall on Great Plains Blvd.. Some of it continues down Great Plains. It does cross the highway. It's everywhere. Emmings: I'm bothered too by, like Ladd said, about doing something to somebody's property that we don't own and I'm assuming that we're approving this contingent upon the acquisition of land. Nothing is going to happen here until it has been formally acquired? Dacy: That's correct. Emmings: It seems like a very important thing. Obviously they need storm sewer in the downtown area. This looks like a real good, logical place to put it. There are a lot of negative impacts and I think by necessity for it and by the positive aspects, I think having that, if you wind up bringing up that road and connecting to TH 5, having a pond there is going to be a real attractive thing to the entrance to the City. Conrad: When did the City Council see this and say they wanted a pond there and an aerator? Dacy: The HRA and Council and the Planning Commission, as you recall, all last fall and winter BRW has been working with the HRA and the Council presenting the proposed street concepts, the utility line concepts and ~torm sewer system concept. You may recall this winter Jim Lasher was ~o give the Commission an overview of the whole downtown redevelopment project. The Commission's conversation was primarily concentrated on trail and sidewalk issues and pedestrian access issues but there was direction given from HRA and Council to create kind of a mini-lake appearance but on the other hand, not an attractive nuisance. To be concerned about children and so on or creating a place where park activities would occur. They wanted to try and balance to have it as an aesthetic asset but yet trees and landscaping around it to help it blend in as much. in the here Conrad: Did they know it was a wetland at that time? Dacy: I would say that they would have to. To be honest there was not any specific statements made that an alteration permit would have to be processed. Conrad: That one statement Barbara at the bottom of the Staff Report says to improve water quality downstream. Basically what we're doing here is not improving water quality, we're just minimizing the impact of the downtown development? Dacy: I guess I would disagree with how you put that statement. We are trying to take out as much of the pollutants and so on entering into the storm sewer system as much as possible. Right now there is no settling area to take out the pollutants. Outside of the sedimentation basin at the base of Hidden Valley, there is no other upland area to help settle pollutants ~nd improve water quality. This plan is proposing to do that improving an Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 9 4Itxisting situation. Conrad: But Gary said that it's reasonable with the development of downtown that we're going to be putting a lot more in. So we're going to be putting a lot more pollutants into the wetland and it just stands to reason that we're not going to improve the downstream quality of the water. Gary Ehret: In terms of the wetland itself, the quality of water will be worse than it is now. I don't think there is any question about that because what's arriving there now is arriving by overland flow. It really doesn't have a chance, you don't have oils running directly into the wetland now. You will then. However, if this is not installed the oils generated by the downtown are not going to be trapped here, they will proceed down to Rice Marsh Lake or whatever sites are in between the downtown and Rice Marsh Lake. I think the intent of the Staff's Report was specifically to state that Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, water qualities in those areas would be improved with this pond as compared to water running directly through to them without sedimentation. Conrad: I have one issue, I like what we're looking at. I think it's probably the only rational thing to do to maintain the quality of the downstream water and I'm in favor of it. I do have a concern with some of the issues and I think one relates to Dr. Rockwell's comments. I'm not sure that developing, if we're really concerned with the quality of water going .'n and the quality of water going out, that doesn't mean we make it a arklike setting that I assume the City Council has assumed it wants. If we really want this to act as a filtering basin, we would recreate the wetland and make it really work like a wetland and the City Council is contradicting wha t the wetl and ord i nance says and it's al so an at tempt to make a one acre pond or whatever the acreage is, look like a clear water entryway to Chanhassen. I think we may be sacrificing a little bit of the impact that a real wetland could have there. In terms of what Dr. Rockwell's comments are, I guess I don't need to recreate a place for wildlife. That doesn't bother me a great deal as other places but I do, in one of her comments and it may have been the fourth one where we try to put vegetation in there that will filter out some of the pollutants, that makes a lot of sense to me. So in general I support this permit. I think it's the only way to maintain any kind of water clarity downstream. It is not improving water from today's standpoint. It will solve some future problems with the downtown redevelopment and I would rather see that that fourth point of Dr. Rockwell's be incorporated into the recreation of that wetland after the pond is created. Emmings: On one hand if this is going to kind of look like a lake and be a visual amenity to Chanhassen, is that in any way working against it's capacity to act as holding. The ponding area when there's a big storm, do you have to keep it down so you have capac i ty there to take on a lot of run- off from the downtown or don't you have to worry about that? ~ary Ehret: The soil borings indicate that the water table is at about the ,.,levation of 945. It really doesn't matter but in essence the normal water Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 10 ~evel in counting that pond will be the water table, 945. on for storm water will be above that. The capacity that we're Emmings: Up to what? Gary Ehret: 951. In order to maintain a lake like appearance, we are proposing to dig it down to I believe it is 938 on the plan, roughly so we're proposing to actually dig down below the water table by about 7 feet. with time water will work it's way in and based on soil borings, we estimate that the 945 would be the normally maintained water level. Emmings: Is that where you set the outlet pipe too? Gary Ehret: The outlet pipe would be set at 945 so it would necessarily stay at 945. Obviously if we go into a dry cycle and we don't have rain, the level can fall below the 945 but we would never outlet until it got up to 945. Emmings: Let's say the elevation was between 945 and 951, that 6 feet of elevation that's proposed... Gary Ehret: The 100 year storm event. That 6 feet is the bounce that you would need. If we built that pond, the water's at 945 and we have a 100 year event, if you went out there the next day, that water would be at 951, 4Ijt will have risen roughly 6 feet. Conrad: I think 3 and 4 both look like they create a vegetative... Emmings: 3 and 4 to the extent that's it possible to do that. That's my motion. I guess my comment is, I think because we're making this thing so deep we've got a problem and I just don't think it's going to be possible but to the extent it's possible. Conrad: Do you also want to make this contingent on the City acquisition of the land? Emmings: I think that goes without saying. Headla: Is Rice Marsh Lake not a wetland? Dacy: The areas around Rice Marsh Lake are designated as a Class A wetlands. Headla: I've got two basic concerns. One is I think as a Commission we should be consistent. Every decision should be consistent. You look at it and somebody can read it and say they're al ways com i ng up with the same thing for the ultimate survival of wetlands. What they've done is good but it's not good enough. If we let this go by, the degregation of water going to Rice Marsh Lake, Rice Marsh Lake is going to suffer and we know TH 212 is _oing through there, it has all that coming into Rice Marshl Lake and we Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 11 4ItlreadY guaranteed people that we were going to be very careful of the survival of that. If you approve this and we've got two other cases corning up tonight that involve wetlands and we expect the people who are developing to hold us to the letter and you vote to absolutely no degregation, how can we corne along and agree that the City can allow degregation? Particularly something as valuable as Rice Marsh Lake and hold the other people to the letter? Emmings: I think, in my mind Dave, I agree with you basically. We've always been real hard on people who want to alter wetlands. In my mind, in this case there's an overwhelming need and that need is how high a value we place on the creation of a downtown for Chanhassen. Part of that downtown has to be a storm sewer system. There's just no question about that and to collect all that water in pipes, you've got to dump it someplace. I think we're protecting Rice Marsh Lake by having this and that's a more valuable asset to protect. If we don't do this, Rice Marshl is going to get the brunt of the insult from downtown. Headla: What they've done is good but it's not good enough. I like the idea of the holding pond south of TH 5. What I would like to see us do is approve this with the guarantee that it's going to be something else to avoid degregation of water going into Rice Marsh Lake. If we approve this without any other conditions on it, we're going to fix anything. ....but if we hold up on this until they corne back with a viable plan for improved .-rater quality, than we can get that. We're going to have to do something. ~t isn't black and white. Either this or nothing and I think we've got to hold up on this until we have better water quality. Dacy: If the Commission wants to add something in the motion to the effect that additional ponding areas shall be established upstream from Rice Marsh Lake and Lake Riley, that's fine. That will be done, as I mentioned earlier, in other properties when development occurs. For example on the Ward Estate and on the Business Park area south of TH 5. I would like to emphasize that this is a part of an overall plan as performed by Barr Enginering for the Watershed District to improve the water quality before it gets to Rice Marsh Lake. Headla: Can we make sure that would happen. Is there a way we could make sure that happened? Dacy: Before anybody develops anything in Chanhassen, they're going to have to go through the Planning Commission and City Council. Either as a preliminary plat or site plan review. They have to meet the Watershed District's requirements. They have to go through the City process. Yes, they will be required to meet those standards and to meet the intent of the plan that you have in front of you. Headla: Are we looking from private parties to solve our problem then, is that what you're saying? ~acy: No, I'm saying that there are other land areas inbetween TH 5 and Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 12 4Itice Marsh Lake that are going to develop and when those developments occur, just like any other development that occurs, on-site ponding areas will be required. Installation of adequate storm sewer system will have to occur. Every person that develops has to meet the intent of storm water management planning. Headla: And we can make sure that by the time it gets to Rice Marsh Lake it wouldn't be... Conrad: The only other piece of info Dave is that it is a degraded wetland right now. Headla: But that's the same as saying we're not going to do anything and we're going to do something but what is it, pollution? Conrad: But I think the motion may be helpful to try to restore it to some kind of a functioning wetland. If the City Council wants to make it a lake or a pond, our motion says to make it more of a wetland and a functional wetland. That's my hope that they hear that and they're more concerned with the water quality than they are with the small pond with an aerator that looks clean when the water that passes through it is dirty. Again, I think because it is degraded, it certainly is going to improve the water. It's going to minimize the impact of downtown development on the downstream areas and I don't see another solution that's real feasible. _mmings: I think too Dave, we have this case in front of us now, we can seize this opportunity to try and back up where this stuff is corning out of the water. Getting closer to the source, closer to the downtown area. When more property winds up corning in front of us for development, which is inevitable because of it's prime location, you'll have another opportunity then to review it. Headla: But our next opportunity is putting greater degregation to the north side of the development. Conrad: It's going to be recreated. Headla: It's going to be recreated but then the one now, I understand the plans are to fill that in. Dacy: Is there going to be another separate application on that as I mentioned earlier. That that issue will corne back to the Planning Commission. Headla: Is that going to improve the quality of water or degregation? Dacy: We can't really evaluate that action until, we have a concept plan but again, we don't have any detailed drainage calculations or any concrete plans on that so again, it's going to have to come back for Commission and ~ouncil action. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 13 ~onrad: There are cases Dave where you can, in fact it happens quite a bit where you can fill in one wetland and create another and improve the overall situation. It would be my hope that as an alteration permit comes back in we can take a good look at that. It's got to come through us and hopefully we can do something with that. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #87-7 based on the plan stamped "Received June 8, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the Soil Conservation Service comments as stated in their letter of June 15, 1987. 2. Compliance with construction specifications recommendations #1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, to the extent possible, in Dr. Rockwell's report of June 22, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. PEMTOM CORPORATION, LOCATED AT 3430 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL RESIDENCE (WORM PROPERTY): A. PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUETS TO SUBDIVIDE 24 ACRES INTO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. e B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DOCKS WITHIN A -- CLASS A WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this item. Dan Herbst: Just one other item that Jo Ann hadn't mentioned, since we're moving the recreational beachlot and there appears to be an overabundance, in excess of 10 acres of cattails there, I am proposing requesting that the boardwalks that go through the wetland areas as proposed, that once we enter the cattail area I would like to request from the City and from the DNR and Interior, 10 foot pass of cattails be removed from the wetland area to the open water. It would constitute about 6,000 square foot removal of cattails in an area that has about 435,000 square foot of cattails or about 1.3%. The reason would be allow canoes and sailboats to be brought out from the shore out to the lake without having to have those king of things tied up off the docks. As it relates to the spawning area, the DNR has indicated that they are going to respond to my application after the City has acted. They have preliminarily saying that docks sometimes actually increase a spawning area. Fish like to spawn underneath docks. The only thing they are opposed to would be a large dredging area where rough fish could go in and spawn but they are talking about minimal cutting of cattails to allow access to the lake would not be anything detrimental to the area. John Getsch: I got a question, you said dredging out or clearing out an ~rea of cattails for canoes and sailboats without mooring them, they would Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - page 14 4Ile resting where? In the wetlands? Dan Herbst: They would pull them on shore. John Getsch: The whole shore is wetland. Dan Herbst: That's not true. Here's the high water mark so there is plenty of shore all along here. John Getsch: walkways? So you're saying also cutting a path all the way through the Dan Herbst: When you're talking about wetland you're talking about basically grassland areas down here. The cattails start about here so they would be resting on the grass on the wetland shore. John Getsch: I'm wondering how they're being proposed to come from the shore to the lake? Dan Herbst: You would just pull them across the grass. John Getsch: Across the grass through the cattails into the lake? Dan Herbst: Yes. eohn Getsch: Is there any limit on the number of boats that can be tied up at docks? Conrad: Three. Emmings: I've got a question on the road. It's a 410 foot right-of-way. What did we require for right-of-way on the land to the north? Olsen: They are providing a 610 foot right-of-way. Emmings: Is that bad? Potentially we're looking at connecting this roadway into what happens to the north and we,'ve got a 410 foot easement here and 610 foot easement there, is that a problem? Dacy: To be honest, the Zimmerman and Foster issue, I think you may have left the Council meeting before it was finally decided upon but that's being further evaluated whether or not that connection is going to occur. If it did occur, there would be a segment in there that there would have to be a section match between a rural section and what is being proposed as an urban section. The study may come back and say that an urban section would be appropriate in that area. Emmings: We're not proposing ourselves from an opportunity that we want to have by allowing a 410 foot right-of-way, you're not concerned about that? e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 15 ~Olsen: No, and where the connection is, they are providing 25 foot so that the opposite would be 50 versus 60 actually. Dacy: The main reason for the 60 is because of the extra area for the ditch section and we may find out that that's not necessary in the Zimmerman property. Emmings: Any road we want to have go through, that 40 foot is adequate? 01 sen: Right. Emmings: Does bringing that easement off the corner of the property, the way it comes now, does that match up with what we're doing to the north? Dacy: Again, the Foster application is still being further evaluated. Emmings: There's no place else we could put it on this property? Dacy: Right. Where they have it is the best location. Emmings: Do we need any condition about the existing buildings? It looks like all the existing buildings are going to be torn down. Olsen: Except for his existing house. e:mmings: It looks to me like that's being torn down too. You're not going to have two on Lot 1. Dan Herbst: If it was determined the existing house could not be refurbished or remodeled, then we would go ahead and tear that down. Emmings: His plans shows the house on Lot 1 as being back here right? Dan Herbst: Yes. Emmings: And right now the house sits here, is that correct? Dan Herbst: Back further. Emmings: So you're either going to refurbish the house that's there and if you can't you're going to build back here? Dan Herbst: That's correct. Emmings: I was thinking, in reading this, that it would be a good idea under number the first condition on the subdivision to add to that, since we're talking about the docks in the subdivision that the docks must comply with all of the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Just to tie the two together. I don't have any more questions. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 16 _iegel: I don't really have anything either. It's a vast what was presented earlier and I think it's a good plan. improvement over Wi ldermuth: offering was. I think it's a substantial improvement over what the first I agree. Headla: Jo Ann, did you get an answer for the question I had for you? Olsen: Right, I checked around and there really is no documentation. Mr. Headla asked if there is any reports that determine that motor boats were detrimental to the wetlands. The oil and the gas and we all know it's not beneficial to them but there's no document on the number of boats and the density of them, how much is a stopping point so we really didn't have anything to go by. Headla: Why does Liz Rockwell want the docks over the wetlands? Olsen: She wants the pedestrian traffic that will be going over the wetland to the docks to be directed onto one structure so they will not be trampling down different areas of the wetlands. Headla: So dragging a boat through that wetlands would be destroying the purpose of it? 4Ijlsen: I have not reviewed that. Headla: The whole thing, if somebody buys those properties, you can put out a nice dock, I don't think they're going to be satisfied with a sailboat or a canoe. They are going to...and that's fine but do they bring that dock up past the wetlands? Is that where it would be and then they could bring in their aisles? Olsen: I guess I don't follow. Headla: There are going to be power boats there and what would they do? Have to bring their dock past the wetlands? Olsen: There will be some docks in the open water and then there will be some docks within the wetland. The channel that Mr. Herbst is talking about, that would be within the wetland and the motorboats are not permitted within the wetland. Operation of them at all so again, it's something I would have to look at closer before. Wildermuth: That's part of the alteration permit right? It's not part of the subdivision approval. Olsen: Right. Headla: There are four of them. The first four docks are in the middle .fart and five is the only one that I would be able to go to put a dock right .,ut so they can have a power boat. Is that true? Lot 5 would be the only Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 17 4Itne that would be able to use a power boat? Olsen: They will all have docks within the open water which is not within the Class A wetland. Dacy: The powerboats in those cases, where the wetland is, are going to have to be launched at the public access. The intent of Dr. Rockwell's recommendation was to just allow pedestrian traffic. Mr. Herbst has indicated the purpose of that 10 foot wide channel, if you want to call it that, is for canoes and sailboats. The ordinance is clear as far as the wetland issue is concerned that you can not operate a motorized craft within a Class A wetland. If any of those docks had power boats, they would have to be launched at the public access to get there. Headla: They won't launch there but once they're on the lake they can corne and go as they please. Dacy: Yes. You're trying to address the impact onto the wetland, the cattail area. Headla: In Lot 3, if somebody has a big boat, can they bring that big power boat in there and dock it? Dacy: If they launch it through the public access. 4laeadla: Forget about launching. They got the boat on the lake. on the lake. Once it's Dacy: Yes, then they can have the boat at the dock. Olsen: The part that is on the open water. Again, it technically is not the wetland. If that channel is constructed, they would not be able to coast into there. Conrad: To follow up on Dave's point, if you can get your boat to the dock, based on out wetland ordinance, can you drag the boat through the wetland? Regardless of what kind of boat it is, can you move it up through the wetland? Olsen: It specifically prohibits the operation is the word that's used. That would essentially I would say altering the wetland. Conrad: The point of the dock getting out there is to not alter and trample. I assume that we're trying to keep it from that boat traffic so Mr. Herbst would like to do some work on the wetlands. I suppose if it's clogged with cattails, there may be some advantage to that but at this time we don't know and therefore we would have to have Dr. Rockwell corne back out. Olsen: And DNR. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 18 ~onrad: So Planning action tonight, are we sanctioning what Mr. Herbst would like to do? We are really reacting to the report and if he would like to do something further, that would take an additional permit request. Tonight we're reacting to what's in front of us. Headla: I'm satisified after hearing that. Dacy: The other option would be, is to add a condition that he come back through the process providing more information regarding that. Conrad: We could literally table the wetlands portion tonight. Process the subdivision. Table the wetlands if you would like to go back? Dan Herbst: I would prefer that you would make it subject to approval of the Depatment of Natural Resources and the Department of Interior. I'm going to amend that application to the DNR. I already talked to them verbally and I can take Mrs. Rockwell back out there. Olsen: It would still have to come through us. I would feel more comfortable than just conditioning it upon DNR. Conrad: Yes, so what would you advise us to handle that matter? Olsen: tlermi t. Head 1 a: Wha t happen s when home, how are they informed Either separate the issues and have them come through with another the people buy this property and put in a nice about all the limitations? Olsen: That was something that we were discussing today and what Staff felt they could do is with conditional use permits and variances, there's a document that we send down to the County to have recorded and we were thinking we would start that with wetland alteration permits also so it's always there with the property and the title. So all new owners would be aware of the restriction. Headla: So there is documentation right in each property? 01 sen : Yes. Headla: I like that. Are you going to go ahead and do that? Olsen: Yes, we will determine the best way to do that. Emmings: It says the plat provides Lot 2 with an additional treatment site which can be used as an alternate for Lot 1 or Lot 2. How you do that? Olsen: It would have to be an easement. Lot 1 would have to have an easement over Lot 2. ~mmings: But they each have two. , . Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 19 ~n sen : It's just an extra. Conrad: If there's no further discussion I would take a motion on the subdivision request first. wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-12 with the following conditions: 1. The docks shall be permitted if the proposed area of Lake Minnewashta is not a spawning area or are approved by DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, no chemical kill or dredging shall be allowed unless specifically approved by the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All dock plans must comply with all the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. 2. The selected access shall be constructed as a public roadway in a 40 foot right-of-way to City urban standards, with concrete curb and gutter. 3. Submit a satisfactory final grading and erosion control plan. 4. Accommodate in the drainage plan the existing drainge and sub- drainage from the Arboretum research plots to the east of the site. e 5. Enter into a development agreement with the City and provide necessary financial sureties as part of this agreement for completion of the improvements. 6. Comply with all requirements of the DNR and Watershed District as recommended. 7. Obtain permission from the University of Minnesota Arboretum for grading proposed on their property before initiation of any construction. 8. Provide two additional catch basins to be installed at approximately Station Number 4 and 50 to intercept roadway run-off and convey it to the 48 inch culvert. 9. Protect the proposed mound system drainfield areas from construction traffic and from overland drainage. 10. Prepare and submit a suitable erosion control plan as part of the construction documents to provide for proper protection for the lake and wetland areas. All voted in favor and motion carried. Dan Herbst: I basically wanted to challenge item 7 in your motion. As I ~as just reading it here, it's making this thing subject to me getting I~ Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 20 ~pproval from a second party. I was wondering if you could amend item 7 so if I'm not able to get permission from the University of Minnesota, that I could put up a retaining wall? Basically what's going on there is that, this is the high point of the land as you're going up the hill here. You can see we're grading into the Uniersity of Minnesota's property. If I was not able to obtain permission from them to grade, I would like an option to put a retaining wall here to hold the roadway. Dacy: I would recommend, if the Commission just acted on the motion, if they want to make another motion to state that if item 7, if permission can not be obtained from the Uniersity of Minnesota, the applicant submit a detailed plan regarding that that must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. wildermuth moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission add an alternate provision to condition 7 stating that if approval can not be obtained from the University of Minnesota Arboretum, that the applicant could construct a retaining wall with approval of the plan by the City Engineer. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: I think Dan would like us to move on that tonight. That was the way I understood your comments. ~an Herbst: Basically your item 1 of your Wetland Alteration Permit says ~ubject to the following conditions. You have to receive a permit from the Department of Natural Resources. You're making it subject to that anyway. I'll be amending my application to the DNR because I don't want to hold the whole thing up and come back here and have another process just to deal wi th the wetland alteration. Otherwise we're at a standstill. wildermuth: I think that's what we want to do. Conrad: Yes. We can process this. It's your additional comments tonight where you want to dredge and create a channel and get rid of some cattails that we're not comfortable with and before we would react to some of that we would like to have our consultant review it with you. Based on what we see in the plan, we can process the wetland alteration permit but we're not comfortable to discuss or to review your additional comments tonight. Dan Herbst: I guess I would really like to know what your concern would be so I can figure out which way to go with it. Emmings: You've come up with something that's new to us tonight and that is dredging channels, 10 foot wide channels through the cattails up to the shore and we're not comfortable with that. It hasn't been evaluated by the City Staff and we're not willing to approve something that like. I think that's what everybody is saying. As far as the dock plan goes, under the Wetland Alteration Permit, we will act on that if you want us to. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 21 ~onrad: Or we could put the whole thing on hold. back and we have a chance to review it again. Table it until you come Dan Herbst: I guess I would prefer you act on what you have before you and I'll come back in. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #87-5 with the following conditions: 1. The applicant receive a permit from the DNR. 2. A maximum of four docks shall be permitted. 3. The docks shall be connected with boardwalks to the property above the 944.5 elevation to direct pedestrian traffic off of the wetland. 4. This deals only with docks and not with any dredging of cattails for any purpose. All voted in favor and motion carried. 4IIEVISED SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 18,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING LOCATED T THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAREDO DRIVE AND WEST 78TH STREET, ON PROPERTY ZON~CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WINFrEEDlDEVELOPMENT AND-CHADDA. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item. Jim Winkles: I'm with Winfield Developments and we're the applicants along with CHADDA. We were here previously and as Barbara mentioned, we did present a site plan which was ultimately approved both by this body and the City Council. Since that time we also came back to you with an exterior elevation plan so you could see what we were proposing for the building. I believe you've seen that but we also have that here to refresh your memory. The idea of the bui Id i ng was to try and crea te somethi ng on the site tha t would be both unique and also something of very high quality. The concern obviously being that everybody, not only this body but the HRA and City Council as well as CHADDA as well as Winfield, is very much into trying to help redevelop this downtown area. We all recognize that this would be one of the first buildings going in and as such it was going to have a great impact on what else is going to happen to the downtown area so we tried to deal with that. In looking at this thing, the architectural design that was finally arrived at would suggest a design that is perhaps somewhat residential in character and perhaps a little warmer, a little softer than just a normal strip center that typically just has the flat roof and build a canopy on there. We wanted to get away from that look. We wanted to get something that would blend in more with obviously the Dinner Theater as well .:.S the residences in the area and also create some kind of local theme that ...e could start working into so what we have, what you saw before was the Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 22 ~xterior that would have some rock faced block, cedar shake and some very heavy asphalt shingles. The other thing that we tried to do here, with the landscaping obviously, we also were very conscience of the roof noting again that many times you see commercial buildings where all your rooftop units that are ultimately there after construction and they become very ugly so what we tried to do is say what can we do. What we actually created was putting the rooftop units on the building ultimate chimney effect surrounding them with the same kind of materials as the building. What we tried to do is create a situation here where we think we have a very high quality building in an area where we think may have some great deal of sensitivity. Since that time we have also been out marketing the property and the goal obviously is to try to get construction going in the downtown area which we are very concerned that the downtown will be torn up here fairly soon with a very major road improvement project. One of the things we have found, at least in marketing the property, is that many of the retail people we're talking to would like to have the parking right in front of the building. They would also not like to have parking in the rear of the building. In terms of the rear of the property, what we have found in talking to different people that we market the property to, they do not want to encourage any kind of activity in the rear of the property. It is not what it's supposed to be for. Deliveries perhaps only but really they don't want to have activity. They don't want to encourage activity in the backyard. Also, they do very much want the activity of the building as such that you drive right up to the front door. As we said before, one of the ~ontrolling factors we have on the site, in addition to trying to create a "ery quality site is that we have a road system that we have to keep in mind. In particular, we have an entrance over in the bank right now that is the absolute controlling factor on this piece of property. There is an obvious desire to try and maintain the entrance here and as soon as you do that, it starts to very much dictate where on this property you're going to build the building. As a result of that, what we are requesting and what we are showing on the plan is we would like to take the row of parking in the back and put it in the front. The building itself does not change at all. It is the exact same building. In so doing we recognize that the building would be shifted that one length of the space to the north. As a result of that again, we recognize the sensitivity of the screening and buffering on the north side of the property against the residents who live in that area. What we've tried to do is two fold. One, maintain a fence kind of system or retaining wall system that we talked about before. In this case, because of the elevations of the property, there will be a minimal with a 8 foot section through the property with a retaining wall fence. What that means is that traffic cars and smaller vehicles going on that road would be absolutely hidden from the view of those residences. It also means that all the light in the rear of the building would also fall in that 8 foot level or below so none of the light would anyway spillover into the residential area. What we're also suggesting an addition to that fence or retaining wall is a great deal of landscaping back in that area. We suggested some Chinese Lilacs. We also suggested that we put in some Black Hill Spruce trees. The idea to try and create a softer image even along with the fence ~r retaining wall. In addition to that, right near that, again some other w-oliage that will obviously go up and provide by virtue an entire screen to Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 23 4Ithat property to the north. The fence or the retaining wall that we're talking about, again, just as before would be built out of the same materials as the building itself which means the cedar boards. It also means with columns in there of the same kind of the rock faced block that we were talking about before to try and create something more than just a chain linked fence or just a board on board type of effect over in that area. Other things that we had done that we had talked about before as Barb mentioned, the entire building now will be sprinkled. We have moved the trash enclosure. We can comply with everything that the Fire Department has requested and have done that. The building itself or the gas pump center line would be 50 feet from the edge of Laredo as was requested. The lighting plan has not changed from the original concept. The lighting again on the front side of the building would match the type of lighting that will be placed out on 78th Street so it will be the same type of pole lighting as that. In the rear of the building again, the lights will be restricted to no more than 8 feet in the back of the building and will be put to make sure they shine down and do not spillover onto residential property at all. We also agreed to loop the water line around the property for the Fire Department. Barb also mentioned that we did meet with the neighborhood last night. We invited the neighbors on the north side of the property in so we could review the plan with them and talk to them. I think their very obvious concern, very real concern is that they do want to have some buffering, some very good buffering on that side of the property. We did talk to them about extending the retaining wall or some kind of very dense .oliage in that area, in front of the pumps itself. We also talked about gain this idea of the retaining wall fence as well as the landscaping is also a topic too which we'll give another 3 1/2 feet above that 8 foot fence or retaining wall. The issues that came out last night I think were very clearly that. Desire to see some good landscaping and some good buffering. We understand that this is in the CBD District and we all understand that we're trying to create something downtown here in the redevelopment district. While we understand that we're also very sensitive to the landscaping needs and we hope that what we're proposing will meet that. Other than that if I can answer any questions for you, I would be more than happy to do it. Conrad: Did you, I may have missed it on signage, Fred Hoisington had a comment about the pylon sign. Jim Winkles: We're simply revising that right now. We have not made any decision on what we want to do with on the pylon sign out there and we are in the process of trying to draw something up which we will have to come back for everybody's approval. Dacy: You might recall when you reviewed the signage and facia plans, the pylon sign that they had proposed at that time was held out of that approval so as he indicated, they will have to come back through. Conrad: You don't have a landscaping plan as it is. .onversation. Right now it's just Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 24 ~im Winkles: No, we did submit a landscaping plan and there have been some amendments or revisions that the Staff has suggested to that. We have that here and we can show that. Conrad: With the revisions of Staff or without? Jim Winkles: These are with the revisions of Staff. Again, we're showing back in this area the spruce trees and all of the Chinese Lilacs that would be all in that area. This plan does incorporate the revisions that Staff has talked about and we have talked to the neighbors about. I'm not sure if Barbara has even seen this. Dacy: No, I have not reviewed that but the applicant was trying to react to the recommendations of the Staff Report. The condition 3 is that Fred Hoisington, BRW and myself will review that to make sure that it is consistent but from what he's indicated so far, the major recommendation that we had was to include more evergreens along with the Chinese Lilacs and it appears that that is being done. Jim Winkles: What we did, we met late last night with the neighbors again and this was revised today to try and incorporate all those. Conrad: By removing the cars from the back, theoretically you're reducing some of the noise too? ~im Winkles: We believe that we're going to stop the noise. We think there's not going to be as much light and nearly as much activity in the back of that building as there would have been otherwise. That would just naturally curb people from parking back there. Again, I guess we would prefer that. We think it's better for security reasons not only for our building but also for the people to the north. Headla: That 8 foot wall, is that going to go into the whole east and west dimension? Jim Winkles: It goes from that point right there all the way to this point. Headla: Then on each end where you're going to have that Chinese Lilac. Jim Winkles: No, the Chinese Lilacs will be through this area on top of that retaining wall. That will be the whole retaining wall. Headla: I thought that was what you said but I can't imagine it being on top. Jim Winkles: We have a retaining wall so that will be another 4 feet in there that will have plantings on so those bushes will grow above the retaining wall yet. The net effect is by the time you get up 3 1/2 feet, you're going to be up almost 11 1/2 feet that will screen in terms of ~IOCking that view from back there. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 25 ~eadla: You didn't include Fred Hoisington's recommendations here in your recommendations. Is there any particular reason? Dacy: I thought I had done that. One was that they meet the 50 foot setback from the edge of Laredo Drive. That they submit a revised landscaping plan addressing a greater variety of vegetation. That's number 3. And that the lighting plan be submitted also. I didn't use the same exact words but they are included in the conditions. Headla: Okay. My only comment is I think this plan now that you've got is very much like what they call the prairie Building on TH 4 and TH 5, just down the highway here and I think that was a very good with that road in the back which has several speed bumps, it's very quiet now. Jim Winkles: We hope it will be very quiet too. Siegel: I'm surprised there aren't more residents to speak to this but as a resident I'll speak to it. I'm still against, as I said before, the idea of having a convenient store/gas station at this location. I do think that this request here just amplifies our exemplifies the concept of a convenience store versus what I thought we were going to get in downtown Chanhassen and that was shops to keep people parking and shopping, especially in this location so I'm a little put back on that but I don't see anything wrong with the plan and if the residents are for it, I won't stand en the way. Emmings: I have a real trivial comment but on that one corner where that alley intersects with where the cars go in and out, that looks like a real dangerous corner. At the edge of the building. People coming down along the back of the building going out towards Laredo and traffic pulling out of the gas pumps. That looks like a dangerous spot to me. Maybe that's something we can deal with later on but it just looks like a dangerous corner. Jim Winkles: That might be something that would need a sign or you could put in a speed bump or something. Emmings: I think the speed bumps would probably do it. Dacy: Possibly a stop sign at the edge of that building. Jim Winkles: I would like to emphasize that Mr. Siegel I think brought up in terms of the neighborhood. I want to make sure that I'm very clear and you're clear that the residents are concerned in terms of what that screening is going to look like and they do want to see something nice back there. I don't want it to be interpreted that they said I don't care, do whatever you want to do because they are awfully concerned about what that's going to look like and what kind of screening is going to be done. ~iegel: I was just trying to state that the back of the retail ..,stablishment is not necessarily beneficial to the adjoining property Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 26 ~wners. The back of alleyways is what we're talking about and how attractive you make this, it still becomes an area that is less policed and more apt location for unusual happenings. Jim Winkles: I don't disagree with you that the back of building is never going to be as attractive as the front. We think that we're going to carry the same trios all the way around the back. As the results of that too, while we put in lower landscaping in front, if you want to see it that way, we're going to hide the back of the building with all the landscaping so almost initially that building will virtually be invisible to those people back there. That's important. I think the other aspect is I have all the confidence in the world with the public safety people out in this area to make sure that area is policed and that's incumbant upon us as property managers to keep up property too. There is plenty of staff around to make sure we keep things up there in tip-top shape too. I appreciate your comments. Conrad: Some good comments Steve on the back of the building, the safety. I have to assume that that's going to minimal traffic but then again we do have parking back there behind the Riviera. Jim Winkles: My guess is we'll wind up with at least two speed bumps back in that area. Probably in this area and probably in this area because we don't want that to be a raceway either. It's going to be a patrolled area. It ~ruly is going to be a secondary access and almost a fire lane. The reason ~or moving the trash enclosure by the way is the Fire Department was concerned with where we had it that there could be a fire in the trash and that could corne up and get onto the roof and then corne inside the building and down in so that was the reason for the move. Also, because of the type of roof system, the gabled roof, they also asked that we have a dry system up ther which we've also agreed to do. Conrad: Why do we need that access behind the building? Other than serving the retail stores for loading and unloading, are we encouraging traffic to go back there? I don't know that we should. Given that we shocked the area, I think we should make that simply a service road versus a public road. Jim Winkles: I don't disagree. I don't think we see it as a public road. I think we see it as a service road. I think the traffic obviously is going to be corning in front of the building and also into the Riviera on the east s ide of the Ri v i era. I guess we see tha t as an area where you will ha ve minimal deliveries back there. Some of the retails will stock and bring something in and be gone. I guess we also see that effectively as a fire lane to be able to get access all the way around the building. Fire Departments are very concerned with being able to go all the way around buildings and we see it in that nature. We do see it as a service road only. We don't see it as something that's going to be and we don't want to encourage traffic going from this area through or vice versa corning in. On the other hand, you know there is going to be some. If there is any kind of _ road system there, somebody will get there and do something but I think if Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 27 ~ou can discourage some of that with the use of speed bumps, stop signs, things like that in there. As soon as you start putting in any kind of impediments in front of a motorist, they're going to look for an easier way to go. If you start making it a little bit harder to get there for them, they're not going to go there. I think we can discourage some of the traffic, it will probably be held to a minimum but at the same time is a road system that is going to be needed just for safety and emergency vehicles if nothing else going around it. Conrad: It's a straight shot for the Fire Department. It's not like they're going to go around and come in the back side. I guess the question is why we need to allow the public to go back there and I see the lot behind the Riviera, you could simply sidewalk it and keep the general car traffic from going behind there. Jim Winkles: You mean with some kind of a break? Conrad: A curb that a safety vehicle can get over it if have to but the Fire Department is 12 feet away and if there's a fire they're going to go straight down the line. That's not my bit. I don't understand all their needs but I think the safety issue, now that we've shown the space and given that we have parking spots back there, if we're going to create a safety problem, probably should make sure that, has the public safety has commented on this plan? 4Itacy: Right. The parking area behind the Riviera I think is going to function as spaces for employees. Because it is in an out of the way location, primary traffic to the Riviera is going to be using those spaces directly east of it and into the spaces in front of the Retail West building. You've got a good concern here with the traffic conflicts along the rear however, on the other hand, I guess from an overall traffic circulation standpoint from the site, the Riviera site somehow should be tied into the circulation from the Retail West site. If nothing else, for a second means of attack for the Fire Department to the rear of the Riviera. I think installing a speed bump maybe along the lot line there is an appropriate traffic control device. You have a good point but on the other hand though, it should be connected in some fashion. Conrad: Maybe we should leave it this way, I think we should be looking for the speed bumps and we should be looking for the stop signs, especially when we get to the gas station. That just doesn't look like the safest of all intersections given you have a corner of the building that rises up there. I don't know if we can get that in our motion but that is what our comments are and maybe incorporate them. By putting the building back 10 feet or whatever, how much of the balance of the project did that change? We still have walkways tying everything together right? Dacy: Right. We still have the parking, the same number of parking spaces. ~onrad: .n front. The only negative is it appears that we have a bigger parking lot What was the purpose of having the cars in the back in the first Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 28 e place? Employee parking? Jim Winkles: Primarily it would be, Staff has requested and the ordinance requires a certain number of parking spaces and we initially tried to meet those numbers. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revised site plan stamped "Received June 23, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. Installation of a sprinkling system and dry sprinklers in the roof section. 2. Relocation of the trash enclosures. 3. Submission of a lighting plan, revised utility plan and revised landscaping plan prior to building permit issuance. 4. Installation of fire hydrants as required by the Fire Department and coordinated with BRW. 5. Revision of the site plan to indicate the gas pumps 50 feet from the edge of Laredo Drive. e 6. Compliance with all other conditions of approval from the original plan review. 7. Special consideration be made for the safety of the service drive such as stop signs and speed bumps and possibly a curb. All voted in favor except Siegel who abstained and motion carried. Conrad: Your reason you abstained? You're not in favor of this project to begin with and I think that's good for the public record. Henry Sosin: My comments would be directed to what I think of a Class A wetlands since I was a member of the committee that drafted the ordinance. I say here and I listened to the discussion and I listened to the gentleman who I presume was the developer who was making the presentation. I would like to make just a couple of comments. First of all that plan and that ordinance is more comprehensive than the Civil Corps of Engineers because it covers all wetlands. DNR is responsible up to the high water mark. They don't consider other things. It's more comprehensive because it has more material in it I believe. There are three kinds of wetlands as you all know. Class A being the best and not necessarily the most developed but in the most position and therefore most important. If you read the ordinance, which I would really ask you to do, to read that again especially reading the intent, that Class A wetland is almost sacred. There are a lot of ~hings that you are simply prohibited from doing and a few things that you ~an do by request. The proving that the wetland is not degregated in any Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 29 _ay is upon the person who wants to change it. Not upon the city Staff or upon someone the City asks to come out to review it. The opinion of the group that put this together was that these are very important things. They they should be protected virtually at all costs and only rarely would you change them. The tenure of the discussion which I heard tonight, especially the developer was, well we're just going to dig channels right through here. That's ludicrous to me and I would really urge that you just read the intent. It's very short actually but reread the ordinance and I think if you read it with the intent in mind, it might make a difference. Conrad: The thing that I hear you saying is the burden of proof is on the applicant. Henry Sosin: Absolutely. Conrad: When Rockwell comes out to a site, who pays for her time? Dacy: She's a member of the united States Fish and Wildlife Service and it's just part of her job. PUBLIC HEARING: KURVERS POINT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HIGHWAY 101, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, FRANKLTN~vERS; MELVIN KURV~ ROSEMARY SMITH AND t'C5BERT CONKLIN:- - A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ON PROPRTY ZONED - -- RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 36.3 ACRES INTO 42 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS -- - -- --- ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF --- --- A CLASS A WETLAND. Public Present: Henry Sosin Georgette Sosin Margie Karjalahti Al Klingelhutz Susan Conrad Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on all of the items above. Mark Koegler: I'm Mark Koegler with VanDoren, Hazard, Stallings. With me this evening from our office is Bob Sellers as well and the owners are here this evenings. Barb has done a very good job covering all the background information of the project. There's no use repeating it especially at the hour of the evening. What I would like to do though is give you a little ~it of background information that touches on a couple of other topics and Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 30 ~OSSiblY the philosphy behind this plan and how it got to be where it is this evening. First of all, essentially, as you are aware, there are a few landowners who have come together on this one project. The properties under Conklin ownership and the properties under the Kurver ownership. The project itself takes it's name, Kurvers Point from the fact that over the past 80+ years that's what the property has been known as. It has indeed been in the Kurver's family for that length of time and actually seen a variety of uses during that time period. When we were first contacted by Kurvers regarding working on this project and coming up with a development plan, initially we sat down and talked about two alternatives. One was to look at the sale of the property initially and have somebody else develop it and somebody come in with the plan. The second alternative was to have the Kurvers family look at doing it themselves and turn around and sell the product which is finished lots... From the onset of the project the Kurvers family had two primary objectives. One was to create a large lot, quality residential setting. The other was to preserve or accommodate the point area that is commonly referred to as Kurvers Point. In order to fulfill those objectives, they elected to go with option 2 which is to develop the property themselves and retain better control over how the plan actually looks and hopefully determine the way the land is actually built. About the time that decision was made it became known to Mr. Conklin that the property next door was looking at developing his site. I think this body is aware that he was looking at building a new house on that eastern most lot, Lot 5, which obviously became an advantage to both parties to come together since .here were some street systems and to tie them together so that would work ery well. The property, as Barb said, is about 36 acres. The proposal is for 42 units. The site essentially slopes from TH 101 down to Lotus Lake. At the extreme I believe there is about 60 to 63 feet of elevation differential between the high point of TH 101 and Lotus Lake itself. The layout alternatives that we looked at, in every case, had several common things. One was to retain the point as common open space. That we were not looking to alter the wetlands in any way. Minimizing the amount of tree removal that would be involved. Minimize the lot exposure along TH 101 where those lots had to back up to that transportation artery and to retain certain specialities on the site which in fact we feel located very early on in the planning process. The development plan was judged at meeting all those criteria is the one that is before you this evening and that's the one that is obviously the subject of this review of this proposal. The lot size, as Barb indicated, the average is 30,836 square feet. Admittedly that's skewed because we've four extremely large lots in there that represen t the ex i st i ng houses pI us the new house 0 f the owner so when you pull that out, the average lot size drops down to 23,878 square feet so we're still roughly half acre lots on the project. The elevation of Kurvers Point Road as it goes through the site, we are paying particular care in locating that road, setting elevations with the goal being to maximize the retention of existing tree cover within that area. Obviously anytime we're putting a road through an area that has tree cover, we're going to have some loss. However, we have strictly controlled that to tree removal that is necessary for road construction and some of the peripheral grading. The ~ctual tree removal that would be part of the house construction would be ..,one on a lot by lot basis. There is no attempt here to go through and mass Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 31 4Itrade building pads. That will be established as the builders come in and as they work with the lots. Barb went through the philosphy behind the outlots. Particularly the ponding which includes Outlots A and C with A being kind of a pretreatment basin proportioned to the site and C being the primary sedimentation basin for the site itself. The beachlot again was touched upon fairly heavily. The thing we emphasize there is we are attempting in all cases to steer clear of the wetlands to the point where in some area come in con tact with it, there is a br idge structure tha t goes over an existing culvert that has been there for a number of years so again, we're trying not to impact that area. I think another indicator of that is, as she said the beach area we're not proposing to bring in any materials for grading or bringing in a sand blanket or whatever. The only area where there is some grading, along the lake area, is along Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2 and it extends somewhat into Outlot B. All we're doing there is basically connecting two high points to insure that the drainage system functions in a manner by which the water that comes into the pond in Outlot C that is allowed to filter out to the wetland area does just that. We're looking that that will not have any opportunity to escape into Lotus Lake itself. The agency comments that we received obviously reviewed and really had no problems. I don't think there was anything that we hadn't anticipated with the exception to some degree of the MnDot comment which we learned of two days ago. The initial comment from MnDot was that they would allow a right- in movement at that point only. In our minds and in our discussion with the owners of the property, right from the beginning we felt that a right-in a ~ight-out was the best possible access point for this southern access into Whe property. We had to look, as they recommended and as we discussed today with them, in locating the road initially at the high point of the hill. That works well with the sight distance aspect of TH un. It does not work well from a grade standpoint on the rest of the site because that is the absolute high point of the site and we've got a lot more grade to work with in the street. That complicated not only the entrance street coming in at this location but the elevation of Kurvers Point Road that I referred to before. In our meeting with MnDot today, we discussed with them the alternative of looking at channelizing the entry and exit movements out of the southern most access point. I think coincidentally they had a sketch very similar to this that they were looking at. In discussing it they have not committed one way or the other yet but we came away with a very positive feeling that it would probably do with it. We are looking at traffic that is coming into the site having a deceleration lane which we would have to have in any case at the intersection. Than we channelize to prohibit left turn movements. I should indicate that all of the channelization and median work that would be done would be done outside of TH 101. We're not changing Th 101. It would be solely within the development itself. That allowed the free turning, right movement to come into the property. A similar situation on the other side however. The median would be extended a little bit longer so we get out of here about midway and this lot is slightly beyond probably 70 to 100 feet before traffic would actually be merging into TH 101. That gives us in essence the 350 to 375 feet of sight distance that MnDot is after on that type of an approach and they indicated that seemed to ~e something that was going to be accepted. We'll get a definitive rule on .hat I think within the next couple of days. We certainly will react Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 32 4I!ccordinglY to whatever their final judgment is. I guess in wrapping up my comments, just an obversation and that is that the Kurvers and Conklins, the property owners are in somewhat of a unique position with this development of actually determining the composition of their own neighborhood. Not many of us keep that opportunity. We feel that the project that is being proposed will be an attractive as a neighborhood. We also feel that it will be very attractive residential setting for the City as a whole. With that, that's the extent I guess of my comments I would like to make. I don't know, perhaps the Kurvers or the Conklins have a brief comment they would like to add but pending that, I would certainly address any questions you would have. Mel Kurvers: I'm one of the owners. I have a brief comment and that is we tried to follow the ordinance and we tried to save the property in the state the way it is as much as possible. Also to provide a pond and use the wetlands the best that we could and we're asking for no variances. We think this is a good plan and we would like to have your approval. Frank Kurvers: I'm part of owner of it too and I would like to make a comment. I'm really excited about this plan because I think it does something that I feel that the City has been after for many years. It's a high caliber plan. It's not any fly by night outfit. It's probably one of the most unique and best piece of land in Chanhassen on Lotus Lake and this plan I think is, so far the way it's been designed, if probably, I don't say .robablY, I know that it is the best designed piece of property. I've lived n that land myself all my life. My brother has lived on it and we're probably the oldest residents except for one person and her name is Mrs. Oelschlager. She may be lived longer. I don't know for sure but at least Mel and I are second so we know what's happened to that lake throughout all these years. What's going to happen in the future from us is still going to be, we're not going hurt anything. It still will be a high class residential development. Margie Karjalahti: I'm here representing the Lotus Lake Homeowners Association of which the Kurvers have been members in the past. We had a board meeting and they showed us the plan and really we thought it was beautiful plan. Our only concern which we would like you to consider is our concern on the lake for another beachlot. The lake is small and it has quite a few beachlots already and the addition on one more spot, especially in lieu of the boat access. Our concern is just that there is going to be that much more boats on the lake. I'm here from the Association asking that you give consideration. Also that the public access is very close by and maybe they don't need that. Al Klingelhutz: They brought the plan into me this morning and to me it's a very unique plan. I think it's laid out to protect the lake as much as possible. Looking at the City Ordinance, there could be twice as many lots put on that property if they went down to 15,000 square. Another thing of looking at is the valuation of this property and the homes that are going to ~e built on there. The uniqueness of this property is I think virtually .very lot on the property will have a view of the lake and I'm looking for Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 33 e anywhere from $200,000.00 to $300,000.00 being built on that property. Susan Conrad: I'm a member of the Wetland Commission for the Homeowners Association. From a wetland standpoint, from the little I know, I think this has been planned very well as far as protecting the environment. I have just two comments. One, the Corp of Engineers permit has not reviewed it as yet or their review is not in yet. They'll probably say that things are just fine but I just want you to be aware that that still remains to come. The second thing is that in that berm area I just have a question and Jo Ann paritially answered it for me today. Back when I was learning about wetlands, everything I learned that sheet flow was the best way to take water from the ponding areas into the wetlands and the Kurvers explained to me how this pipe works and Jo Ann re-explained that to me before it goes through that little bermed area with the pond but there will be a pond adjacent to the wetland. I'm just concerned about and only asking the question when oil from the road and chemical run-off that's one the top, is there a way to clean that up? Is there a way to clean this thing up by Staff? I just want the Commission to be concerned about that. And then, just to be sensitive of those 75 foot setbacks and I can't tell by Mark that they are not planning to take down any trees but let's make sure that's happends. That that area is protected. I applaud the Staff for their careful review of this and the recommendation to consider shared docks for the lots that are in the wetland area. The reason I'm concerned about that is recently in another designated A wetland on the lake, a property close to ~r. Bloomberg's area, an individual landowner went through the DNR to get a ~oardwalk over through a wetland and then attach a dock to it and that should have come through the Planning Commission for a wetland permit. Somehow it slipped through and I think City Staff needs to follow up on that and I want to make sure that you write that into this plan so those docks come back through you and are rev iewed to the Ci ty' sperm it process is a little bit more restrictive than the DNR's. The path that they're planning, the chip path that goes down to the beachlot, if the beachlot is approved, it's been recommended by the City Engineer that that be gravel instead. I was just wondering if possibly it could be maybe a longer boardwalk, if that's what that bridge is proposed to be. And that the wetland on that beachlot be a restricted area and that be written into the plan so that we pretty much protect that area. Like Lotus Lake Estates but that whole wetland area is protected adjacent to the lake. It's still part of the beachlot but it's not part of the beach...but it's a visually aesthetic area. Conrad: Mark, can you respond to some of those comments? Mark Koegler: Yes. It sounds as though the pond will indeed have skimming which is changed periodically. The pond's function is to settle out everything you've heard tonight during the downtown. All the oils. All of the salts, sands, sediments. The issue of the shared docks or the wetland docks, parallels to previously cases. Kind of falls under the same thing Dan Herbst ran into. We came in tonight not really prepared to discuss .that. We thought that was going to be discussed at a later date when the ..,ndividual homes came in. We felt that that section was not totally Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 34 e accurate to reflect that now which we understand although we're prepared to come back with that at another permit to address that. We realize the level of information required for that is not here this evening to make that decision. I think the third point regarding the City's Engineer recommendation for gravel on the path, with the path specifically starting up here on the little loop street and coming down, our intention there. First of all, the path is on high ground. The entire length of it. It does go through the wetland at all hence the footing of the path actually sits on is firm. We originally wanted basically kind of a crushed bark or wood chipped path. Typically that was used up in Fox Chase up on the other end of the lake and it seems to work very well. We're concerned with having a porous substance there obviously to let that drainage permeate through. The gravel would do that. We have some concern about the gravel being real compatible with the point itself. We would rather have a material such as chips. Over time it would deteriorate and be replaced... As far as the boardwalk area goes, I think the reaction is, since we're on firm soil we would rather use something easy like chips. Undoubtedly we will have a few timber ties that will come down the slope area in a step fashion so we will get some of that in there but second to that, we would like to keep it a low scale, very low level facility. Barb, in her comments, introduced that as a 13 foot wide path. I think you knew what she was saying and I knew what she was saying. It's actually land that's 13 feet wide and we're looking for a very minimal path of 4 or 5 feet actually in width. .acy: Mrs. Conrad didn't make Jo Ann and I aware of the issue with the ther dock and we will follow up on that. Sometimes I think what happens is people will call City Hall and unfortunately, in these situations we do have to rely on adjacent homeowners notifying the City. She's right, they should have received approval from the City so we will follow up on that. The Corps of Engineers will review this plan and that can be made a condition of approval. Henry Sosin: I own the lot that's immediately to the south of the proposed development and I'm obviously the neighbor who's probably most affected by this development. The first question that I have for Frank and Mel that I had in looking through your plans and I think they are reasonable and I think they are sensitive to the area. We've obviously pleased that they...I have two comments that I hope you can address. This undoubtedly is going to change the character of our neighborhood because my place is an acre and a half. The place just south of me is two acres. Currently Mel and Frank have 10 acres and Conklin probably has 12 to 15 but obviously the neighborhood is going to change and on my lot line, which is this particular line. You can see there are three buildings proposed. That's obviously changed from what is currently there which is a farm field so even though that lot line that we share right now currently has some small deciduous trees on it, I would be very much in favor of a permanent evergreen plantings. Simply a row of evergreen trees to put on that lot. I don't think that's a great deal, I don't think that's incurs a great deal of expense and it certainly doesn't detract a great amount of space from those ~articular three lots and probably would enhance the appearance from my _ide of the lot line and possibly even from these three new neighbors who Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 35 ~ay not want to look in my yard either. So I would request that the Kurvers give thought to that, of planting a row of evergreen type of trees on that southern boundary there proposed. I've got a few other things that I would like to mention. One was the thing that I hadn't heard of before and that was this problem of traffic on this road on the south end. The picture that you showed with the second possibility of splitting traffic and going both directions, if you could put that up again or if you all remember that, I would like to point out that our driveway is immediately adjacent to that. As a matter of fact, you can see this drawing. Actually this outlet crosses my driveway as pictured right here and I realize this is a pencil sketch but I could visualize if cars are turning right out of this drive, out of Kurvers Point Road, and turning right onto TH 101, by the time they reach my driveway they will be going 40 mph. That to me if frightening and I would certainly like, I don't know anything about traffic control but that to me looks dangerous. I wonder if the commission would certainly consider that. The other thing I would like to comment about are two. ...according to the law you did everything exactly right but there are a few things I wanted to point out or ask about. One is this being from the Wetland Ordinance. I'm still interested in wetlands because I know they're valuable. One is this 75 foot setback. On this map, on the lot that looks like 1 and 2 just south of the outlot and 2 and 1 just north of the outlot, those four lots actually are drawn directly through the wetland. Now I realize that the building sites that you've got marked out here are 75 feet back. My request would be that a great deal of sensitivity be given to what's done to that 75 feet. .n other words, it shouldn't be altered in grade. This distance between hat you've got here as proposed as a possible building site and the wetland itself. If no trees were taken out of there except for minor brush and if all the vegetation were, if this could be left as wild property, that it would be the best possible treatment for the protection of the wetland. If no fertilizer were allowed for that particular spot. That's possible protection of wetlands so I'm asking that somehow the Commission be sensitive to this region of the plan more so than any other part. I have one other point, as I was listening to Susan talk about skimming, is there a provision in this thing that those be cleaned? Frank Kurvers: That outlot will be City property and they will maintain it. Georgette Sosin: I too am very impressed with the fact that they are doing an absolutely beautiful plan on here, we're delighted to see it. Everybody has addressed almost every issue but tonight, me too it's the first time I've seen the traffic situation and I want to explain that there is an extremely steep grade between out house and TH 101. In fact, in the winter- time to try and get up, anyone that's ever driven that, I know the Kurvers probably understand the problem from their side, it's almost impossible to stop. Once you're going to get on the highway and you see a car coming or something comes quickly, it's dangerous the way it is right now. I was very relieved when I saw the original connection because I thought at least we can see the cars coming but the way this is planned, it doesn't give you any time to react and it's right on top of our driveway. I'm sure the Kurvers ~ren't any happier about it with that spot. At best right now it's pretty ..,angerous, this the way it's drawn is pretty scarey because as you know Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 36 4Ithere is a hill that comes down and if youlre going very fast therels just no way, even in the summertime it proposes a tremendous problem. I think also about my mother whols 82 and still drives and comes out and her reactions aren't exatly the quickest. Ilm worried about that but in general, I would have to say the plan is beautiful and I think they did a beautiful job. Mrs. Kurvers: I would like to address the road also. I don't know if any of you are aware of it but right now there are four roads there. One for Mr. Conklin, one for the Kurvers and two down near the Sosins. We are actually reducing down to two roads instead of four. Mark Koegler: I was only going to comment that the points that Mr. Sosin raises, we're well aware that his driveway is there and that is part of the more detailed reviewed that will be accomplished in that area. MnDot's position will allow a right-in only. From the development standpoint, we don't have a problem with that except it's a little unorthadox and we end up with a section of street that is basically one way. Given the fact that TH 101 is a "temporary trunk highway", it will be upgraded in 5 years or 10 years potentially. When that happens, the hill that causes the sight distance problem will be cut down. At that point in time this will become a full intersection or has the ability to become a full intersection without that sight distance problem so we think, we label this as temporary but we're not going to stand here and tell you that temporary is only until next .ear because it might be 10 years and it might be 20 years. The same ~roblem presented itself with moving the road to the crest of the hill. If we do that, we go in there and we build $300,000.00 houses, if we meet that existing road grade, youlve got a real problem when they redo TH 101 and they bring that road grade down. You suddenly have houses with potentially steep driveways. Dacy: Mr. Sosinls comment about the protection of the 75 foot setback area and preservation of existing vegetation, there are a couple of options that the applicant and Commission can pursue. One is relatively new that we're going to be utilizing on the Shadowmere subdivision is that the forester from the DNR has gone to that site and made a detailed site inspection based on the proposed plat and has recommended areas that are absolutely necessary that have to remain. On the other hand, we have identified areas that could be selectively cut. The same type of term that DNR uses is a timber management plan. The same type of procedure could be utilized in this area. The other option would be, as has been used on other subdivisions, is preservation of the conservation easement which specifies that there is to be little if any activity in the conservation easement area outside of the path, whatever is down to the lake to allow pedestrian access. Also, the intent of the condition for individual tree removal plans on each of those lots that I cited is to have a plan at building permit application, Staff can review to make sure that no clear cutting is being proposed and secondly that the house being designed in conjunction with the topography of the land and sensitivity to the existing vegetation. However, so far the first ~ption, the timber management plan, I'm working with the developer and DNR ..,n that and that will be going back to the Council in the near future. That Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 37 ~OUld be another option that they could preserve trying to get intent but also allowing the property owners to obviously have the property. Mr. Sosin's some use of Georgette Sosin: There's one thing I forgot about, you mentioned the trail, I'm not really clear about that but I thought that idea of having trails over private property had been abandoned a long time ago. I would like to know more about that because I certainly would not be happy about having people walking across my property. I don't think anybody else would. Conrad: Barbara, can you talk about the trail system just briefly. Dacy: The Park and Rec Commission just recently undertook an overall trail plan for the entire city. Major roadways such as TH 101, Powers Blvd., Kerber Blvd., Minnewashta Parkway, there's been a lot of citizen comment about the need for off-street pedestrian and bike paths along the roads. Sometimes there is a striped lane but for safety purposes on the major areas, the Park and Rec Commission has recommended that it be off-street. In this case and some of the other subdivision approvals, depending on who the authority is of improving of the roadway, there could be an off-street trail physically constructed within the proposed right-of-way. Not necessarily taken from the existing property owner's land. However, the Park and Rec Commission wants to insure that adequate area is there to provide a trail at standard widths so that's the intent of the overall trail _ystem. Henry Sosin: What's the easement on here? Dacy: Right now I believe it's 66 feet of right-of-way. Whether or not that can accommodate a trail on the other side... Mark coincidentally is assiting the Park and Rec Commission on that plan. Mark Koegler: Let me comment on a couple things on that. I first of all I should say that for the Planning Commission record that the action that the Park and Recreation Commission took was not necessarily in total agreement with what the property owners would like to see. For a variety of reasons. Some of those being, they feel that the recommendations being offered is economically equitable. I think that's probably more appropriate to address to the Council. First of all, addressing TH 101 trail segment, there has been a trail proposed of some type along TH 101 since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan was put together. In fact, the Metropolitan Council for years has shown that as a regional trail corridor. The trail movement then along TH 101, as far as this project goes, the Kurvers and Conklin support. They think it's a good concept if it can be pulled together. Otherwise the trai obviously goes nowhere and probably the segment wouldn't be put in until it went somewhere. I would like to point out that this particular plat is currently dedicating 17 feet of additional right-of-way along TH 101. The argument we would like to make to the Council is that that will be sufficient additional land without taking 20 feet more so in essense we're ~oing 37 feet narrowing that property before an eventual trail be put either ..,mmediately contiguous to the roadway or off-set from the roadway. However, Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 38 ~hat design might be placed. The other concern that we've got is that there has been, I guess we'll call it a trail, you might want to call it a sidewalk, I'm not sure, but some kind of a trail segment along Kurvers Point Road winding through the project. The prime concern we have there is the development is obviously a very low density development. The traffic demands are correspondingly low. We're concerned with creating what I'll call a public trail segment of some type. Not from the standpoint that it is a public trail, it's obviously a public street, but specifically from the standpoint of bringing much outside movement through there with the beachlot and the association having to police the beachlot. We're not trying to exclude public development obviously but we don't want to over emphasize it either. From that standpoint we want to take a closer look at the recommendation from the Park Commission. We also have a bit of a problem with a 8 foot trail aesthetically going through and next to a street through a very large lot residential area of $200,000.00 to $300,000.00+ houses. That same concern would be evident if they were $90,000.00 houses. Just through a residential segment, is 8 feet really needed? That's an awfully wide trail. If indeed that has to go in, can it be scaled down? So those are some of the concerns. Again, we just would like to get before you this evening for the record but I don't know if that is really part of your involvement. I should have indicated, the Park Commission is meeting later this month and will be discussing trails so anybody that's interested in that proponent should attend that meeting. .onrad: We are. Barbara, I was trying to clarify your point 15 that you dded. Is that any reference to the July 1st Park and Rec Minutes or is that in reference to what? Dacy: Yes, that's in reference to the recommendation from Lori Sietsema's memo to myself, Attachment #8. That's the Park and Rec Commission's recommendation to City Council. Henry Sosin: I was wondering if this was the place where there is going to be some responses to the questions that have been asked? Specifically a request for a vegetative barrier on the south end of the property. Dacy: I think the applicant should address that. Mark Koegler: There is obviously a new issues that have come forth tonight. This is one of them. I think the first reaction would be, I think as Mr. Sosin indicates, he will now have three homes abutting his lot. He presently has three homes next door which I'm sure he would agree he would rather see the new three than the old three. In terms of buffering, I guess that's a financial consideration that the Kurvers can take into account but I think the obvious response would be, does he have room on his own property to put up a row of Black Hill Spruce or something. It's very common for residential units to back up to one another and we're not exactly trying to get together on small lots here so they can take that under advisement but I'm sure they don't feel it's their role to provide that buffer. ~onrad: Any other issues? Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 39 e Mrs. Kurvers: Can I make one comment about the beachlot again, that beachlot has seen continuous use all these years too. It is an existing beachlot... Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: I think rather than separating the issues, we've got three issues, we need three different actions, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision and Wetlands Alteration Permit. I think as we go through there, feel free to discuss comments on all of those three. However, when we vote we will separate and vote on each one separately. Wildermuth: I like the plan. I think it was well thought out. I have one question though, why on the north end, why wasn't there some effort made to tie into Cheyenne Trail so that you would only have one entrance onto TH l0'l? Mark Koegler: We looked at that. We had a problem with the lot ownership within the northern subdivision. There was no way, we had a very narrow window, if you will, over here within which to hit the street. And the ownership of the building there made it very difficult to get that through. The other problem I think was probably a bigger problem we had was putting the traffic at that point or putting the traffic on Kurvers Point Road .pposite of Valley View. Valley View is an median intersection and is a airly major intersection that ultimately might even be signalized in the future because Valley View is a major street in Eden priarie so we thought it was best to emphasize that intersection rather than having potentially another situation of putting more traffic on that roadway so that alternative was looked at, was dismissed for those reasons. Wildermuth: I wonder if the City can take a look at providing that Cheyenne Trail or moving Cheyenne into one. Into Kurver Point Road. Dacy: As you see on the map here, the ownership issue that Mark raised, as indicated by here, has single family lots already platted along the north lot line and Cheyenne does appear to directly abut on the north lot line. As Mark said, it is best to line up with your major intersection across the street with Valley View Road to look at tying that into the proposed development, we had not considered that primarily because we felt that there is adequate distance between the two streets. It would almost be creating a little frontage road section in there and then you have a shorter area to make a proper intersection so we felt that the two subdivisions could co- exist as proposed. Wildermuth: They intersect with that Cheyenne Trail entry onto TH 10'1 is kind of dangerous now with Eden prairie, Valley View coming down. I've witnessed a couple of accidents. I have no further comments. ~iegel: .ock? Barbara, were you saying that there's only one existing lot with a Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 40 e Dacy: docks. No, the Conklin's, Mr. Frank Kurver and Mr. Mel Kurvers have existing There are more than one. Siegel: There is only one indicated on the drawing. But each one of these new lots bordering on the lake could also qualify for a dock? Dacy: Right, except the ones that have the wetlands in it and that's the one we're saying have to come back for a wetland alteration permit review. Siegel: Okay, and they have to make a separate application before they get approval for a dock? Dacy: That's right. That's required by the Ordinance. Siegel: We're not approving that now? Dacy: That's correct. Siegel: I think this plan is very good. I don't know if I necessarily agree with some of the restrictions of the Park and Rec about the trail system. Especially in lieu of the possibility of having TH 101 being upgraded. Looking at a 10 or 20 foot trail easement along that would do to internal properties. 5 to 7, 10 years probably maximum they will be widening TH 101 but to require it for a trail system on that 20 feet? We're eot addressing that question tonight or are we? Dacy: That was the recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission to the City Council. In the past, the park issues and the Planning Commission issues have intertwined to some degree. As in the past, you have made specific recommendations to the Council. You can do so again. However, it was the Park and Rec's specific recommendation to the Council. They are in charge of looking at trails and parks so that's... Siegel: How would that affect Chanhassen, this property? Are there trail easements of that distance on the books? Dacy: In Colonial Grove, I don't believe there is an easement required. Primarily because the City didn't have an overall trail plan involved. Mark did mention that it has been a regional, or I should say it's proposed as a regional trail. I'm trying to think of Near Mountain and Fox Hollow, if there were specific trail easements along TH 101. I can't recall right off the top of my head but again, the overall trail plan has come up over the last 3 to 4 month period and through the subdivision process, that's the typical means that City can acquire easements. Siegel: Well, it doesn't seem to make much sense in this situation. We're talking about already developed property on either side of TH 101 and you're talking about putting a trail easement in a single development when nothing exists on either side of it. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 41 e Dacy: All I can suggest to the Commission, if they would like to make a statement to the Council about the Park and Recreation Commission's action. Siegel: I didn't know what their thinking was. If they were thinking of putting a trail easement for a distance of what? Dacy: The ultimate plan is really to provide off-street trail along the entire length in the Chanhassen boundary. To tie into the trails that are in Eden prairie and to provide a link down to the downtown area and what's beyond. This is just one little incremental step in that whole process. That's the ultimate objective is to provide an overall plan and linkages between communities and points of interest. Conrad: There's another one coming down from Carver Beach trail, in fact there's an entire plan that's Mark's trying to get developed and sent to us so we can see what it is but basically there are some things in place, including the North Lotus Lake Park that has a trail system going through it that would potentially wind around down through TH 101 and connect down into the City. It makes sense. I think the trail system in Chanhassen, if we don't design trails and methods for people to move around right now as we develop the land, we're never going to have that. Siegel: If it's interconnected I can understand that but if it's not, if it's isolated why have a little patch of trail here and little patch of _rail there? Conrad: And that was Mark's point. Obviously we don't want to develop a one part of a trail system if it's not connected to anything. Dacy: The 20 foot easement is just an easement at this point. We're trying to reserve one of the links out of that. There will be ultimate steps to acquire easements all the way up and down TH 101. Siegel: I guess I'm a little worried about potential widening of TH 101 and what the 20 foot easement would mean to adjoining property owners if that goes in past by a condemnation hearing because the City has a 20 foot easement on it and then the State comes in, or whoever takes over TH 101 and decides to put a 60 foot roadway in. Does that 20 foot easement then go into the property of those property owners? Then I think it's a little bit worrisome on the part of the property owners if they had that repercussion facing them, unknown to them. I also don't necessarily agree with the Park and Rec Commission that they should put an 8 foot trail easement through a development of this nature either. I think that this property of this kind of value would like to maintain their own properties rather than having it open to a trail system through it. That's just how I feel about it. I know if I lived there, I wouldn't. e, Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 42 .eadla: Where's the public access? Dacy: The subdivision is hatched out and the public access is located in this location. It's approximatley about 1,000 to 1,200 feet from this point up to about this point. Headla: On a beach lot here, are they allowed sailboat moorings? Dacy: They have proposed two sailboat moorings and the two sailboat moorings are permitted by the ordinance based on the area amount of lake frontage that they have. Headla: What about the docks? They can have overnight docking and that's it? Dacy: They are allowed overnight docking up to three slips on each dock. Headla: One thing for someone who buys a home, if somebody is going to live by the lake, they're going to be nice homes, doesn't have a boat and I wonder like between Lots 3 and 4, if there should be some type of access for just this development so people can put their boat in. Dacy: Lots 3 and 4 of Block 3? ~eadla: Yes. The reason I'm bringing it up, on a holiday weekend like "'e've just had, there are going to be a lot of people on the lake and a lot of people are going to have boats. They're not going to bring their boat all the way around. They're going to start using some of that lot land and part of the recreation lot to pull them up. I think if we had an access for just the people in this development, like 15 feet. Make it minimal so not everybody uses it, it's actually going to work for the benefit to preserve all the wetlands and some of this area around here. Dacy: You mean allow launching of boats for the people in the subdivision between Lots 3 and 4? Headla: Something like that yes. Dacy: The beachlot ordinance specifically prohibits launching of boats across the beachlot. The intent of the ordinance was to concentrate launching the boats at designated public access. What you're proposing would be contrary to that ordinance. Right now that would not be permitted. Headla: I think the ordinance should be changed. Dacy: Prior to your appointment on the Commission there was a lake study committee and a recreational beachlot committee that evaluated the ordinance for a number of years. Again, one of the items that seemed to received community acceptance was not to allow boat launching across the beachlot. _eadla: It isn't a private beachlot though? Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 43 4Iacy: In essence that's what you would be creating is a common access for people in the subdivision between the two lots. The whole intent of the beachlot ordinance was to create minimum standards lake frontage area. Basically the requirements to control the type of activity that could occur on beach lots and on the other hand to avoid that would not have a detrimental impact on the lake. Headla: So we have drive around, put their boats and then they bring it up on the beachlot. That's going to happen. Dacy: Exactly. The launching activity, the intent of the ordinance is to have the launching activity occur at a public boat access, not at the beachlot. Yes, they can launch on the lake and they drive and ski and then they can come and use the dock but they're only permitted up to three boats overnight storage on each dock. Headla: We've got 30% can bring their boats in to the beachlot during the day for skiing or whatever? Dacy: Yes, that's permitted. Headla: That part kind of bothers me. I like the rest of the plan. I agree with Bob, whoever makes the motion I almost elect for 15 to exclude it and let the Council review that from the Park and Recreation plan. That's __11 I have. Emmings: Just for clarification on the wetland alteration permit. All we're looking at that for tonight is because there is development within 200 feet of the wetland? Dacy: Yes, sir. Emmings: That's the only thing we're looking at there? Dacy: Yes. Emmings: I'm wondering, since it was raised, I really strongly disagree with Dave's motion to put an individual boat launch there. The public access is close by and can be used here. I don't want to start putting any boat launches into the developments. As far as the Park and Rec recommendation goes, 15, my inclination would be to leave that between the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission. I don't see any need to put a trail going through the project either. I'm real concerned about the right-out and having it proposed for the Sosin driveway. I think that's real serious and I think that will get appropriate attention. One thing, I'm wondering whether a variances isn't needed for this beachlot on this development. I know that the conditional use permit requires compliance with all the conditions that are set out in the beachlot ordinance under paragraph 11. One of those is that 80% of the dwelling units have to be within 1,000 feet of the beachlot and my recollection of considering these 4IJhings in the past, is that we don't count the riparian lots in the Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 44 ~evelopment in that calculation. Dacy: We measure the straight line distance from across the beachlot. Emmings: So when you measure out 1,000 feet from this beachlot you have 80% of the units are acceptable? Everyone of these in here is within 1,000 feet of the beachlot? The only other thing I would like to say is I really think it's a terrific plan and I think the owners of the plan ought to be really complimented. It isn't very often that we see a plan of this size coming in for so few, where no variances are sought. Really so much attention to what our ordinance is looking for. The neighbors made comments that they think it's a sensitive plan. You really ought to be complimented on that. Conrad: Barbara, in the recommendation for the conditional use permit it talks about the plan stamped Received June 4th. Dacy: Right, that's this one. The one that's in your packet. Conrad: Yes. Does that plan define the limits of the wetland? The actual locations? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: ~acy: second The accurate locations of the wetland? Yes. It indicates the wetland limits and that should be on your sheet. Conrad: So based on that plan you know exactly where the wetland is and where the beachlot, where activity can take place outside the wetland? I'm thinking in a dry year, it's hard to define where the wetland is. We do have it accurately defined here according to the best of your knowledge? Dacy: Yes, and according to Dr. Rockwell's investigation also on the site. Conrad: The reason there are two docks on the beachlot is because the ordinance allows that based on frontage? Dacy: And area. Conrad: Mark, you're real comfortable that that path down there is not interrupting any flow? As we get down towards that culvert and the bridge, you're real comfortable that you're not affecting the flow overland? Mark Koegler: Absolutely. Even the bridge itself, if for some reason we had some deluge and overflowed the culvert, it wouldn't put a restriction at all to the water through there. The path will be at grade. Conrad: Is there any disagreement between the path's composition between 4Ifou and the Engineer at this point? Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 45 _ark Koegler: We would like to have put in a wood chip path in lieu of the recommended gravel path. Conrad: Barbara, why does the Engineer want gravel? Dacy: His basic feeling was that it was a more durable material. I think wha t we can do is meet with the appl ican t to cons ider wha t he has proposed and the Engineer can either reaffirm his original recommendation or reconsider what the applicant's are proposing prior to the Council meeting. Conrad: I would like you to do that. It appears that the wood chip is the way to do it. Dacy: As you probably recall on the Lake Riley Woods conditional use for the beachlot, because of the grade and the slope in there and the water run-off that was being directed down that, originally it was recommended that it was bituminous and that was switched to gravel. not as steep a situation as Lake Riley Woods was but it's a similar situation where he's looking at how long that path is going to last. wasn't aware of the timbers and the terracing down to the beachlot. may have an affect. permit storm This is I That Conrad: please review that. I think like everybody else I'm concerned with the traffic access and I trust that the applicant along with MnDot will be ~ensitive to the south access. Why don't we require on a subdivision, we ..,on't require a planting or any kind of plan in terms of plantings. When do we require that? Dacy: Typically the zoning ordinance as opposed to the subdivision ordinance, requires installation of screening. When there is, for example, a commercial use abutting a residential use as we saw in the Retail West case tonight. We have in the PUD applications asked for rear lot line treatments or additional buffering along double frontage lots. Mr. Sosin's request for along the south lot line, there is no specific requirement in the subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance to require plantings between single family zoned areas. Conrad: These folks are putting in a skimmer here when we were reviewing the downtown management, downtown storm water plan, we didn't see any skimming there. It seems that in the downtown area we may have far more need for it. Dacy: I got to believe that there is a skimmer in the details. You didn't receive the construction documents. What you received was a grading plan to show you the elevations. Conrad: All I heard was an aerator to make it look pretty. Dacy: being e There's got to be a skimmer on there. one. I just can't imagine there not Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 46 ~onrad: Just some other points and I don't know, whoever makes the motion, one comment I really like the plan. I'm proud to have that in the community. I think it's really nice. I would encourage, I'm not recommending that we put it in but I would encourage the developer to consider screening. There is really only one major neighbor and I would encourage the applicant's to consider the screening on the south side. To the property's only major neighbor. I would also encourage the applicant, as you have been, but per the Staff's comments, the sensitivity on those few lots tha t border the wetl and s, if we could be manag ing the way we trea t the vegetation on those parcels. Whether that be to what Barb's recommendation was and if somebody wants to put that into a motion I think we could but again, I would just encourage the developer myself to be real sensitive to that area and the vegetation and how it works on it's way into the wetland area. Dacy: Is that in reference to the 75 foot setback area? Is that the area that you're talking about? Conrad: It's in reference to the 75 foot, I believe we were talking about the wetlands upland from the high water mark. Dacy: Okay, on the riparian lots. Conrad: Yes. I also agree that I'm not sure how we want to work our endorsement of the Park and Rec proposal. I think we do need a trail ~asement on TH 101. We've got to have that but I don't know about the Interior trail. That one I would have a tough time endorsing so whoever makes a motion, consider how you want to word that. I do believe we want that easement. It doesn't mean it's going in. The City has got enough sense not to put a trail in when it goes noplace but we do need that easement if and when the entire trail system fits together. If Tim were here he would be a strong proponent of that so I think regardless of exact location and width and whatever, I think we need that easement to make the links to a whole bunch of people who are moving into the northern part of Chanhassen. Anything else? Wildermuth: I would still like to see some effort made to combine Kurvers Point Road and Cheyenne Trail. Somehow a connection. How do we go about that Barbara? Can the City Engineer take a look at that? Dacy: Yes, we can evaluate that. Mark Koegler: Just a couple of quick comments. You people have all been through zoning ordinances and you know you try to avoid what we call reserve strips. pieces of land, narrow pieces of land separating property from right-of-way. You've got a reserve strip along the road. The graphic that was on the overhead showed the right-of-way apparently being right next door and that's not exactly the case. We've got some private property that comes down through there which complicates, we have to have a willing landowner in order to do that. The other problem that we had when we looked at that 4IJriginallY, was when we made this connection... Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 47 ~ildermuth: Do we know that we don't have a willing landowner? Mark Koegler: No, we do not. I didn't mean to imply that we don't know who that is. Just another fact to deal with. The other thing that we had, when we looked at it, we have to come back to about the curvature point to have a reasonable stacking distance back here. When we do that, we end up having to have double frontage lots. We had a tier of three of them in here that backed up to TH 101 in order to make the trade-off of the land viable for Mr. Conklin's property. In every effort with the layout of the cul-de-sacs we tried to avoid double frontage lots as much as we possibly could. Wildermuth: I understand that but here's an opportunity to do something. Combine these two potential problem areas. After this development is approved, it's going to be lost forever so I think we ought to take a look at it now. Conr ad: I f you make the mot i on you can word tha tin to the mot i on bu t if it doesn't get there Barbara, I think when this gets to City Council, if you could be prepared to talk that issue. It is unfortunate that we have thoes two accesses there. That's not good planning. Siegel: It would be better to join Cheyenne into Kurvers Point with that access onto TH 101. Vacate the Cheyenne access. Have Cheyenne into Kurvers Point Road. ~acy: Again, there are some obstacles like Mark noted. However, we can evaluate that before the Council. Siegel moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit Request #87-12 based on the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. Adherance to all conditions as required by Article 5, Section 9(11). 2. The beachlot shall be maintained by a homeowners association or by an orgranization consisting of the subdivision residents. All voted in favor and motion carried. Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-14 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. Renaming Lotus Circle and Lotus View Lane. 2. Additional manholes and pipe bends shall be utilized where appropriate to install the sanitary sewer and watermain within the roadway area and not under the curb and gutter. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 48 e 3. Erosion control measures shall be provided, especially for the connection to the existing sanitary sewer from manhole #2 to existing manhole #16 and the beachlot area. 4. The watermain on Lotus View Lane shall be connected to the existing trunk watermain at TH 101. The watermain proposed for Willow View Cove shall be loop connected to the watermain proposed for Kurvers Point Road. A minimum 8 inch diameter watermain shall be utilized on the deadend line proposed for Lotus Circle. 5. A watermain extension shall be provided and a hydrant installed to be able to provide fire protectin to the existing three homes on Lots 6, 9 and 10, Block 1. The hydrant shown on Outlot A should be moved to the west near manhole #15 to better service the area and eliminate gaps in fire protection coverage. 6. The watermain connection at the south end of Kurvers Point Road to the existing 12 inch main shall be made by the installation of a new gate valve connection and centered at the intersection of this roadway. Likewise, the watermain connection proposed for the north end of Kurvers Point at TH 101 shall be centered in this intersection with a gate valve. 7. All utilities and roadways shall be constructed consistent with the City's urban standards. e 8. State Dept. of Transportation permits shall be obtained for the proposed connection to TH 101 and State requirements for sight distance and turnlanes shall be complied with. 9. Culverts shall be provided under the Kurvers Point Road connection to TH 101 to maintain the drainage in these areas. 10. Internal erosion control measures, in addition to that proposed, shall be utilized to mitigate off-site transport of sediment. A Final Grading and Erosion Control Plan shall be included and approved as part of the plans and specifications for this project. 11. Wood fiber blanket shall be utilized on all slopes greater than 3:1. 12. Storm drainage calculating and documentation shall be submitted as a part of the plans and specifications and impacts to the wetland evaluated. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR and u.s. Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City with the financial sureties required by this contract for e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 49 e 15. 16. 17. 18. proper installation of these improvements. Compliance with the action taken by the Park and Recreation Commission but the Planning Commission, while it endorses a trail along TH 101, thinks the applicant's request for no trail or a trail smaller than 8 feet is a reasonable request for the interior street trail. Individual grading and erosion control and tree removal plans shall be submitted at time of building permit application for Lot 5, Block 1, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Lots 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 18, Block 4. Staff be permitted to meet with the applicant and MnDot to resolve the issue of the southerly access on TH 101 prior to City Council consideration. If there is a major revision on the plat, it shall come back to the Planning Commission for review. That there be a timber management plan by the DNR Forester on this property paying special attention to the area on riparian lots within 75 feet of the high water mark. 19. The City Engineer would review, prior to the City Council consideration, the possibility of linking the northerly intersection with TH 101 to Cheyenne Trail. ~ll voted in favor and motion carried. Georgette Sosin: You didn't mention the screening. Can that be an amendment to it or was that included in that? Conrad: That was not in the motion. Emmings: The comment on it I guess, I don't think it's appropriate. I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. If I had three neighbors coming in next to me I would like to screen them too. To my way of thinking, it's not appropriate to require the developer to do it. He's heard your comments. He's heard our comments that he should consider it but to require him to put a screen all the way down there, I don't think that we can or should do that. Part of the reason is that's kind of a two way street. You have the opportunity to put a screen along there... Georgette Sosin: We have a driveway which is blacktopped so we don't have that, that's why we requested it on their side. Emmings: I don't think it's appropriate to require it. That's why I didn't include it in the motion. Conrad: Obviously you're concerned with it and I think we've asked the 4I'PPlicants to consider that seriously. We haven't formalized it in this Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 50 _ecause we could be doing that in every case that we see but I think we've asked the developers to consider that. Henry Sosin: This isn't related to this but it's related to the road problem. I was just sitting here looking at the plan and I don't see any objection to putting the road into where that cul-de-sac is and making the current road a cul-de-sac. In other words, moving the road to where the top of the hill is so you have good vision both ways and making that road a cul- de-sac. I don't see where it would take much to rearrange that. Conrad: Mark was addressing that in terms of elevation. Elevation was the biggest thing. Also, when TH 101 gets redesigned, it's going to change elevation and I think, I guess that was reflected on the developer's concern. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit Request #87-8 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 4, 1987" subject to the following conditions: 1. An application for a Wetland Alteration Permit for installing docks on Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 should occur before the plat is filled. If the application is denied for any of the four lots, such shall be recorded on the deeds for these lots. e 2. Compliance with the stormwater runoff guidelines as stated in Article V, Section 24(8) (4). All voted in favor and motion carried. Conrad: When those individual properties come back, and we're not reacting to individual properties right now but in terms of comments to the developers, I think we're all concerned about how docks go in and how boats are moved around in terms of those specific properties. This request is not affecting that right now but just a comment, just a concern that I think the wetland atleration that we're looking at right now looks really good. When you look at the other wetlands in terms of the dockage and boats, that's going to be a concern. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 10 ACRES INTO FIFTEEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RS~ RESIDENTIAC-SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND PEAC~L LA~ WATERS AND BONNER, ART OWENS. Public Present: David Vogel 915 Pleasant View Road e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 51 4Ilhe Planning Commission waived the Staff Report on this item due to the late hour. Art Owens: I'm Arthur Owens, I think it's a great plan. David Vogel: I live in rental property just down the road. Just down Pleasant View Road a couple houses from the proposed site. The owner of the property I'm renting from called to suggest that I attend this hearing because she opposes this amount of houses in such a small space. The property that our house is sitting on is about 5 acres and house on Kerber is a large number of acres and here there are 15 houses on only 10 acres and I'm wondering if that will significantly alter the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The number of houses that you drive by. Right now when I drive down pleasant View Road, every house is more or less sheltered from the road. I know our house is practically invisible and I wonder if the shielding issue should come up here. Whether or not these houses will make a much more high density population. Dacy: Can I ask, what's the address? David Vogel: 915 Pleasant view Road. Dacy: Okay, so you live down near Fox Chase or before that? ~avid Vogel: Before Fox Chase. Dacy: You see the residential single family, that means that is zoned single family residential. The minimum lot size in this area is 15,000 square feet. It is within the urban service area. Lots can be serviced in here with water and sewer. The proposal is, the average lot size is around 20,000 square feet. Mr. Bonner: It's 29,000. Dacy: They are larger than the typical single family residential development. whether he comes in now or years from now, you need to be aware that this area could easily be resubdivided. You youselves could be resubdivided to a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. I think because of Chanhassen's growth, you're going to be seeing a lot more development within the urban service area. This area has existed for a number of years in large lots, 5 and 10 acres. However, when the water and sewer was placed 10 years ago, that caused a number of assessments and what you're seeing is a result of originally a rural area transforming itself into an urban area. We understand your concern but on the other hand, the applicant with these proposed lot sizes and density is really exceeding minimum requirements. Conrad: Other than in the rural area, what we've seen in terms of lot sizes, I can't think of another one that I've seen in the last 8 years or however long I've been around so in terms of their concern, the only other option that the owners had was maybe a year or two ago when we had this area 4IJlotted for potentially 40,000 square foot lot sizes. We, as a Planning Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 52 ~ommission did recommend that. The City Council did not feel that was appropriate but more importantly the neighborhood did not say it was important. The neighborhood who wanted to protect the lot sizes did not show up. Therefore, we assumed, I know the neighborhood does not want and they did not show up for 40,000 square foot lot sizes. This is really close in terms of what the neighborhood originally wanted. We're pretty used to seeing 15,000 square foot lot sizes and this is double that in most cases so I think the owner should be quite comfortable that in Chanhassen this is a very large lot subdivision. Emmings: It's not hard to foresee the people who live in these houses come in to complain about the size of the developments that are going to take place in that area. David Vogel: I guess I wasn't really aware of exactly what was happening. Conrad: I didn't want to cut you off. Because it's late we didn't have the Staff give a presentation and that's kind of unfair to you. I guess we had the perspective that this was such a big lot subdivision that we weren't that concerned so I apologize for not sharing with you all the different info that we've seen here. Any other comments? Headla moved, Siegel seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. ~eadla: How...locate the easements? Dacy: There wasn't a prioritizing of options. All that we wanted to alert the applicant to is that anywhere along the east lot line would be adequate to provide an easement to the east. We did look at Lots 5 and 6 because there was kind of natural there with the flag but the grades there are pretty difficult and I think the applicant's site planner has more or less confirmed that it's going to end up along 6 and 7. Mr. Bonner: Barb, in studying that more we've just about decided that it probably makes the most sense between Lots 7 and 8 there. We did try to work it in with the existing flag lot 5 and the topo is very difficult. We scrunched this first five lots down towards that end and maybe making the building pad on some of them a little difficult. Lots 6 and 7 was worse but it would seem to us that basically Lots 7 and 8 would serve the same purpose and be just as ideal. There is not a problem. Lots 7 and 8 are both quite large and I th i nk we can get the necessary space out of tha t wi thou t encumbering the lot pattern so if that meets with your approval Barb, we would certainly ask for that. Emmings: I see a building on Lot 14. What's on Lot 14? Mr. Bonner: There is some existing out buildings. Emmings: e Is that all coming down? Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 53 er. Bonner: Yes sir, at the time of development, those would all come down. Emmings: I don't understand, condition 4, the roadway shall be extended to provide frontage to Outlot A. What are you going to do, just push the circle up there? Dacy: Right. Emmings: And number 5 I don't understand. Dacy: I think there is only a certain number of assessments and what the City Engineer is saying is that there are 15 lots in there and I think that exceeds the original assessment and basically the ordinance is being met as far as what type of assessments should be paid based on 15 sewer units. Art Owens: Maybe I can answer that. There are 10 hook-ups along Peaceful Lane and we were charged with 3 with the balance of the 7 to be assessed at development so they are just spreading that over the 15 lots. Emmings: Could you explain the lot width variance for the Lot 5, Block l? Dacy: Because of the location of the existing residence, the location of the pond and the topog r aphy, we fel t tha t tha t really crea ted almos t an island of land back here that really couldn't be serviced by the proposed ~treet right-of-way. In fact, we thought that maybe when the lots to the ~ast developed that there could be some type of service provided to Lot 5 from that direction which also led to our present condition for a 50 foot easement for a roadway running east/west in that area. I point out in the report that you could gerrymander this line here and get a 90 foot width out of Lot 6. We didn't feel that would be consistent with the ordinance. Emmings: It says it's a lot width variance. variance? Is it a road frontage Dacy: The subdivision ordinance says that all lots shall abut against a public street so technically that should be 90 and technically they have 20. Conrad: Can we rationalize that variance how? Dacy: What I'm saying is because the existing conditions that this area back in here really can not be served by a public street, is cut off because of location of existing buildings and grades and location of the pond. Again, there is enough linear frontage along here to get the 90 feet but basically this area back here is kind of functioning on it's own. The applicant did look to try and work with the people to the east to get a combined plan but they were not ready at this stage to develop. Headla: Steve, do you think we should put something in about the out buildings being torn down at the time of development? Do you have a concern en that? Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 54 tlmmings: No, I don't. Dacy: I don't think there is any necessity. They will have to be removed anyway during the construction so it's an item that I think takes care of itself. Conrad: Why are they going to have to be removed anyway? Dacy: In order to issue a building permit on the lot, the building is going to have to go. Conrad: But like on Lot 14, what dictates that that building, why can't they leave that up? Just because it may be in their best interest to take it down but why can't they leave it up? Dacy: That's fine. crosses the lot line street right-of-way. they remove it. They can leave it up. The smaller accessory building on Lot 14 and 15 and then there is another one in the They could leave that larger building on Lot 14 until Conrad: We're getting into a technicality here. lot line or it doesn't meet any setbacks. Obviously it crosses a Emmings: Really they shouldn't be allowed to build on 13, 14 or 15 until 4lihose buildings are all removed. Art Owens: The building there, what you see are leantos to the south. The building itself is a 313 by 513 cement block building so there is a possibility that could be used in restructuring or maybe a portion of the home may go on there. That's well within the lot lines. The other building is an old, that one just to the north of that is an old barn and the other one, the one that's in the street anyway so those on 15 and in the street would come down but I guess I would prefer that you not say anything about the one on 14 because maybe that can be changed over. It's a good building. Conrad: But how can we allow a plat to be approved that doesn't meet the setbacks? Headla: As I heard, it would meet the setbacks if the leantos weren't there. Dacy: Right, if you want to stipulate that the structure within the road right-of-way be removed at time of construction and that the existing building crossing Lots 14 and 15 be removed, that's within your purvue. Also, you can go with Mr. Owen's request to leave the building on Lot 14. During final plans and specification review, they are also going to have to, if they're going to demolish it, they're going to have to provide us with the information of whether they're going to carry the material off-site and so on. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 55 4Ileadla: Why don't we just say that then on Lot 14, before building permit is issued that the existing building shall comply to setbacks. Emmings: Would you amend that, before they build on 13 or 14 or IS? Headla: Is that putting a hardship on him at all? If someone buys 13, they've got no control over 14 or 15. Conrad: Do we want to say that existing buildings meet all setback requirements? Headla: That will solve it yes. Wildermuth: When they apply for a permit, what are they going to do? Conrad: They don't have to apply for a building permit. They can keep that structure the way it is. They don't have to change it. It's going to be in their best interest to do that. Wildermuth: If we wants to modify the building on Lot 14, he's going to have to apply for a building permit. Headla: Let's just say that all structures shall conform to our building codes. ~acy: To setbacks. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-13 subject to the preliminary plat stamped "Received June 1, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Granting of a lot width variance for Lot 5, Block 1. 2. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission recommendations; however, no trail is required in the proposed right-of-way. 3. The extension of Peaceful Lane into the subdivision shall be an urban roadway with concrete curb and gutter built to City standards. 4. The roadway shall be extended to provide frontage to Outlot A, the ground storage reservoir site. 5. The existing assessments on the property for sanitary sewer and watermain shall be spread against the proposed 15 lots. 6. Grading proposed on the Outlot A reservoir site shall be coordinated with City construction plans for the reservoir and shall not commence until authorized by the City. ~ Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 56 e 7. Lot 1 shall receive access from pleasant View Road and all of the lots will be restricted to access from Peaceful Lane. 8. All slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized utilizing wood fiber blanket or equal. 9. The retaining wall construction proposed for Lot 6 shall be submitted to the City's building department for separate review and approval. 10. Clearcutting of trees on the site will not be allowable and a proposed tree removal scheme shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 11. The watermain shall be loop-connected to the existing main on old Redman Road. 12. The applicant shall provide a 50 foot roadway easement for future connection to Peaceful Lane between Lots 7 and 8 to the subdivision to the east. 13. The applicant shall apply for and receive appropriate permits from the Watershed District and any other agency having jurisdiction in this area and comply with the conditions of these departments. e 14. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the appropriate financial sureties as requied by this contract prior to the initiation of any construction on the site. 15. Completion of the vacation of right-of-way abutting Lots 12, 15 and Outlot A. 16. All existing structures shall conform to setback requirements. All voted in favor and motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 2.15 ACRES INTO TWO LOTS TO CONTAIN THE KENNY'S ~RMARKET BUILDING AND A DAYCARE FACIL~O~PROPERTY-ZONED CBD, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT AND CHANHASSEN DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES (CHADDA). Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item along with the site plan review for the daycare center. Conrad: The first part of this item is a public hearing, or are they both public hearings Barbara? e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 57 4Itacy: Technically on the preliminary plat is. The site plan is not. Conrad: acreage. Okay, so we will open the preliminary plat request to subdivide the We will open that up for public comments. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Siegel: What effect does the possibility of soil borings have on this? Dacy: That was just brought to light because it was just kind of an item that BRW wanted to make sure the applicants were aware of. They wanted to conduct some borings prior to building. Siegel: Could the soil borings have an effect of the location of the building on the lot? Dacy: It could. Have you guys done any soil borings? Brad Johnson: There isn't as much concern there with soil. The holes seem to be back behind the building. Dacy: Because you did conduct a boring as part of the apartments as I recall. ~rad Johnson: Yes. They do have a concern. Dacy: A verification of suitability of soils can be a condition of approval. Wi Idermuth: right? If we have a problem, what will we do? Drive pylons probably Brad Johnson: There are several methods for soil... Where the building is basically a one store building and a light weight structure so we should not have a real problem with it. We're expecting also because of Kenny's having that constructed there, having a building going up next to it, we're not expecting a lot of problems. Conrad: I'm interested in what's happening in this downtown area Brad, on the east portion of what I thought we were going for. What's fixed? We've been watching the west end and now it seems we're changing a little bit on concept as free standing units. Brad Johnson: It's free standing by how many feet? Nick Ruehl: That will be about 35 to 40 feet. Brad Johnson: The original plan was to try, we had a site, on the most recent deal, we had a site that was located right here that we just didn't 4IJave any use for. Herb isn't planning on expanding his buildings and he's Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 58 _een anxious to sell this piece to us for about two years so we knew that was for sale. As we went with the downtown area we ended up with this amount of buildable space after we had provided the necessary parking for the clinic. Siegel: Is that a go? Brad Johnson: The clinic building? It's coming along. They're one month ahead of the clinic because they have to get their building under construction in September, October, in that area so the next project you'll see will be the clinic or medical arts building which is this building right here. Conrad: So how close are we staying to that plan Brad? Brad Johnson: All they've done is they've separated away a little bit here. Conrad: what might happen to the Kenny's building in the future? Is it going to be torn down? What's going to happen there? Brad Johnson: A couple things could happen. They're talking about making this a public parking lot owned by the city for various reasons. Cost. Providing parking. That's one thing. The second thing is Mr. Mason is interested in redecorating and redoing the front of his building so it meets the standards that we're trying to set by the City. We can't force him to 4Ito that. We just encourage him to do that as a City. That's the general plan. He has been willing in the past to consider that. Until we did that project we saw at the end today, that's the look we're working. You'll find if you look at this building it fits that look. Now I'll go back to Herb and encourage him, through the HRA, to do something to this building to match the rest of them. What the tenants are going to be doing, that's business. Who's going to be in there long term and those kinds of questions, I think Kenny's has a good lease there. It's not a high rent and they've always been a very high volume store so they'll probably stay there. They're going to be getting more competition over the next 2 to 3 years so it may just change. Conrad: As went through downtown development over the years Brad, the C-3 district or whatever we had west of town, I don't even know what we call it anymore, that was where we were going to have stand alone units. My concept for downtown was always strip commercial or whatever and I see you putting in stand alone units, it's starting to worry me that we're getting into an entirely different concept than what I think we all originally envisioned which was convenience shared parking, which you still have, but now you're dropping in individual... Brad Johnson: Individual buildings like these? Conrad: Those are individual but they're still combined. than one shop in. e You've got more Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 59 tlrad Johnson: As I said, we ended up with a building now with the space, the square footage that we could use and that's what we decided to do. They could have abutted the building but it just doesn't work perfectly. It will look close to a strip center. Conrad: What's the clinic starting to look like? close to what we've got envisioned on this plan? whole. . . Is that going to corne The only change in this Brad Johnson: So far. You see the problem is, as we approach the tenant, the tenant decides what the building is going to look like, we don't. The clinic is going to put certain requirements upon us on this building. They're going to want certain kind of accesses and all that kinds of stuff so we have to wait until we find a tenant~ That's what happened over here. The tenants carne back and said, well, we won't rent it. So we moved back and forth. We didn't change it with any reason. This particular tenant is going to be free standing. We think that's smarter because to try to hook a building onto somebody elses building is always difficult and Mr. Mason is not interested in increasing his building this way on his own. It's a partnership of 4 or 5 people and they're not interested in taking on more obligations. We felt that this fit this need. It gives a little green area. A major employer in town, they are just real excited about having a daycare center in town. They've been trying to get one now for a couple of years. It's a real needed thing. It fits in. We've got a little school ~ver here. We've got a church and what's going to happen to the downtown is ..,ou've got this new road corning in, it's going to change. Those of us who are just used to shooting down 78th, it isn't going to be that way. This new road system is going to make it difficult and we're going to have more traffic this way and it's going to take the retail pressure off of here because it's not going to be a retail corner as it was. Retail is going to move this way. This little area right here, you can see there is only one access there and one access there in long plan. Conrad: Brad, my biggest concern is that we're changing the plan which I think I can accept the stand alone. I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to make sure that we're not totally changing the concept which is a little bit different than the C-3 which is to the west which is all stand alone, which is meant to handle stand alone units which daycare would fit in quite well. Brad Johnson: What we did is we made this two story because we felt that we had all strip along here, it wouldn't look good at all. visually. You have a two story building and three story building back to a one story. It's going to make a real nice looking downtown. We're faced with parking problems so that's why we have to cut the density on the main, we can't just put strip shopping and I guess that's where we're at. Robert Siegel asked a question about parking. Brad Johnson: It's just financing. There's another some, Barb can explain, ~here's a lot going on in this area as to who is providing who parking. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 60 _pec i f ically the problem is pony's. problem that's going on in the City. It's a hypothetical solution to another Siegel: Has the HRA seen this? Brad Johnson: Yes. Dacy: Bob, the issue of whether or not it be a public parking lot, the intent of the recommendation would be that the City would, in this application, carry out the construction and stripping and look to trying to solve the westerly access situation to avoid a deadend situation from the daycare center. The intent of this recommendation is not to say that this is going to be a public parking lot. We are not going to be acquiring property from Mason. What we are going to be doing though is constructing a parking area so that the site functions. Brad Johnson: what I just said is something else is going on simultaneously. Dacy: The issue with Pauly's and Pony's, that's been approved as part of the final plans and specifications of the downtown effort and so on but this is to be carried out as a part of the public improvement project of construction roads, utilities and so on. At this point there has not been a decision to make that a public parking lot. ~onrad: So the only change on this plan... Brad Johnson: So far. Conrad: So far, and you don't know of any others right now? Brad Johnson: We're kind of excited, we're proposing this one next week. We were really excited about these folks coming to town. They solved a problem with a piece of property that we didn't know what to do with and we're moving on it right away. It's kind of fun. Conrad: The only change that we know of right now is there's a 30 foot gap between those two little squares. Brad Johnson: I didn't realize it was that far myself. Siegel: area? Brad, on your original plan didn't you have shops all along that Brad Johnson: Yes, we did. We changed the plans. At the HRA level we changed. Siegel: But 6 months ago, there were shops all up and down that street. Brad Johnson: And we have shifted those shops over to here now. The Retail 4I'ar West. Market Square. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 61 ~onrad: Have we seen that? Dacy: No. Brad Johnson: You saw a glimmer of it because we were talking about wetlands earlier this evening. It just really has to do with parking, visibility and where the bigger retailers want to locate. This is a good use right now for wetlands based upon our tenant demands. They're not asking for TH 5 visibility for example. Did I answer your question? Siegel: We get these things so late in the evening that the mind doesn't really function too clearly. Conrad: You don't have any other plans to put any other little stand alone strips there Brad? Brad Johnson: On that part of the street, no. Dacy: I think the Commission now is getting a policy recommendation though that they want, or at least the Chairman is saying that you want to convey to the HRA or the City Council and that's a valid concern. You are in charge of reviewing plans and making recommendation to City Council. Conrad: On this one I'm fine. I'm comfortable. I know what you're doing. You've got a tenant. That's fine. They provide a valid function. I'm ~omfortable with that. I'm not comfortable with changes to plans that we .orked out for many years. That you brought in and we looked at and took our time and we said that's great and we revised and we said that's great. I get nervous that we're going to change the concept of what we all thought we were going to put down there. The one change that we're looking at I'm comfortable with Brad. I guess I would like to see it in unison with the clinic that you're putting in and see how that fits and whatever but my concern is that we not change the concept overall from what we had talked about. Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #87-28 subject to the submission of a revised preliminary plat indicating the following: 1. Identification of additional pacels, such as the Anderson parcel, as lots. 2. Identification of utility and drainage easements. 3. Consummation of an acquisition agreement by the HRA of the Anderson parcel including execution of proper access and parking cross easements in conjunction with the filing of the final plat. 4. Inclusion of the 20-30 foot strip into Lot 2 or the parcels to the south. _11 voted in favor and motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 62 e SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A DAYCARE FACILITY TO BE LOCATED ON IN THE NORTHWEST -- -- --- --- CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND GREAT PLAINS BOUELVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED CBD, CENTRAL-aUSINESS DISTRICT, WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT AND CHADDA. ---- Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this item with the previous Staff Report. Conrad: Has Fred looked at this? Dacy: Yes. Conrad: And his comments were wrapped into the Staff Report? Dacy: Yes sir. Representative of Applicant: Barb, could you run through the conditions again for us? I didn't quite catch all of those and I would like to understand what they were. Dacy: The first one is that prior to issuing a building permit that the HRA would acquire the gas station site. Representative of Applicant: I thought I heard you say, the word demolition ~n there. I know we had talked about simultaneous demolition and ~onstruction activity going on. Dacy: If I did say that, the intent is that before issuing a building permit that the City is assured that at this the site has been acquired. During building construction, demolition of the gas station could occur. If we are to carry this out as an improvement project, that would also be added. Number two is that the parking lot improvements will be carried out as a municipal improvement. Three, detailed facia and sign plans must be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of the building permit. Any substantial changes to the site plan will require additional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Four, submission of a revised landscaping plan and trash enclosure detail prior to the building permit issuance. Five, obtaining all necessary state licenses and submission of a copy of them in conjunction with building permit application. Representative of Applicant: The licensing for the daycare center would not occur until the center is completed. They will not license the center until they can walk in and physically look at it. That's the State Licensing Bureau so that's not possible. Dacy: They would inspect that prior to Certificate of Occupancy right? Representative of Applicant: Sue, which way does that go? Which one do you have to have first? e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 63 _ue: We usually get them both together. Dacy: We would want to make sure that obviously that the State approves it so we could change number 5. Obtaining all necessary state licenses prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. Wildermuth: What does number 2 mean Barb? Improvements will be carried out as a municipal improvement? Does that mean it will be done by the City? Dacy: Yes, that's correct. Wildermuth: Paid for by the City? Dacy: Typically the municipal improvements are assessed. The detail of costs and so on have not been worked out by the City. That would be determined by the Manager. Wildermuth: Would be assessed to what, adjacent properties? Dacy: The benefitting properties. Conrad: Why are making that motion? Dacy: The concern was, as Mr. Hoisington suggested that this be done as a municipal project and after conferring with the manager on that, it does : 4IJfford the City the opportunity to insure that the deadend situation along the west lot line, that we can carryon through adjacent properties to look for a return access out of the site on a temporary basis back down to West 78th street to coordinate that construction along with the decision being made about the access to the site along West 78 th Street and the street consturction along West 78th Street. Siegel: Is that typically a responsibility of the City? Dacy: Because, as I mentioned other areas in the downtown behind Pauly's and pony's and even down to where Mr. Klingelhutz has his office, there are significant changes occurring in the downtown area that affect private property owners. The City has a vested interest to make sure that the traffic circulation in that area does occur. Through the City doing it, it does give us some advantages with working with other properties and so on. Siegel: But are the existing properties forming the policy of where we do things like this? In other words, are we doing street improvements first and then the sale of adjoining property instead of the sale of adjoining property and then the improvement? Dacy: As to which comes first, with this redevelopment project things are almost going at a concurrent time line. We've got two separate ownerships in there that the City and HRA have identified as a blight and that those buildings are to be removed. The City will be acquiring the site within the 4Irear future. The applicants intend to build this fall. The street Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 64 4Itmprovements aren't going to start until August so I think everything is going to be occurring all at once. Redevelopment isn't easy that's for sure. There's no easy way to do it. Emmings: Do you think it's necessary to have, somebody brought up this soil statement here that we have the City Engineer verify the suitability of the soils? Dacy: That's fine. I think the building inspector and the City Engineer should be aware of that and that the applicant's provide us a copy with their soil borings. Headla: Should we make that a condition on the apartment? Dacy: That wasn't a condition because the building was located outside of the poor peat areas. The parking lot was in the poor soils area. Headla moved, Wildermuth seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan Review #87-6 based on the plans stamped "Received June 15, 1987" and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to building permit issuance, the acquisition of the gas station shall be executed by the HRA. e 2. Parking lot improvements will be carried out as a municipal improvement. 3. Detailed facia and sign plans much be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of a building permit. Any substantial changes to the site plan will require additional review by the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Submission of a revised landscaping plan and trash enclosure detail prior to building permit issuance. 5. Obtaining all necessary state licenses prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Building Inspector review the soil borings. All voted in favor and motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 17, 1987 and June 24, 1987. All voted in favor and motion carried. e Planning Commission Meeting July 8, 1987 - Page 65 4ItPEN DISCUSSION: Conrad: One item that I would like to bring up and you see it in here, we have the Planning Commission attendance records and some of us are a tad below it. Howie is way below it. I guess what I would prefer doing, there are two ways of dealing with Howie. I think if I asked him to submit his resignation, he will and that's my preference to do it that way versus going through the formal way of City Council requesting that based on his attendance. I think Howie has served quite well and he served a long time. His business is obviously taking him out of town far too often and putting more pressure on us to be in attendance so if that's okay with you folks I will talk to Howie. The only condition that I won't accept his resignation is if he promises to bring the 46% up to 75% within two months or something like that. If he promises me that I'll keep him around but other than that, I'm just going to ask him resign and I think he will. I think he's been on the fringe for quite a while. I've asked him to stay around simply because a lot of you are new and I wanted a little bit of experience but when you're not here, the experience doesn't help us a great deal so if that's okay, I will pursue that. Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 a.m.. 4Itubmitted by Barbara Dacy City planner Prepared by Nann Opheim e