The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 09 07 e CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 Vice Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Annette ElIson, Brian Batzli and David Headla. Ladd Conrad arrived during the second item. MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wildermuth STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Larry Brown, Asst. City Engineer CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A CHURCH IN THE RURAL DISTRICT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HWY. 41 APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, WESTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH. Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report. - Emmings: Do you have anything additional? You understand that what we're looking at in front of us right now is the old original plan without moving the church over? Westside Baptist Representative: No changes. Emmings: That's fine with you? Westside Baptist Representative: Yes. Emmings: Are there any members of the public here that want to comment on this item? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: Do they intend to give you some borings on the septic sites? Dacy: Yes. They have followed up and done additional borings... Headla: That's all I have. Batzli: My comment from last time still applies. I would like to see us being able to work with the Metropolitan Council on the MUSA line application for a site like this where it's obvious that it's near a wetland. The interceptor is going to run right through there and I can't believe the little consideration that went into being able to hook them up. But having said that, I don't have any questions. .~ ElIson: No comments from me. It looks fine. .~-,~~- ----: -,--.._~~"- ~- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 2 . Erhart: I was going to say, you probably have the impression that the City of Chanhassen doesn't want you to hook up to this interceptor. I think I can speak for most of the Commission members here and not here, it would be to our...if you and other property owners along that line could hook up to it and I find it amazing that the Metropolitan Council can't somehow find it in their way to allow you to do that and I think perhaps what you see in here a little bit is simply that we've been through this in the past and it's always kind of that frustration so somehow accept that as an apology. If you can find a way to hook up, we're all behind you. Again, ...and it's been real frustrating. Other than that, that's the only comments I have. Emmings: I don't have anything to add. I agree with Tim's comments. It does seem like a reasonable thing to do that the Met Council would allow you to hook up to that interceptor that is going right through your property but I'm not surprised. It's amazing but also kind of typical. Headla: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-9 for a church to be located outside the MUSA line with the following conditions. The 12 that the staff listed and I'd like to add a 13th. That the staff, I think Brian had an excellent point. I'd like to see the staff make an earnest attempt to negotiate, to see if we could get them hooked up to the MUSA line. e Emmings: That wouldn't be a condition on this approval because we canlt really put that as a condition. Headla: We can ask the staff to do that. Emmings: We can ask the staff to do that. Is there a second? Batzli: Second. Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #88-9 for a church to be located outside the MUSA line with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must receive preliminary plat approval for the subject site by September of 1989, unless the property owners agree to have the parcel remain as one undivided lot. 2. The two approved septic sites must be staked and preserved prior to receiving a building permit. 3. Provide a landscaping plan which provides screening between the vehicular access areas and abutting right-of-way as required in Section 20-1190 of the Zoning Ordinance. e 4. The applicant shall receive an access permit from MnDot prior to installation of the church driveway. e 10. 4It 11. 12. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 3 5. A fire lane must be installed for the entire length on either the east or west side of the building. The fire lane, at least 20 feet in width, must comply with the City of Chanhassen's requirement for an all weather surface meeting urban standards. Whichever side is chosen, a clear access must be maintained by designation of a "Fire Lane". 6 . The main driveway shall have "No Parking Fire Lane" signs installed. 7. The applicant shall provide a revised grading plan with storm sewer calculations which verify the preservation of the predeveloped runoff rate and all storm sewer capacities as part of the final review process. 8. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. The developer shall be responsible for daily on and off site clean-up caused by the construction of this site. All erosion controls shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading, and once in place, shall remain in place throughout the duration of construction. The developer shall be responsible for periodic checks of the erosion controls and shall make all repairs promptly. All erosion controls shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced. A revised plan which shows bituminous parking and curbing shall be submitted as part of the final review process. All voted in favor and the motion carried. e PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 10.75 ACRES INTO 27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6270 GLENDALE DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, COUNTRY OAKS, DAVE JOHNSON. Public Present: Name Address Don Brandt Tom Poppitz J. Hallgren Elaine Dunn Ralph & Carol Kant Vern Isham Dick Kinsman 3801 Leslee Curve 4000 Glendale Drive 6860 Minnewashta 3820 Leslee Curve 3820 Lone Cedar Circle 4030 Leslee Curve 3920 Crestview Drive Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 4 e Paul Nitzke Mike Ryan Peter & Lola Warhol Craig Courtney Rick & Mae Vanderbruggen 4010 Glendale Drive 3850 Maple Circle 3831 Leslee Curve 3901 Crestview Drive 4010 Glendale Drive Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Ladd Conrad arrived during this item. Vice Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order. Dave Johnson: I'm Dave Johnson with Shorewood Oaks Development. My understanding, to bring up the first thing that was brought up was the setback. My understanding is that we need a 90 foot setback at the setback line, not at the street line. Perhaps I was misinformed earlier but that's my understanding of it. If that's the case, there are only two lots that that doesn't work on and they are very large lots in the corner. Emmings: Let's stop right here. incorrect? Is his understanding correct or e Dacy: The 90 foot width at the setback line is only for cul-de-sac lots and the lots on that curve, the City in the past has not considered lots on curves as cul-de-sac lots. When you had earlier brought up that it may be an option to create a bubble on the street. We reviewed the plans based on what was submitted and that would be the recommendation that somehow that that issue would be resolved. e Dave Johnson: I've had some discussions with your engineer here about the bubble effect. We could easily cure that problem by putting a bubble in. He has reservations about, if reservations is the right word, about putting a bubble on a curve. I didn't see that as significant a problem myself. One of the things that with those lots in the corner, the ones that have the narrower setback up front, there's no logical reason why the house would be set that far forward anyway. I'm a builder also. I mayor may not be building all the houses in this subdivision but we wouldn't have a problem with stipulating a setback farther back so the 100 foot would work and not put the bubble in if that would resolve the issue because the lot is plenty big enough. It will have a substantial rear yard. Those are two of the biggest lots in there. There's got to be some way to resolve that issue. Whether it's with a bubble, which doesn't appear to be acceptable or getting variance on where the lot lines would go. With respect to the sewer issue and the lift station, we did a little further looking into that but we haven't had time to get back with Larry on it but it would appear to us as though when this mini-subdivision of those several smaller parcels there were calculated, the gravity flow system will work if everybody develops their property at once. Our problem is that the property to the south of us is where the gravity sewer would flow through is not being developed so until it does, it appears to be necessary to put in a lift station to temporarily push it out towards the east. Then when the property immediately to the south is developed, then that lift station could be removed and the property would work Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 5 e gravity along with everything else. Now that's, as Larry said, is an issue that will be addressed later but it's my understanding that that's the reason for a lift station and it would be a temporary problem. Other than that, I don't know what to tell you. I have my engineer Ray Brandt is here if you've got any questions that are of a technical nature that I can't answer. Emmings: Okay. I'll tell you what we'll do, if there are people that have concerns here, we'll let them raise their concerns and if you want another opportunity to respond to their comments, we'll give you that opportunity. e Craig Courtney: I live at 3901 Crestview in Pleasant Acres. I'm also the President of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. There are 66 members in the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and they are all quite against this development. The main reason that most of them are against it is, in 1968 Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association was given a deeded lake access lot. Now this land that's being developed as Outlot A and Government Lot 5 is listed as part of this property that would get deeded lake home access but it was deeded to Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. The deed states that. This is not going to be Pleasant Acres. This is going to be Country Oaks. Even though they're deeded that property, there's going to be some sort of conflict, we feel, in the fact that Pleasant Acres owns the property. We maintain it through all of our taxes. We pay the taxes on it. What is going to be done to the residents that buy this property in Country Oaks? Hereto the policy that we have with the Lake Association Beachlot. It states in our corporation papers, the people who use this will be members of Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. We feel that these 27 additional lots along with the 66 will put the number, out of 100 people that could have and will use that deeded lake access lot. We feel it's very overcrowding that small 1 acre or 1/2 acre lot. Emmings: Is there anything in your By-laws or in the papers under which you're organized that forces you to permit these people in your organization? Craig Courtney: The only thing that we see that would force him is, this Quit Claim deed was given to pleasant Acres Addition 1 and Addition 2 and on unplotted lands now owned by me in Sections 6, Township 116, Range 23 and Government Lot 5, Township 116, Range 23 so in essence, if it is legal that they are getting deeded lake access to this property, that would be the only thing that would say that they can have it because the Quit Claim Deed is in Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association's name. Our Articles of Incorporation state that members of this corporation shall be limited to residents of the area known as pleasant Acres, Chanhassen village, Carver County, Minnesota. e Emmings: This particular issue sounds like it might be a legal issue between you and the developer of this property and later on the homeowners of that property. It probably isn't something that we can get involved In. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 6 e Craig Courtney: Then I'll drop that point. I also have a concern. The Pleasant Acres is stated as all large, people consider them 1/2 acre lots and Country Oaks is corning in and half of the lots are just barely the minimum size. We don't feel that this is going to do Pleasant Acres any good at all. There was mention of the size of the homes and the price range of the homes and this land is, in my own view of the land, is not land that you would develop homes of this size and price range of homes is going to be developed. My personal objection is to the size of the lots and I guess that was it. Then if we may ask for some direction for the Homeowners Association and may be something we can't be helped. It will be ironed out between the developer and Pleasant Acres. Emmings: It seems to me that what you're talking about there is private legal rights as opposed to anything that the City could address in this application. Craig Courtney: Let me ask you how you interpretted your Section 5 of your Zoning Regulations as far as the use of non-conforming use property? It states that non-conforming use property, which this lot is, shall not be expanded or enlarged. You're not expanding or enlarging the property but you're expanding the use tremendously. Emmings: You're talking about the beachlot now? ~ Craig Courtney: Right. Emmings: You can't expand a non-conforming use and I guess I had a question about that too. In the Staff Report it seemed primarily to address whether or not they would be allowed to have more boats down there but it would seem to me that having more people using it, 27 families or whatever, would expand the use of the property. Why does it affect the docking of boats and not the use of the property by more people? Dacy: Just to make clear that the Pleasant Acres beachlot, whatever existed when we adopted the Beachlot Ordinance in 1982, the number of boats, the number of docks and the number of canoe racks and so on, all of that existing use is grandfathered in. When we talked to the City Attorney about that he said, you can't authorize another dock or another boat or anything that the City had on record occuring on the Pleasant Acres Beachlot. The City really could not tell the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association that property owner A could not use the beachlot versus property owner B. His feeling was that because part of the property was legally described as part of Pleasant Acres Subdivision, that that's going to have to be a matter between the developer and the existing Homeowners Association to work out who uses it or if they get to use it or whatever. It's part of that private Restrictions and Covenants which the City does not have a party to. What we do have a party to is that we will not allow more boats or docks located on that beachlot. e Craig Courtney: If you adopted that as non-conformance use, the number of boats, docks and you do not adopt the number of parcels of land that were to use that property at that time? At that time there was Pleasant Acres 1 and 2. There was Outlot A and there was Government Lot B. That's two Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 7 e extra other than Pleasant Acres land 2 and now you're going to have 27 more. Dacy: That's where I'm saying that the City Attorney is saying that the private property owners and the Pleasant Acres homeowners have to work that out. The Zoning Ordinance is only pertaining to the Conditional Use for a beachlot. What happens there? The number of docks. The number of boats. The City's regulations do not apply to who gets to use that, what lots get to use that. That is contained in your document and is a private document between you and whoever owns the property as part of the Pleasant Acres Subdivision. Again, part of this property is described as a part of the Pleasant Acres. Part of it is not so just from me looking at it, there's no question whether 27 lots would have the ability to use that because only half of the subject property is legally described as part of pleasant Acres. Emmings: It would sound like your Homeowners Association should have an Attorney go through your papers and this situation and let you know what your options are. Craig Courtney: Thank you. e Erhart: Didn't we recently pass an ordinance limiting the number of lots that can use any particular beachlot? Dacy: The ordinance reads that there's a 1,000 foot radius from the beachlot but again, that ordinance applies to newly created beachlots and this is a grandfathered beachlot. Erhart: But that does limit the number of users to a beachlot. What is that number? Do you remember? Dacy: For the rural subdivisions I think we had 40 and that was based on 80% of the lots... Erhart: But this is residential. not. It would seem to me that it mayor may Dick Kinsman: I live at 3920 Crestview Drive and knowing that developments of this type sometimes run into problems, have trouble and aren't always completed as planned, I'm wondering what the bonding situation is or what type of guarantee you impose on the developer to know for the City's sake as well as ours that the thing is going to look and we see it as planned? Emmings: I think the thing the City is worried about are the public improvements that the developer has to put in as part of that development. We get some financial security on those items but that's all. Is that right? e Brown: Normally when a contractor goes in, they'll bid the entire job. That means grading for the entire subdivision and the earth work involved in constructing street and utilities. They'll bid that as one lump sum Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 8 . package. The City in turn will require the developer to post a letter of credit for the amount of 110% of the amount that it costs for the entire project. That extra 10% is to give the City some leeway as far as administrative costs to get a contractor in there to complete the work if the contractor fails to do so. BatzU. : Those are just for the public improvements? Brown: Usually it's for the entire subdivision because it's bid as one entire package so it would include grading for the lots, construction of the ponding site and landscaping. Emmings: Does that answer your question sir? Dick Kinsman: Yes. e Jo Ann Hallgren: I live at 6860 Minnewashta Parkway which is the property south of Country Oaks. I guess there isn't a representative from the Park and Recreation here this evening? There was mention made about a piece of Country Oaks being designated for parkland and then in the future development of the property to the south, that parkland would be extended. I don't know if I want you to do that. It seems to me Mr. Johnson has a choice of where he wants his piece of parkland to be but if it's supposed to connect up with development to the south, which is me, and I have a lot of prime buildable property, I guess I wouldn't care to have that designated as parkland if it doesn't have to be. I understood there were some questions about the parkland and I don't know how it works. If you have to donate land or pay fees or what, I have no idea on that. That's why I wanted a rep from the Park. Emmings: We don't know either. Jo Ann Hallgren: Has Mr. Johnson picked an area for the park? Emmings: Just a minute. I think the thing is that the functions of the Park and Rec Commission and ours don't overlap. Your comments probably should have been addressed to them but they'll become a part of our Minutes and go onto the City Council. We don't ordinarily get involved with the things in their domain. Jo Ann Hallgren: But no one was notified. going to be designated parkland. I was not notified that it was Headla: Can I say something Steve? This is a public hearing and this is the first chance anybody has had to say anything on it. Isn't that appropriate? Emmings: Doesn't Park and Rec have a public hearing when an item like this comes in front of them? e Dacy: Technically no but let me explain a little more about this issue. The Park and Rec Commission identified this general area as being park deficient and they identified a need for parkland. Typically the Park and Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 9 e Rec Commission notifies the applicant about this. I know that the applicant had objected to the reservation of the one acre park area. The Park and Rec Commission's recommendation goes onto Council and the applicant has the ability to appeal that decision to the Council. The Council can decide whether or not to accept the Park and Rec Commission's recommendation. I guess in one instance it's good to hear these comments now. Emmings: I want you to put your comments on record and anybody else who has and wants to because the City Council looks at what happens here and looks at your comments. e Jo Ann Hallgren: As I understand, I don't go to many of these meetings but Park and Rec land, I don't know what they have in mind. How big a park? Usually 5 acres is supposed to be a park. I certainly don't want 5 acres taken, or 4 acres taken off my 11 acre piece and where else are they going to go? Stratford Ridge is to the east and there's 400 feet to get to the south of me. I don't understand where they think they're going to go with their 5 acres. It would be that I would have no choice in the development of my property where I would like designated parkland or if I would rather pay fees, if that's the choice. I don't know. The other thing is, Lake Little Joe, I don't know if you're familiar with it but it's down the road a few blocks, there is a lot of low land there which I'm sure is unbuildable because it's a water table. To me a park in that area would be much more feasible. You would have wildlife and area for a larger park than you would in this particular spot. Emmings: I think that when it comes to you developing your property, that issue will be negotiated anew between you and the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. I don't think that anything that Park and Rec is doing, they may be making plans but it's not going to I think constrain your development in any way. Am I right Barbara? Jo Ann Hallgren: They said that additional parkland can be added when development occurs to the south. Emmings: I think that's wishful thinking. That's what they hope to do and whethey they do it or not, that's a question for the future. Jo Ann Hallgren: But that's what you say. Erhart: I have a question for later on but it might be an appropriate time to ask it. What is the legal requirement for the developer regarding supplying any land to the Parks and Rec? Oacy: I think it's Chapter 17 or 18 of our City Code does enable the City to require a certain amount of land dedication for Park and Recreation purposes. In lieu of that, the City can also impose park and trail fees. e Erhart: What is the amount of land as a percent of total land being developed or is it not measured like that? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 10 e Dacy: Most communities use a 10% figure and Chanhassen goes by the amount of population thatls going to be generated from a service area of the subdivisions. As Lori noted in her report, how many folks could be anticipated to use that park and to use persons per lot and crank that into a formula to determine the number of acres. Erhart: Whatls the ordinance specifically... Dacy: The ordinance is based on that. find it. If you can give me a minute, I can Erhart: No. The reportls a little scarey I think. First let me ask you this. What do you suppose the average size, in terms of acres, of the typical subdivision that welve seen here in the last 12 to 24 months? Dacy: Letls answer your question this way. A 5 acre park for a neighborhood park is the standard but for this size subdivision, to require 5 acres out of this size subdivision is excessive. e Erhart: Right, and Lori admits that. I donlt think the Park and Recreation Commissioners stated that. The one that I find a little awestruck by is the sentence, typically it is in the Park and Rec policy to request not less than 5 acres and I can insert the words, of a subdivision, for parkland. I look at this subdivision and I look at this and I say this is very typical of subdivisions welve seen here since lIve been on the Planning Commission and theylre all generally around 10 acres. I think out there theylre all around 10 acres and to state that 5 acres is typical when the average subdivision is 10 acres somehow I question that. It just appears that welre, to keep kind of going back to the developers and asking for more, it gets to the point where it is a little intimidating for the developer. Dacy: Donlt misunderstand what shels saying. Shels saying 5 acres for this park deficient area which includes the western half of the west side of Minnewashta Parkway there. Erhart: Okay, maybe I am misinterpretting it. I read tha t . . . Dacy: Shels not saying, 5 acres out of this 10. Thatls where Mrs. Hallgren is saying, I donlt want 4 acres being taken out of mine. Erhart: I see. I read that to say that typically we take a minimum of 5 acres for any subdivision. Okay, I take back everything I just said. Pete Warhol: Pete Warhol, 3831 Leslee Curve and I guess I'm a little opposed to the size of those lots. I donlt think they conform to the area. My lotls an acre and a fourth. I know my neighborls lots are decent size. e Emm i n g s : Where do you live? Pete Warhol: 3831 Leslee Curve. properties that are decent sized. I donlt think thatls going to help our Thatls my comment. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 11 e Tom Poppitz: I live at 4000 Glendale Drive and my main concern is the lowland behind my house with the amount of water that sits back there and getting rid of it after a normal winter with the spring thaw and with the rains that do come in the summer. I have a couple pictures I'd like to pass around and have you people look at. The first one I will pass around is after the spring thaw, where the water sits and the second one is after a normal rain in the summertime. Headla: Why don't you tell them the time you took that. Tom poppitz: These were back in 1978. Emmings: Are these taken in the area where we've been talking about having the holding pond? Tom Poppitz: Yes. The water closest would be where the holding pond would be. Before that and the back part would be where the two lots would be. Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. e Headla: I've got a question of Mr. Johnson. Would you go over again about the sewer and how it affects the property to the south? Dave Johnson: I would have my engineer Ray Brandt. Ray Brandt: Right now my plans shows a lift station in this area that would take it up to Glendale Drive but after talking with Mr. Brown, the best way to do this is to put the lift station at this end of the property such that at some time in the future when the land to the south does develop, then the gravity sewer can, I would drain the whole project down to this point and then pump from here back up to here or maybe even over at Stratford Ridge but when development occurs to the south such that this roadway gets extended, at that point then the sanitary sewer with gravity flow out and the lift station would be abandoned or removed. Brown: Again, we'll be looking at that further through the plans and specs review. If I may make a brief comment. The concept study that was done through the Stratford Ridge did not have the precise topography, if you will. It was looking at in a concept sort of manner. Again, the task put back to the developer is to support his conclusions with data through the plans and specs review proving to the City that this can not be served by gravity flow. If he does that, then we will accept the lift station concept. e Headla: By that, we're really saying that if the person to the south sells her property, damn well better put a road in there. So you're predesigning something. You're taking many perogatives away from that land owner to the south. The land owner to the south, they may not want to go out that way so now, what happens? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 12 e Brown: I don't see the problem. Headla: What are you going to do about the lift station? Brown: We have at the present time 23 lift stations within the City. It's not desirable to have another lift station added to the system. However, we can't deny that. Headla: So the Village assumes the cost of the lift station and the builder goes away scott free. Brown: In maintenance costs, yes. Much like we would a public street. Headla: What impact does that street ending there have on the future development of the property to the south? Dacy: If you recall during the Stratford Ridge subdivision, that's when we did take a broader look at the properties under separate ownership in this area. There's no question that we have properties developing in these small chunks. We are predisposing the street pattern onto that adjacent property but we have looked at the overall picture at least in general kind of concepts and have provided a logical street extension to the property to the south. e Headla: But if neither Stratford Ridge or this one follows the plan that was presented before. It seems like a builder comes in and makes his pitch and then that's the way it starts going. Dacy: Another consideration also is the topography of the site. Physical features in this particular case, there was the street connection up at Glendale that made good sense to connect that in. We wanted to make sure there were two ways to get into the subdivision as well as providing some type of access to the south. When the land to the south... Headla: If we're going that way, why aren't we consistent? On Stratford Ridge we put in a cul-de-sac. Now we deadend the street. That isn't consistent. Dacy: On the Stratford Ridge property there was along the southern boundary, there was an outlot reserved for further extension to the west. It was a cul-de-sac in the northeast corner. When we looked at that entrance onto Minnewashta Parkway versus other entrances and we did reserve an outlot for future extension to the west. Headla: I'm really opposed to having this corning right up to another person's property. That's a really sad thing. At the builder's convenience, this is the way it's going to be period. Like it or not. To me that's wrong. ...that's anarchy. I've got a question on why the so small a lot. Why do you want to go 25% to 30% smaller on your lots than what's in the rest of the area? e Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 13 e Dave Johnson: The rest of those lots were developed back at a time when land was cheap and so was development. The zoning for this area is 15,000 square foot minimum size. We attempted to get as many lots as we could get taking topography into consideration and staying within the guidelines of your ordinance. Headla: But you had no concern for the neighborhood whatsoever. You wanted to go for the maximum buck. People invest a lot of money into their property. If you use the same size property, you still got good value in your property. e Dave Johnson: I think before anybody considers that we're coming in there and just going for the biggest bang for the buck without regard to the neighborhood, I think they should perhaps check out some of the projects that we've been involved in before. I heard the same sort of comments just across TH 7 on that project called Brentridge in the City of Shorewood and all the people along Howards Point Road, in this particular case they're all sitting on lots that are approximately 20,000 square feet and the area on that side of a large marsh, Boulder Bridge Farms is on the other side of Howards Point Road and you know, or maybe you don't but that's $500,000.00 and up neighborhood and it's zoned for 40,000 square foot lots. Now east of the marsh, on the other side of the marsh it's zoned for 20,000 square foot lots. Now meanwhile you've got a strip of existing houses in there that, all those neighbors raised a lot of cane and complained that you're going to hurt the value of our houses if you put in, in this case they changed the zoning to 20,000 and we put in an average of 26,000 plus for a lot. But the neighbors were all up in arms yet now that the project is in there, the quality of the house, the sizes of the house and the layout, it's going to be a nice addition to the community. Everybody's scared when land that's been sitting there vacant and they've had the beautiful views of the raw land and potentially in some cases the use of it, that this developer is just going to come in and rack the area. That doesn't happen to be the case. We intend to put in a nice subdivision with nice houses. We're conforming to the City's requirements and then some. I guess I don't share the view that the difference of 3,000 square foot per lot is a significant enough difference to say that it's going to be a crummy development. Headla: It's more than 3,000. are 22,000 to over 40,000. You're talking 15,000 lots and the others Dave Johnson: The figures I heard up here were, mine are... Headla: Let me ask some other questions will you please. sedimentation pond, why is that so close to the neighbors? put it back in your own land? The Why didn't you Dave Johnson: I'll defer that to my engineer. e Headla: I see a common thread through this whole thing and I'm really disturbed about it. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 14 e Ray Brandt: You've got to put the ponding area in the low end of the project. You can't put it in the high end of the project. The low end of the project is right here. This is where the drainage goes. This whole property, except for possibly a little corner down here, drains today right through to this low area, through this drainage swale. This ponding area can do nothing but improve the situation because all the storm water goes into the pond and has a chance to settle out which it doesn't do now. There's capacity here in this pond for almost 8 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. If we get more than that, maybe 10 inches of rain like we had last year in July, there's an overflow from the dike at 964.5 which would go over the dike, down into the swale that's there now. Headla: I disagree with your reasoning. Why you've put that off in a corner where it's minimum disturbance to the rest of the land. You can move it up further and catch probably 75% to 80% of the water coming in off of there. Ray Brandt: Where should I move it to? Headla: Where that one right angle in the road is. getting all this... The point is, you're e Ray Brandt: project. You can't put it uphill. You put it at the low end of the Headla: to catch going to got kids help but But you don't have to put it at the bottom end either. You want 100%, maybe... I see this, you're totally coming in, you're have water in that pond, a lot more than it is now. If they've or pets going in there, it's going to be another mess. You can't get away from that. Ray Brandt: There will be no water standing there except after a rain for a day until it drains out. Headla: I don't think it's going to be just a day. Another common thread I see is the builder wants to be part of the Pleasant Acres. He wants access to the lake. pleasant Acres concern to be placed but when it comes to providing park area for that whole Pleasant Acres, he doesn't want to do that. He wants to back away and make them give up an acre of that. If you're part of pleasant Acres, you're part of the problem damnit, but why give park area. Somebody should provide it. Right now the way it's laid out, just like that road, the people to the south are going to have to bury that and that's wrong. Pleasant Acres created the problem, I think that whole thing should be solved by Pleasant Acres. Another common thread I see is when you had your meeting, the developer, when you talked to the neighbors, it was on a week night. Now the neighbors that I talked to, most of them were gone. If you called it on a weekend, you would have had a lot better attendance. e Dave Johnson: I don't follow that logic at all. Headla: When did you have your meeting? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 15 e Dave Johnson: We had it on a week night. Either Wednesday or Thursday. Headla: Right and people... I think some were concerned, they wanted to hear that. The drainage concern there, there shouldn't be any real effect on that should there? Dacy: The drainage? Headla: Yes. Dacy: Larry? Brown: Again, there's concern from the homeowners regarding the potential flooding of it and we're working to make sure that that doesn't happen. Headla: Then I have one last comment. This letter from the forester. I'd like to have the forester corne over to my house and take a look to the north and tell me he confirmed to see the land that's straight bare rather than a bunch of Box Elder on it. On his wording there, Box Elder is trash trees but when you look at that land now, there are trees on it. There is something green. Now if they want to take those trees down, okay, maybe that makes sense but I think they should replace the equivalent number of wood that they take down. I think they ought to replace the equivalent somewhere along with the development of that. That's all I have. e Batzli: I'd like to say one thing about the park issue. As I understand it, for a single family detached dwelling lots, you consider an average of 3 persons per lot and you need 1 acre for 76 people. That's what the Park and Recreation Commission goes for so it appears here there's what, 27 lots. 1 acre does, in theory obtain what they recommend or it comes very close. Within the guidelines of what our ordinance says for that so I think more than 1 acre is outrageous and 1 acre is probably about right on. I was interested in those pictures that were passed around in that that appears to me to be where we're going to put the drainage swale and the holding pond. You said earlier that you're going to put the swale so if there is overflow, if there is an event greater than the 100 year storm, it's going to overflow into the creek? That's what you're working on now with their engineer to corne up with something like that? Brown: That's correct. Batzli: It appears from those pictures that that's standing water and I'm going to assume that it's there more than a day after the rains take place so when you construct a holding pond like this, you normally redo the bottom of it or something in order to have it drain properly? Right now the engineer indicated something you could do there for a short while. Is that the case or is this thing going to collect water and hold water? e Brown: Most of our ponds within the City are constructed as what we call a dry pond, usually drain out within a day so there shouldn't be standing water if the pond is constructed correctly. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 16 e Batzli: Did we not impose restrictions on grading within drainage pond areas that were located within areas that weren't out lots in previous developments? I thought for some reason, I can't remember the name of it, that we did a big drainage swale and there were going to be Covenants imposed on the homeowners that they couldn't adjust that grading. Brown: That's correct. That was in Stratford Ridge. Staff's concern obviously, as you eluded to, is that a builder not come in and alter that sort of ponding configuration. Batzli: Or the private individual that moves in there if they don't want a swale in their backyard. Brown: Correct. Batzli: I'd like to see something like that put into the recommendations here personally. I disagree with, somewhat, not with the City Attorney's opinion necessarily but that by adding 15 more lots that are able to use a beachlot does not increase it's use. I think it's ludicrous to say that. That's just a comment that I'll make and I don't think we can really address it but I think that's a silly thing to say and I can't imagine why we can't address that. If we're told we can't address it... A question for Larry. Do we not need easements if a lift station is necessary? e Brown: The lift station, and I'll simply check here... Batzli: I was referring in particular to the staff report condition 7. The applicant will provide the City with easements to service this parcel by gravity sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary. That seems to me to say that we don't need any easements if a lift station is necessary. Brown: Okay, maybe my condition was unclear. Going back to this concept plan that was done a while ago showed sanitary sewer running down the proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 in Block 3. Excuse me, that's Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Block 3. That common lot line. Obviously, I talked with Mr. Poppitz, one of the adjacent lot owners there. There is a potential that sanitary sewer might run down that lot line that I mentioned and through the pleasant Acre lots there to Glendale Avenue if sufficient easements exist. Obviously the City can not go back through the Pleasant Acres subdivision and require more easements unless we condemn and we certainly don't want to do that at this point so we'd rather have the applicant provide an additional easement through possibly Lot 2 or 3 to accomodate the existing easement within the Pleasant Acres if this becomes necessary. Again, the task is back to the developer to provide us with that data. Batzli: I thought he was indicating that he may put in a temporary lift station and then go to the gravity. e Brown: It has the potential to be resolved later. Batzli: So the condition may change at the City Council depending upon what you two decide? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 17 e Brown: That's correct. The easement again that I'd be looking for would be along Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3. Batzli: Barb, I want to ask the question that I think Dave asked and I don't think you quite answered it. Why isn't there a cul-de-sac at the end of that road that gets to the eastern border? What is that? South? Brown: Southwestern. Batzli: Even if it's a temporary cul-de-sac. Whatever. Dacy: The City has the perogative to require a temporary turn around at that point. That's fine. Larry, I don't know if you wanted to address that. Brown: The basis for the cul-de-sacs, giving it a long deadend road is basically for fire protection vehicles so they don't have to back all the way out. Given like our aerial truck or a hook and ladder or whatever. Public Safety, we confronted Public Safety regarding this and Jim Chaffee, the Public Safety Director stated that it was not required in this. He felt that the length which I will bring to the Commission's attention, I mentioned was 1,000 feet. My error, it is only 500 feet. He stated that it was not required in that instance. e Batzli: That's interesting, but that's his decision. I guess I'd prefer to see... Last two comments, one is, I would prefer to see the developer rearrange Lots 1, 2 and 3 with 3 and 4. Whichever the ones are that don't have the required frontage rather than going for a variance. I don't think the lots in this case deserve a variance. I think he's packing them in there and he can rearrange them a little bit to get the required footage. It's his hardship to developing around this corner. I also would like to ask the question that we talked about before regarding blending neighborhoods. I think we talked about amending the ordinance to blend. Any comments? Conrad: This is a fun one, because that's a concern of mine. In this particular case we're not that far different than, I'm sure the residents don't care to hear that but at least we're within 25%. I get real upset when new developments are coming in at 15,000, all at 15,000 square feet and they're in areas where the other houses that are there are over an acre. There we're talking about 300%-400%. This is really quite minor compared to what we've seen over the past several years. Headla: Ridge. ...when you consider all the Pleasant Acres or/and Stratford . Conrad: Bottom line is, the ordinance says 15,000 Dave and we've gone through that and what the ordinance says is what the developer has to meet and we don't have any control over that unless we change the ordinance. Flat out. Period. End of sentence. End of whatever. The developer only has to meet the minimum and when we chanced ordinances a couple years ago, we didn't have too many people in this chamber saying we need bigger lot ~-- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 18 e sizes. We had very few people show up for those meetings. We had a section in there where we proposed a 40,000 square foot zoning district. We proposed that. Nobody showed up for that meeting. Nobody showed. Therefore, the City had the chance and right now the developer has the option to come in at 15,000. This developer is coming in more than that. It's less than the neighborhood but it's sure far closer than most of the developments we've seen. Batzli: I agree that the ordinance says 15,000 but I would like to proceed post haste with taking a look at that blending. Conrad: Can you do that in the next couple of days Barbara? Dacy: Sure. Conrad: I agree with that Brian. This is a real problem area because I think we want new developments to blend in. We just really do and there are definite economics that are imposed on developers right now versus developers 10 years ago or 20 years ago and that can be incorporated into our ordinance and our thinking. Lot sizes may never be as big as they used to be but that doesn't mean that we can't try to match neighborhoods and new developments into the old neighborhoods. We just haven't gotten there yet. We don't have an ordinance that we can move back on to say this is not in concert with the existing development. Our ordinance doesn't do that. e Emmings: I just noticed one thing here. On recommendation 1, it says Lots I through 5, Block 2 and that should say Block 3 I take it. Dacy: That's correct. Conrad: I agree with a lot of the comments. Larry, just a quick question that this issue brings up. When we put a pond in on a piece of property, you kind of want that to take care of the drainage obviously but you kind of want it to be an asset at the same time, if you can. A lot of developments and the neighborhoods can be upset if you put a pond in or don't put a pond in. Different people have different perspectives. A lot of the ponding that we put up, that capture drainage from subdivisions, can be permanent ponds. Attractive and whatever. In this particular case it's meant to be a dry pond. Do we do anything to make it attractive? Does that mean that the land stays as it is and it is our posture that that is good because it can be good? Or do we try to make things pretty with that pond? What's our posture in the City? e Brown: I think you laid it out well. There's two possibilities. Either you construct the dry pond which is going to add probably the, I call it the meadow grass. That's probably not a very good term but it's the meadow grass that's out there now along the edge of the pond. Obviously the edge of that vegetation is going to depend on how many successive rains you get. The water will potentially stand in that for a day and then maybe drain off. If we have 14 continuous days, we slowly start to deteriorate the vegetation but if it's a dry pond, usually the banks and the area that's not directly affected will be a meadow grass. If on the Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 19 e other hand you decide that you want to enhance the wildlife aspect, create a wet pond and then you create another concern, at least from my past experience with neighborhoods, of safety versus small children in your pond. To create a cattail situation which would enhance a lot of wildlife and you're looking at a minimum of about 3 feet of water which residents often times don't like because of the safety problems. Conrad: I think it comes down to some preferences and priorities of developers and neighborhoods. I have my preference on what I would want and I think there's not always total agreement on what I believe would be best to improve the value of the neighborhood. I think I'll just leave that alone. I wanted to raise the issue. Dave, you were concerned that they're putting the ponding close to neighbors. On the other hand, that can be an asset too. I think you can cut this thing a couple different ways. It all depends on your perspective. Barbara, for you basically, if the folks to the south, two questions. One, why are we looking at a plat without a park on it? Dacy: Maybe the applicant may want to comment on that also. We talked about that. That was the recommendation from the Park and Rec Commission. There were other issues regarding preliminary plat that had to be discussed. Final decision would be up to the Council as to whether or not they would go along with the Park and Rec Commission's action. e Conrad: So the applicant said that I prefer not to have a park? show where it would be? Not to e Dave Johnson: I received a letter from Lori sietsema with her recommendations on it basically as it related to a park. It said that they prefer to get a 5 acre park. They didn't feel they could take 5 acres from this project. That would be considered a taking, I believe is the word she used. She said in light of that, it was her recommendation that they look for parkland closer to Lake Joe and that they require a cash park dedication fee from me in lieu of taking any land. Then she went on to state that they wanted, because there was a through street in there, they wanted a trail put along the side of the through street. When I discussed what that entailed, I said well that sounds fine with me if that's your recommendation. I had a prior commitment and I didn't go to the Park and Rec meeting because I felt they would probably listen to what the staff suggested and what the staff suggested was fine with me. After the Park and Rec meeting, I was contacted and told that they wanted two lots. It doesn't show the trail system on the one that you have. We haven't put it in. I don't have a problem with that and I prefer the cash donation rather than the land. I'm not particularly in favor of a 1 acre park. I don't think it does much for the project and Mrs. Hallgren mayor may not develop her land in the near future and it mayor may not work out so that you're able to get more land there with 11 acres. I doubt you could get much more than an acre there and I'm not so sure that a 2 acre park is, if there is more land not very far away where a 5 acre one could be gotten, I think that would make more sense. I don't know. I intend to have a Park and Rec meeting this Tuesday which I will attend. It's going to be discussed here. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 20 e Conrad: I'm kind of lost a little bit. So what did Park and Rec say? They want an acre maybe here but maybe they want a different park some other place? That's what I just heard. What are they looking for and it's not even our business except as to how it affects this plat and I don't like to see a plat that doesn't have a park that somebody says you should have and send it to City Council. I'm kind of lost. Dacy: If the Council comes back and agrees with the Park and Rec Commission action to locate a park in the plat, the applicant will be required to submit a revised plat. We felt uncomfortable delaying the applicant's hearing in front of the Planning Commission based on a couple of options that the Park and Rec Commission, obviously we're looking at a variety of options on this piece of property, and make a recommendation to Council. So we have three different bodies maybe saying three different things. Conrad: On the Park and Rec target map, where they want to put parks, do we have a little bullseye over this parcel? Have you seen that map? Dacy: They don't have a specific plan. general as being park deficient. They're reacting to this area in e Headla: Ladd, where you're just looking at the..., the park being expanded to the south. That paragraph before it, that kind of preempts it. Conrad: In terms of running a road into an adjacent property, that is good planning Dave. The first group comes in, you can't just say don't put any roads anyplace because we never know when the next property develops. We just don't know. The best planners can do is say hey, we're going to take a wild stab at it and we could force cul-de-sacs too. Headla: Cul-de-sacs would be much more tolerable. Conrad: Then you've got access problems. Then you've safety problems. I bring this up not that we haven't gone through this before but I think you should hear some of the things we talk about. You put a cul-de-sac in there, which specifically the lady with the property to the south, we put a cul-de-sac in, we have additional safety problems. Typically you try not to have cul-de-sacs but the neighbors say we like cul-de-sacs because it gives a sense of communi ty. So there's a lot of thi ng s that go into some of this stuff but back to something kind of real. By having a road that abuts up to a neighboring property, does that absolutely mean we're going to connect to it or does that mean that in the future, the next landowner may say, hey I don't want to connect? For the lady that has that property, what are we saying to them? e Dacy: Absolutely, 100%, of course we can't guarantee that but it provides for a logical extension. When we look at the half section, this is the Stratford Ridge property and we reserved an easement all along there and the road comes in like this. It would be natural to make that some kind of connection back up to Minnewashta Parkway. Maybe a cul-de-sac back in here and on down. I think your previous comment was Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 21 e right. We're doing the best that we can knowing the factors that we know now and we had a previous guide with the overall by BRW when we were trying our best to reserve all possible options. Conrad: I do agree with the staff report and the staff report talks about, and basically I don't agree with any variances. I think the developer should live with the Chanhassen ordinances as they are and we don't create subdivisions and have a variety of variances created by that subdivision. You've got a big block of property that can be divided a lot of different ways and I don't think we allow variances. At least I don't feel comfortable with that. The balance of the staff report looks pretty good to me. Emmings: I was just going to follow up on his comment. His last comment. Just like the developer is allowed to develop lots as small as 15,000, he gets the benefit of that. He gets a burden here, it seems to me, of having to develop that corner in compliance with our ordinance too. We don't just give him a variance because it doesn't fit his plan. He doesn't get a variance to the things that don't fit his plan when he's using the ordinance to develop rather small lots. I think particularly in this case we don't grant variances. e Ellson: I agree, I don't like granting a variance so I wouldn't go along with a variance for any of the setbacks less than 90 feet. I don't think, I'm probably more along the lines of Ladd. I don't really think there's a disadvantage to having a holding pond. I don't see that as a negative. I see that as an undeveloped land and these people wanted as much undeveloped as they could have and this is more or less designating that as never being developed. If they didn't want to have it developed, if they had water standing 10 years ago in the back there now, I don't see that it's going to look a whole lot different only now it's going to be designated. If you can clear off the run-off of the 100 year storm or whatever, I think it's actually an improvement. I don't like the idea of temporary things like the lift station. I know that we can't like not do it or whatever but if there was a way around something like that, I'd like to see it. I think once you say temporary, I'd like to have an ending date. As of when will it stop being temporary' versus an ongoing thing. I prefer to stay away from anything that's temporary. I like the designation of a park and from Brian's reasoning, it makes sense that I acre should be sufficient. I think it's nice to have a neighborhood where you can walk to a park and at least have some swings or a slide or something for young children and that and I also think that a bike trail is nice for anyone within Chanhassen. Especially a new development that you can bike around it. It's a nice addition to any development so I'd like to see both the park and the 1 acre park. I agree 5 acres is a bit much but I really would advise the Homeowners Association to check into your legal options as your deed goes. You may certainly have quite a lot of ground to stand on that maybe you haven't explored and I would really recommend that they do that as far as the beachlot. I probably would go along with it. Again, I'm not thrilled with the size of the lots either but we can't change the law just because we don't like it. We've already agreed that this is going to be the law and I can't then say, but I don't agree with it for you and I do agree with it for you so I think as long e Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 22 e as he's meeting that ordinance, whether I like it necessarily or not, I can't really choose that. I would really be able to do much about the size of that law. I think he's meeting our requirements and that's all he can do. That's all we can hold him to. Erhart: Let me ask you something here Barb. a required body by the State? The Planning Commission is Dacy: Yes. Erhart: Is the Park and Rec? Dacy: By State Statute? I can't say for sure... e Erhart: I guess I heard a couple statements here tonight that I disagree with and that is that parks are not our business. I've heard that as we go along here over the years. I think, I might be wrong, I've been wrong once before. In fact once already tonight, but I think parks are our business. I venture to say that Parks and Recs are not a required body and I might corne and state that I'm all for Parks and Recs and I encourage their work. They're needed and everything but I think it is our work to review Park and Rec recommendations. It is a land planning subject. There's a purpose that they meet prior to us. I think the purpose is so we can review their recommendations and see how it fits into the broader view of land planning. I guess maybe we should take it up afterwards in a discussion but I think we all ought to make a decision whether it's our job or find out whether it's our job because I think it is. I think I'd like to have us deal with that issue when we go along. Emmings: Let me interrupt you. Barb, can you comment on that? the Planning Commission and Park and Rec relate to one another? parallel bodies both making recommendations to the City Council? How do Are they Dacy: That's the way the flow chart works. Emmings: So are we supposed to review park issues? Are we supposed to review their recommendations because they meet before us? Can we if we want to? Dacy: That has not been the policy in the past. Tim's right from the standpoint that it is a land planning issue and the Commission in the past actions have made comments one way or the other on parks and trails or whatever. Just in general things. We have not specifically made a point of each item to review the appropriateness of Park and Rec's recommendation because they report directly to the Council. Maybe what we could do in the future is maybe get the Chairman from each body together to talk about that issue. . Emmings: You can see on the one hand that it is a planning issue and it seems appropriate for us to address it and I don't see why we should say we can't but on the other hand, if theylre meeting and looking at the whole thing, there's no sense in duplicating effort either and winding up with contrary proposals. '-- Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - page 23 e e Erhart: I'm not suggesting that. I suggest that we should certainly use their input but using the precedence that we have commented, I'll comment. I think the issue regarding the confusion of this 1 acre versus fee and so forth. It seems to me it makes more sense to have the Park and Rec Commission, if there are deficient areas, and I know there are a lot of deficient areas, somehow they should take and look at the city and find those areas and put them in the land plan some 5 acre parcels. I don't think you can take in the middle of the process where you take a 5 or 10 acre subdivisions and somehow expect to corne out ever with some 5 acre parks. I think it makes good sense, if you're going to have a park, you make it 5 acres. That sounds very logical. If you're going to have swings and baseball, softball fields but it seemed to me rather than trying to sort of take a half hearted account from this developer and say well we'd like 5 acre so then back off. We kind of look foolish. Let's make the plan for 5 acre parks and let's get them on the Comp plan so people are notified years in advance that we think we're going to look for a park. Anyway, that's enough said on that. I think we should do the trails. I think it's too bad we don't have a 5 acre plan here. It's too late to try to fit in 1 acre here and 4 acres from the lady to the south. It think it's too late. Let's get the fees and trails in there now so that's my comment. I'm against, very much against the variance coinciding with the comments that have been made. You haven't got a chance of getting the variance and you ought to go back and change your plan. I do have, as we watched this go along here though, empathy for the situation where we do have sharp curves and we attempt to put lots on them and we require the 90 foot frontage at the street line. I would be interested in getting involved in looking at the ordinance to allow on curves, that on the outside portion of the curve, that we use another way to measure. One would be the setback line. A couple things so you end up building here, otherwise you're always going to have a couple lots on a curve that are going to be 50% bigger than the other lots. What it does is it ends up skewing your data so when you look at this subdivision, it says 17,000 square foot average lot but 90% of the lots are 15,000 square feet. It's because you've got curve lots that are larger. I think if you would give, just in the same way we change the ordinance to reduce the minimum lot depth to 125 feet to give the developer more flexibility in doing a design, I think reviewing the ordinance as far as curve lots and frontage, if we have the energy and want to do that, I think it's a good idea. Batzli: Wouldn't that impact just putting in more small lots? Where there's a couple big lots... Erhart: No, it would have no affect on the overall lot size. only have affect on how much frontage is required. It would Batzli: Then you could make the outside radius lot smaller. . Erhart: You could make them smaller. Batzli: That doesn't mean you're going to make that always bigger. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 24 e Erhart: That's not my purpose. Batzli: What's the purpose? Erhart: The purpose of it is to give the developer more flexibility in designing a better plan. Conrad: I think the logic would do we like the grid of streets? penalize a developer for putting talking about this plan at all. be, do we like curves in our streets or Intersecting and whatever? Why in some curves and I'm not specifically Should we encourage sharp curves? Erhart: Being that nobody's interested in it, that's fine. The ponding, I've got a question on it. My preference is to encourage permanent in ponds. I'd like to ask the engineer why, or the developer, why make the decision to go basically with a temporary holding pond as opposed to a permanent pond? Ray Brandt: I believe, unless you can have a larger pond, this really isn't that big of a pond to have water standing in it. If it was...it might be better for the wildlife. I don't have a 2 acre pond. I have a 1.6 acre per foot capacity. I have a large capacity..., somewhat large capacity but it's not 1.6 acres of water. A half acre of water is 3 feet deep. Something like that. e Erhart: How big are those, as defined in the map here, how big are those ponds in surface area? Ray Brandt: I don't know. I'm guessing they're half maybe 6/10th's of an acre. Maybe 7/10th's of an acre of water at the top. Erhart: Both ponds combined or is that one pond? Ray Brandt: It's all one pond. Erhart: And your feeling is that ln a half an acre pond, as the pond gets smaller, the less likelihood that it's going to retain water on a permanent basis? Ray Brandt: No, you can make it retain water but I don't know, if you had a couple acres of wetland, I would think that would be better than having say a half acre of wetland. A long narrow half acre of wetland. e Erhart: I don't know. It's probably down to, again you say who's opinion it is, but if I guess if I was looking for a lot and had an opportunity to buy one and not having kids, again, I think you've got a lot of choices. The comments about neighbors on kids, if people have kids they don't have to buy the lot on a pond because there aren't that many lots with ponds. As a person who would buy a lot, I don't find having a permanent ponded lot, it'd be worth some money to me because I like ducks and frogs I guess. Anyway, my preference is to have permanent water if possible. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 25 e Ray Brandt: benefit... I see this pond as one that will end up being... It is a Erhart: Well, you could make it that way. Ray Brandt. You could, yes you could. Erhart: If the objective was to have a pond, that's what you're trying to figure out. Emmings: Larry, did you have a comment on this? Brown: Just a point of clarification. I'm not sure if the dated plans that was sent out to the Commission versus the most recent. My concern in addressing the ponding issue was to go back to the engineer and say, let's create one larger pond versus three tiny ponds which have more potential to fail so the engineer has revised that on my set and I apologize that the revision on the pond, if yours shows three. e Erhart: Yes, mine shows smaller ones. The cul-de-sac thing is kind of another issue. I guess I'd leave that to the judgment of staff and engineering and other. The problem is, if you run it right up to the end and you don't ever use it, then you've created a permanent problem. On the other hand, if you got a 90% chance that someone is goign to use it as an extension to put a cul-de-sac in, then you've got 4 houses that end up building at an angle to the street. How do you get rid of it? You can't so I guess it comes down to a judgment thing. If you think there's a 90% chance it's going to be extended, I guess I'd favor running to the end so the houses end up being along the street parallel. The lot sizes thing, the last issue to comment on, again, as you know I'm somewhat of a proponent of smaller lot sizes. On the other hand, the citizens I think over the last year in many of these subdivisions have expressed their desire for us to create a solution where we take into consideration existing homeowners in Chanhassen. I do think it's time we do address this. I don't think it will be that difficult if we just sit down, and I'd volunteer to spend some time outside of the Planning Commission meeting and I know Bill on the Council has commented to try and come up with the formula approach to solving the problem of blending. I think the citizens have been in here over and over again asking us to do it and I think we ought to do it. That's my last comment. Headla: I'd like to talk about that pond some more. Where's the drainage of that pond? Where do you drain the water out of the sedimentation pond? Ray Brandt: To the swale in the back. Headla: Where is the pipe located from the bottom of the pond? Is it at 4, 10 feet? 4It Ray Brandt: It's at the bottom of the pond. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 26 e Headla: Now that's got a real high water level. That whole land. We're going to be draining that thing continuously. However, if you raise the level of that pipe, maybe you would have a very attractive pond in that area. still have enough in reserve so when you have that heavy rain, it won't go...overflow. I think there's a good possibility because that place is wet. It's been wet as long as I can remember. For many, many years. You don't ride your horse over that. It's just too wet. If there were some way we could work that with the neighbors and them, maybe it could be turned into a real asset. Emmings: The woman sitting underneath the TV raised her hand at one point. Did you have a comment that you wanted to make? Mae Vanderbruggen, 4010 Glendale Drive: The pond, it is wet, as Dave knows. All of us and you said that, the gentleman to the left, I'm sorry I don't remember your name. Emmings: The guy who likes the frogs? Mae Vanderbruggen: Yes. How would we keep this? I like wildlife myself and I love the ducks on our yards, the deer in the back and all that but I can understand we can not keep it from developing. How can we keep this pond, or get this pond and with x number of neighbors in this new development, how will the deer and the ducks and all of this beautification come to this particular pond? e Erhart: How would you guarantee that a duck's going to nest there? I don't know that you can. Mae Vanderbruggen: I say it because we've lived there a long time and we do have ducks that nest there. This year we had the ducks but they left early. Erhart: I know what I'd do. I have a pond like this, in fact it's in my yard and I go down to the Robbinsdale Farm Store and I buy 8 ducklings every year that are wild. They stay there all year. I feed them. They're beautiful. They quack in the late summer and in the fall they leave. It's very convenient. If the pond wasn't there, I wouldn't be able to do that. Mae Vanderbruggen: The grade will be definitely a problem. Like I say, just so we at Pleasant Acres in the end, if this lift pump doesn't handle the situation as it should or when, are we going to get storm sewer in there? Because when it rains, it gushes down into that, this way, down to the south. Right down to Lake Virginia you see. That's the drainageway plus the road into Lake Virginia and it does, we do have a nice roaring creek. e Emmings: I've got a few comments here myself. Having a 1 acre park in this area seems to me to be a nice idea. I'd like to see a park in there. I think there are going to be families with children in here that can use a park like that. It's not big enough maybe to do some things but it's big enough certainly to have a nice play area and maybe some Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 27 e e playground equipment and stuff like that and I think that's a nice amenity in any neighborhood. As far as the pond goes, I think the location is right and I think the location is right because I think it does the least violence to what presently exists. The water, according to the pictures we were shown, collects there now. It may be they're containing the area that it flows to a little bit and that's fine with me. Whether or not there's a pond, whether it's a dry pond or a wet pond, it seems to me on the one hand, the important thing is from an engineering point of view, is that the water gets handled and whether that's best handled by a wet pond or a dry pond, I surely don't know but I trust that our City Engineer will know by the time this thing gets approved and it will have some good method of handling water. From the standpoint of whether there's a wet or a dry pond, as to whether it's a nice amenity, it seems to me that's strictly in the hands of the developer. If he thinks it will raise the value of the property he's going to sell, to have a permanent pond there, then that's what he'll do. If he doesn't think it will raise the value or if he doesn't care, then he won't. It seems to me it's appropriate that he gets to make that decision so I don't care what he does. I care that the water gets into the holding pond. I agree that there shouldn't be any variance and that he should have to adjust his lots to meet the ordinance. On the road that deadends to the south there, it seems to me that somehow there ought to be a turn around there and I'm really kind of surprised that our Public Safety Director doesn't want the turn around there for emergency vehicles or that our people who plow the roads don't want it as a turn around for snowplows. I don't understand that but I guess they've spoken and if they don't want to do it, fine. The rest of it, the size of the lots doesn't bother me that much. When I look at how the lots line up, it doesn't bother me too much. I don't think we're that far off. I do have to take a little bit of issue with some of the comments and frankly I've got to tell you I'm surprised to hear myself say this but this guy owns a piece of property and he has a right to develop that property and as long as he's meeting our ordinance, it's inappropriate for us, I think, to sit up here and say you can't develop your land pretty much the way he wants to as long as he meets the ordinance that we've got and he's done that. I know that neighbors get used to looking at empty land and they prefer to see it that way and prefer to see deer walking through there and everything else. That guy owns a piece of land, your land that you're on before you had houses on there and probably there were some neighbors that came in and didn't want to see all your houses going in there at that time. This is a thing we face over and over again here but basically he's put together a project that fits. Having that road going to the south toward the Hallgren property there, again and again Dave, on that issue in particular, when we've had neighboring parcels developing at or close to the same time, we've tried to preserve options so they can come in. I think that's been planned in here and I think if that hadn't been the rule, we would have said how are you going to connect this one to the south because that's what we've done on every other one again and again and we've been real consistent about that. I think in fact we've gone out of our way to find ways to hook them together. I spoke my piece. e Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 28 e Erhart: Larry, do we take the position on these drainage ponds, whether we want them wet or dry or is that totally up to the discretion of the developer? Brown: There's a couple of things that I haven't mentioned yet that may come into play. Bear with me if you will. I'll try to make this as brief as possible. A short scenario. Think of these ponds as a bowl. If you put 5 feet of water in that bowl, that reduces the capacity of that pond to store water. That 5 feet is no longer there to store additional water. Erhart: Unless you make it 5 feet deeper. Brown: Unless you make it 5 feet deeper or what more often happens is 5 feet higher because you run into ground water in this area, which we suspect because of the poor soil conditions. The developer will dig down, run into the water plus the fact that he has to match into the elevation of the existing creek so he can get enough slope to have it flow properly to this channel. You can't go below the creek or the creek will flow back into the pond. Create a back flow situation so in asking the developer to create a wet pond where he wants a dry pond, I'm afraid what he'd end up doing is having to create a berm up to get the required ponding storage. Right now to address engineering's concern regarding the storage, he's provided more than the storage for the 100 year event and I guess in that aspect I'm satisfied. e Erhart: But if somebody comes in and wants a wet pond, you don't try to discourage them do you? Brown: Not as long as they're providing the adequate storage, no. Emmings: I've got one more comment and that is on the beachlot thing. I'm familiar with this beachlot. I live on Lake Minnewashta and there is no way that you're going to convince me that this isn't an extension of the use, enlarging the use of that property. Not only that but I think it's a real awkward situation because I can see the people who are used to using it and used to using it together, there's going to be some resentment with 27 new families coming in who are eager to have access to the lake and a group of people who are used to using it together having a whole bunch of new people coming in to use it. I too would encourage you to find out exactly what your rights are for that. What documents there are that establish it. Batzli: That raises the issue of if it is actually an enlargement of the use, what are the City's remedies to limit the use? Anything? I think that was the City Attorney's point, is that do we go in and take a physical counting of people? e Emmings: I think what the City Attorney is saying is that the thing that created this took in a certain amount of land. It didn't take in a certain number of people and however that land may be developed, intensively or not intensively, but however it's developed, whoever's on that land has a right to use that access. We can limit the boats and Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 29 e docks and permits but we can't limit the number of people. I think that's what he's saying. I think that's probably right but if it feels wrong. Batzli: Because it is enlarging the use technically. Maybe not legally. Emmings: motion? If there's not anything else on this, do you want to make a Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1 through 9 as provided by the staff with the change in condition 1. It reads, is there a change in the numbering? Emmings: Block 3. Batzli: Okay. And I propose a condition 10 reading, subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site contours and I think also it should be noted that, is the plat that you have Larry stamped a different date that shows the pond? e Brown: No, my revision was for the grading plan. Conrad: I'll second the motion. Batzli moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-21 as shown on the plat stamped "Received July 22, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1 through 5, Block 3 and Lot 8, Block 3 be adjusted to provide 90 feet of width at the street frontage. 2. The applicant will work with the Park and Recreation Coordinator to provide one acre of park land along the southerly boundary of the property. 3. The applicant shall provide a soil borings report for each lot and along the location of the street prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant shall provide an amended plan showing fire hydrants located not further than 300 feet apart. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of these improvements. . 6. The applicant shall service this area by gravity sanitary sewer unless their engineers can demonstrate that this entire parcel cannot be serviced by gravity sanitary sewer. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 30 e 7. The applicant will provide the City with the necessary utility easements across this parcel to service this parcel by gravity sanitary sewer unless otherwise demonstrated that a lift station is necessary. 8. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 9. The applicant's engineer shall provide the City with the necessary documentation to verify that the 100 year storm event and emergency overflow conditions for the proposed ponding site will not affect the adjacent properties. 10. Subject to City approval of language, the applicant shall provide restrictions on the Block 3 lots in order to maintain the ponding site contours. All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried. Emmings: what they Do you want to briefly set out your concerns? are. I think we know e Headla: What do you mean, briefly? Emmings: Just give us a list of what your objections are. Headla: The lot sizes are not consistent with the area to the southeast. The road going to the south should be a cul-de-sac or an easement eventually going through in case the road does go. ...1 think there should be a barrier so people don't drive onto the property to the south. I disagree, I don't think there should be any acre of parkland. I think Mr. Johnson is correct there. It's just too small for that area. If you have bigger lot sizes, then you wouldn't need any parkland either. PUBLIC HEARING: MINNEWASHTA MEADOWS, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HWY. 7 AND CHURCH ROAD, GARY CARLSON: A. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. B. REZONING FROM RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO R-8, MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Public Present: e Name Address Gary Carlson Harry Carlson Applicant 6241 Church Road Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 31 . Merlyn Wanous Terry and Dawn Toll 6231 Church Road 3851 Church Road Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. e Gary Carlson: As you can see 11m quite anxious. I've been before you and sat in on your meetings and I wish to tharlk you on behalf of the City and on behalf of being involved as a resident for your time and for your great considerations of all these proposals that come before you and I feel that you do a very, very good job. I've got some gentlemen who are my associates who are quite qualified and they will be explaining the proposal a little bit better than I'm able to do but I do have a few little pet things that I have put into this project that I've gotten from comments from the Planning Commission. By listening to exactly what you've said, has given me a couple things, more than a couple things in there that I just want to point out because I'm proud of them and I want you to know that your input into the City is being heard. Just to introduce myself a little bit, I live just outside on West 62nd in the Cathcart home. It was built in 1886 and have lived out here for 20 years. My grandfather homesteaded a half mile from my present home and my father was born out in that home so I'm the third generation and this project is to benefit the fourth generation. I have a handicap daughter and I don't know if it's covered too much in your project, it is mentioned in my letter to you that two of the units and possibly three will be handicap units. Some of the proposals that you've considered in other apartments in other areas of the City, they say they're handicap accessible. Well, a person in a wheelchair and a van is up against a curb stop... In my buildings, they drive, if you looked at the plan that's in here you'll see that they drive directly into their home, the wheelchair exits the van and they can drive straight into their living floor and have a two bedroom apartment. The plans are being checked by Courage Center and these will be provided in this development. That's kind of a pet project so it will give my daughter a lifetime income plus housing that's really needed in this area of the City. The thing that's in here for Dave, as you can see, these are native maple trees. Headla: You like trees. trees. I've seen your place and you have a lot of nice e Gary Carlson: And those are in there for Dave. Here's for Tim now. This pond here. In the house plans, these units which are affordable housing with no city subsidy, they're affordable housing, this plan that's in your book there shows, I know you had some subsidized housing in front of you and you're trying to get them to make them more sound proof. They didn't seem to be able to find the dollars although the City was subsidizing. The only noise cover between the units would be between the floors. I think you can see the ceiling joist and the floor joist are separated by 5 1/2 inch air space. I've had them include in here, it lists here, I also have sound insulation so there would be no attachment. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 32 e e The units do not attach of course on the walls and on the floors, there's the joist system and the ceiling joists that are from two separate systems. So they should be really nice units and as for Mr. Ladd Conrad, I have a very competent staff to sell you this project. I have Brad Sworem...from the engineering firm of Engelhardt and Associates I have a senior design engineer who's basically done my original layout and has worked on this layout so I'll be here to answer any of your questions. I do want to thank all the neighbors. I guess I thought Terry, the Toll's have left but I wanted to point out, in the letters here, the residence that lies west of me, he owns everything buildable west of me has got a letter in support. Terry Toll and his wife are here. They also live west of the development. They're the next neighbors to the west. There's a letter of support from a neighbor to the east that owns the corner, the other corner of TH 7 and Church Road. The other neighbors aren't here. They haven't written a letter but I know they may have comments. I want to thank the neighbors for their support and their understanding in looking at the project and I'm not just a developer that hey, listen let's make some lots so I can sell them. I'm trying to make a development that will work. The last thing I want to point out is, the reason I'm looking to fill this with rental property instead of residential properties is very nicely explained by, it's in your folder here from Mr. Crawford, the District Engineer for the State Transportation Department. His first comment, residential development is a very noise sensitive land use. Present noise levels along TH 7 exceed state standards for residential development. So basically if I had a Shadowrnere or if I had a Cedar, those three developments just south of me on Minnewashta Parkway, really nice bedroom communities. If I had a Fox Run or Covington or Hunter's Ridge, I wouldn't be, because I live there. I'm going to be looking at these. I wouldn't want any development that didn't look single family in nature so that's why I'm bringing in single family level. I don't think I would fill, there are two other nice bedroom communities opening up for single families that can afford to move in. This will give the needed rental housing for families that they can move into Covingtons and the Waterfords and the Hunter Ridges when they can afford it. This is right on TH 7 so I guess going by what the State, it's not suitable for residential so we're not proposing residential. people live here if they can...and easy access to TH 7. They're not going to build until all this builds in and they say I just have to be here. Then they might buy my residential lots so it's kind of led me to this point. I own 7 other rentals in this area. In fact, this party here has rented from me for 13 years and this party here. This house is going to be built on 13. This party here has rented from.me for 7 years. This one 5 years. Anyway, they are really happy and maybe they want to comment... I would thank you for your time. My children can now see me on Channel 20 and if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. e Brad Sworem: Basically I'm here to say similar things to what Gary just did. In a nutshell what he's saying is, this land is not ideally suited for single family residential. To directly address your question of what's the big need for a change. We're trying to make the best possible use of the land both for us and for the City. That's the whole idea of zoning. Because of Church Street being a collector road and some of the Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 33 e improvements, TH 7 and the Fire Station and the park, there is not any problem with the changing neighborhood. I guess that's the concern of smaller lot sizes next to large lot sizes. This is, in effect an i sola ted proj ecL It's ideally sui ted for thi s type of development. The second thing that you have is there is no traffic problems because none of the people who live in these units are going to be passing any other residential homes. They're not driving through any of those other areas. The major intent of all the zoning rules, the major intent of government subdivision regulations are all being met by the project. We're asking for the project basically because they need to be able to make a zoning change like this in order to have this type of housing in Chanhassen. If you don't permit a change like this, you're going to have larger square foot lots. The units themselves are going to be more expensive but the rents are going to be higher. There is nothing to speak of outside of apartments or single family homes available for rent and that's the market that we're trying to get and that's the market that we're asking you as the Planning Commission to be able to meet. Those are really our compelling reasons. There are some more comments that we have in the application and some of the comments of Gary but this zoning fits the property best. It probably should have been zoned like this originally. Does that answer your question? Conrad: Keep going. e Brad Sworem: The rest of the stuff that I have to say is just basically comments that are good reasons for the project. Number one, we're looking at putting on 15,000 square foot lots, over/under two family homes which are obviously different than side by side. They look exactly like a single family home. They give you the sideyard setbacks. They give you the large lots. They give you the rest of those zoning intent rules for maximum density per lot. If we were to go to a side by side or a side by side would be appropriate, we would think that the 20,000 square foot would be appropriate but the 15,000 certainly does fit because of the type of unit we have. We are obviously limiting the amount that they can be rented for because over/under, as we're constructing them, will only be two bedrooms. Again, we're trying to segment a market that is not being hit in Chanhassen and we feel, to a large extent we need your assistance in being able to cover this. We've worked hard at working with the neighbors. Obviously Gary's been in the neighborhood for years and that's a big factor in the development. ...all the people, some people may be here today and we do appreciate their support. One of the complex or problems that we have had is trying to fit our proposal with the City's zoning codes and to a degree it's putting square peg into a round hole. We have a proposal for 36 lots and one of the staff's concern was we could turn around tomorrow and build a bunch of apartment buildings. We've asked how we can propose to change that. I guess contract zoning or agreement, developer's agreement or addendum to the platting or anything like that is frowned upon because it's contract zoning. I guess the point that we have is, we feel two things. That in talking to staff prior, this is the best way to effectuate the change. Two, with this change we can proceed with it this year. Staff had indicated some other alternatives including planned unit developments. If we were to do that, that would kick it back to next . Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 34 e year. But the basic concept is we're trying to fit a project that makes sense for us and makes sense to serve that rental market. The density per acre is, I believe on the very lowest end of the medium development for the most comprehensive plan so it's basically fitting all of the City's needs, if not necessarily the City's specific zoning rules and regulations at the present time. The proposal is going to be to have four family units on the south side. Staff has some concerns about the driveway on Lot 16, which is the southeast corner. That certainly can be modified and ask you to make any suggestions or comments on that. We should be able to satisfy any objections you've got today. We would like to suggesting changes or proposals that you want. We would like you to vote in favor of the zoning change so we can get to the City Council so we can get moving on it and start construction still yet this fall and maybe put some foundations in and proceed through the winter. Is there anything else Gary? Harry Campbell: My name is Harry Campbell. I live on 6241 Church Road. I'm against the rental because I don't know what kind of people we're going to get in there for rentals and what is going to do to my property right across the road from there. That's the main thing I'm interested in. The kind of people he's going to rent to in there. If they're going to have wild parties over there or what's going on over there. That's my concern and why I'm against the rental property in there. e Terry Toll: My name is Terry Toll, 3851 Church Road. there 68 units in this proposal? First of all, was Dacy: 36. Terry Toll: Okay. I guess I'm kind of concerned about rentals too. At first I agreed on this but I'm wondering about what kind of people are going to be there. People in and out. We really won't get to know them that good. Then something else I was wondering about is, Smith Acres has an easement to Minnetonka and it's only a 50 foot easement. This is part of Smith Acres so I was wondering how that's going to work out. Emmings: Would you explain that. said. I didn't understand what you just Terry Toll: There's an easement to Lake Minnetonka for Smith Acres. Emmings: Oh, to Lake Minnetonka? Terry Toll: Or Minnewashta, I'm sorry. Headla: It's on the north side isn't it? Terry Toll: Yes. e Emmings: Could you show us on the map and what it has to do with this. Dacy: What he's referring to is that Schmidt's Acre has a grandfathered beachlot. It's not used extensively but there is a record of a 50 foot Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 35 e easement for homeowners of Schmidt's Acres. Conrad: And where is Schmidt's Acres. Okay. So that should not affect this parcel at all right? Dacy: This parcel is, I can't remember if it's Lot 4 or 5 or both. This is the Schmidt's Acre lot. The part to the north of the Schmidt's Acre lot. Lots to the west of Schmidt's Acre lot and parcels down and across the road. Right in here there's a 50 foot easement that was created many moons ago. Very similiar to the Pleasant Acres situation. The same policies would apply. Our records what verify what existed as'of the adoption date of the beachlot ordinance and any expansion as far as docks, boats, moorings, etc.. Conrad: But it still could be used? Dacy: If they wanted to contest that further. Terry Toll: Then I was wondering, if they want to develop another development, not Gary because he don't have land, off to the west, where would that traffic going through have? We live right in here, is there, what's this right here? Would that be a road that could be opened up to the cartway? e Conrad: Yes. Terry Toll: Then with the people that are going to be in these housing development, how's that going to affect the park? Is that going to be too many people for that park? Conrad: That's not our park. Batzli: But they look at this development and park around it. Will they collect fees in lieu of? Conrad: I'm sure they haven't look at this? Batzli: But they looked at it previously under the old. Headla: Yes they did. Batzli: So they're not going to put trails or anything around there? So people would probably tend to congregate over... Terry Toll: Then I was also concerned about the value of our house. Will it go up or will it go down? The rental people usually don't take care of their houses as well as people that own them because it's not simply theirs. We're concerned about the parties. Maybe four people moving into, what kind of cars are they going to be driving? So we're concerned about that. At first I thought it was a good idea and we've been thinking, talking to neighbors and I'm kind of against it. e Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 36 e Merlyn Wanous: My name is Merlyn Wanous and I live at 6231 Church Road. I guess in general all the objections that have been mentioned, I object to also. In fact, it's going to be a long term development. All the houses out there are single family residential. As you stated, Shorewood does own that park. What is going to prevent Shorewood from selling that park if he does get development to some other developer? Another concern of mine is if this project should fall through, if he should decide to sell it, will someone, if he does get this R-8 zoning, will they take advantage of this zoning and become apartment houses or put something that's going to not be in confirmation with the rest of the neighborhood? He also mentioned that he has approval from Mr. Kerber but he didn't mention that Mr. Kerber has his property for sale. It is rental property. It is all older housing out there but I guess, like Mr. Toll says, Mr. McPherson does have a little acreage there. It is low land but a lot of development has gone into low land so I guess we are concerned about the neighborhood and I guess we're concerned about the influx of people that are going to be there. We've been there for 28 years. We are used to the open land. I admit that and I would like to see, we do approve of these single family residential. I think that's a good idea but now when you start bringing in apartments and all these other people like they did mention, a lot of undesirable, the fair housing law does not permit him to decide who he's going to rent to. He has to rent to whoever comes to rent. So I guess that's one of our primary concerns. Thank you. e Terry Toll: We do have two little kids and we'd like them to get to know families that plan on sticking around. Maybe they will decide to like the area and move into a house they can afford someday. Usually rental people are on the move. They don't plan on sticking around so I guess that was kind of one of the concerns of ours. That we'd like to see people move and get to know them a little bit. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I think a good place to start, do we have a City map, zoning map someplace here? Other than the one on the wall. Barbara, could you just walk around this property and kind of tell us what, I guess what I'm doing is asking, trying to go back and if you could remind us of how we arrived at the zoning for that whole area up in the northwest corner of Chanhassen. Is it all RSF? e Dacy: Yes. Maybe I can start with those blanks first. The neighborhood by the north side of Lake Minnewashta and Pleasant Acres Subdivision and the scattered developments north of TH 7 in the Church Road area, a lot of these areas were subdivided in the 50's and 60's and I think during the early 80's when the City was looking at the first blush of the Comp Plan, made a policy decision to keep this area in a similiar land use pattern. Then when we revised our ordinances, our zoning ordinance in 1986 and 1987, then you merely apply the RSF District over the land use category that was established through the Comp Plan. Beyond that, the Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 37 e only site that has entertained the different land use is the TH 71TH 41 site. That's on the area west of TH 41. Erhart: So the closest medium density is where? In this whole area. Dacy: The closest medium density would be the area that's just west of City Hall here adjacent to downtown and is on the agenda later on. Erhart: Why did we select that as medium density? Dacy: The City wanted to create higher density projects adjacent to downtown to create population and because of the access to service those transportation traffic. Also, we wanted a buffer between the industrial park on the south side and wanted to provide areas for different styles of housing. That was the big issue in the Lake Susan Hills West PUD last summer was how much multiple family land should be provided so those were the two primary areas during the Comp Plan review that we looked at for higher density. Erhart: Do you think we're deficient in multiple family area now? Dacy: Right now as zoned and planned for, we've got a good mix as far as, I think it's 75% single family and 25% multiple family. Itrs a policy decision that you have to make. e Erhart: Of the areas we have medium zoned, medium density now, is any of that being developed into multiple family housing? Dacy: Outside of the application that's on tonight's agenda, that's about it outside of the Jacobson townhomes right next door. Erhart: So there's adequate land that's accessible to sewer? We aren't in any urgent need to rezone additional land? Dacy: That's a question that you have to answer. Erhart: I know but you deal with it everyday. Dacy: We have vacant land available at this point. Erhart: But you don't see any urgent need to add anything to it? Medium density. I guess I'm not...recommendations from the standpoint of staff, there's no urgency to add to our inventory of medium density. Dacy: Urgency, no. We have adequate lands now. Whether or not you want more is... Erhart: More specifically, ...it's all RSF so again, the area to the north, the City of Shorewood, that's a park? e Dacy: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 38 e Erhart: Make sure I get it correct this time since I made one mistake already. That's a park. The area to the northwest is some single family homes. Immediate west is some wetlands. What's on the east side of Church Road? Dacy: There are four houses. The Wanous', the Campbell's, Terry Larson's house and the gentleman who lives immediately on the corner. Erhart: And to the south is? Dacy: There's a fire station and the...property and the Schmidt's. Erhart: I guess my comment is, I've heard some reasons from a developer's standpoint why he would like to have this rezoned but I guess I haven't heard so far, good arguments why we should rezone it from the standpoint of City planning. Maybe with further questions, I'll see it but I don't see it. e Emmings: I heard even less than Tim did. I only heard conclusions. I didn't hear any reasons. I heard people say that this is the best zoning for this piece of land but I didn't hear any reasons why it was. I thought the original plan was very appropriate to the area and to the land. To have single family with some multiple, with some twin homes along TH 7 made pretty good sense to me. I would be absolutely opposed to any R-8 in that area. That's stepping it up quite a few notches it seems to me in intensity and I don't see any reason for that whatsoever. It might be that I'd be persuaded to do all R-4. That's the only one that I could even go to as a fallback position but basically I think that the original plan for single family homes with the twins along the highway was a good one and I don't see any reason to change it. The handicap accessibility thing is very interesting to me and a very attractive feature and I would hope that if there's only twin homes along TH 7, that would still be incorporated even if we don't go along with the zoning. One of the presenters brought out attention to this Department of Transportation letter stating that residential development is very noise sensitive land use and the present noise levels along TH 7 exceed State standards for residential development. I guess I have a question for Barb there. I take it that just because it exceeds the standards doesn't mean that development is in anyway prevented? Dacy: No . e Emmings: That paragraph goes on to say that we suggest that every effort has been made in design of the development to lessen the impact this might have on it. I guess that's the berm and the trees. I don't know if that's doing enough and I particularly don't know if it's doing enough in light of the next paragraph which says that TH 7 is probably going to widened out and that the lots platted directly adjacent should probably be deeper than normal to make the plat more compatible to future plans. I'm concerned about that part along the highway. I remember that we were relunctant at the time we approved the first plan, we asked a lot of questions about why twin homes would be acceptable in this area. Now we're being asked to go to something that would allow apartment Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 39 e buildings. One of the reasons, I think that I was persuaded that it would be alright here were some marketing concerns about putting, sort of having a transition. Not being able to sell single family homes along the highway. That plus the fact that there are already some twin homes to the west on TH 7 on the south side so I thought it seemed like a pretty reasonable approach to the development of the land. I can not see going to R-8. That's all I've got. ElIson: It's such a drastic change from the last one. I guess I don't have a whole lot of new things but I agree with MnDot that I don't think you'd do too well having single family homes against the highway but again, as Steve had said, that was sort of addressed with the original study. I don't know, if the real reason is that he needs more rental income or what have you, I really like the other one better. We sat down with a land use pattern and tried to figure out what to do and I wasn't the one who did it but there must have been logic behind it and I haven't heard any reasons why it was illogical before. I think it looks logical and as I said before, if this gets done, then that's just opening the door for the next one to be changed as well without any good reason to change it. I really don't think it's necessary. Maybe if I had seen this first or something like that but I really like the other one better than this one. There's 36 homes or 36 families worth on one cul-de-sac, that's an awful lot going in and out so I would vote against it. e Batzli: Again, I don't have a whole lot to add. My only comment is that I think that the first plan demonstrated that the zoning was workable for this area. I think it was a fairly good plan and I don't think that there's really been a need demonstrated or an incompatibility demonstrated other than perhaps the one sentence out of the Department of Transportation letter that something needs to be done about the noise but there are other ways to handle that than to build fourplexes rather than duplexes. I think if there was a real need to be creative, the appropriate way to handle it wouldn't necessarily be the R-8 in any event but might be PUD or some other vehicle. I'm against this. Headla: Talking about 36 units here? We haven't talked about parkland but how many were there, 27 on the previous one and we spent how many minutes talking about parkland? I think we should talk about parkland if we want to increase, putting in this type of density because we don't have any parks out here. The closest one that the City put in is 6 or 7 miles away. Batzli: There's a park in Minnewashta Heights. ElIson: I'm sure these people would use the Shorewood park. Headla: really I like plan. I like the first plan Gary came up with. I thought that was, he worked with it and he was... I think it's still a workable plan. all the trees he has here but... I want to stay with the original e Conrad: When we talk about land use plan, by the way. Our land use plan, when was the last time, and this shows I'm losing it somehow, when Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 40 e did we update the Land Use Plan? Dacy: Right now we're currently in the process. Conrad: It's there but it's not been approved? Dacy: Right. So the last time that we looked at the Land Use Chapter was last fall I believe. Conrad: In the proposed land use, that's not had a public hearing, we have designated this as a greater intensity use than residential single family? Dacy: Right. e Conrad: In the previous land use plan, it was similiar? We have not changed it? It seems to me that if the developer, and obviously he has a parcel to work with here and needs to do something but I guess it's still out of context here. We're looking at this particular parcel and I guess as other commissioners have said, I haven't heard a compelling reason to change land use. That's why I introduced our needs when we take a look at land use. I think you have to relate to what we look at. That's transition. That's need. Services. Fire services are taken care of here but shopping centers. Consumer oriented things we're concerned with. You notice that we tend to cluster higher development around those services and that's what we've been trying to do. I think some of the things like fire protection is taken care of. Transportation system other than a terrificly long cul-de-sac with a whole lot of people on it. In this design, that kind of bothers me but I'm not looking at your design as much as I'm just looking at your conceptual things. I think we're missing some things that I look for. I think you are abutted up against some residential area and I don't know, I think we in Chanhassen had planned on how we're going to use the land or how the owner of the land to the east might want to subdivide but so far, in my mind I haven't seen a major reason to say this is a great higher density area. You haven't done it yet. The City hasn't told me that we need more high density units. The City is telling us we plan acceptably well. It doesn't mean we're right. It does mean that right now there's a level of comfort that we can satisfy the need. I would stick with, I'm comfortable that we can put higher density on TH 7. I think that makes sense. I think you tried to do that with your last plan. I'm not comfortable at all with the R-8 district. Not at all. I think there may be something that I could look at in the R-4 but even then, I still have some, R-4 which you've already got on part of your parcel. I'm just not sure what that gives you and I'm not sure what the transition. I'm not sure if we'd have good transitions to the neighborhoods to the west. To the northwest. To the east. I'm a little bit uncomfortable. The opportunity that I see for you is taking this forth to the City Council and in their wisdom may see something that we don't. The other opportunity that I see for you is to create a scenario for us as we hold public hearings in the future when we're talking about Comprehensive Plans and we look at everything. It's really tough for us to take a look at one parcel. It's classic spot zoning. It's classic take care of the e Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 41 e developer because they have this vision of something. We need a broader perspective and tonight in an hour, we don't have that yet. I think you have an alternative when we go through the public hearing process. Whenever the Comprehensi ve Plan .comes in front of the publ ic, that you possibly create an area of sensitivity on the Planning Commission and City Council to do that. That's a long winded approach to saying I'm not sure the city needs higher density there right now and haven't been persuaded and would vote against it. Both the Comprehensive Plan amendment as well as zoning. Anything else? Headla: We didn't talk at all about the beachlot or that right to the lake. Putting that many people on... Conrad: At this point in time, I think we want to say in concept we're not really, and maybe that does have some application, I don't know. I'm saying, do we want a higher density there? Does it make sense and that's what the developer is asking us. Does it make sense to put more density on that land because it fits and because the community needs it? We're really not getting into specifics in terms of design and streets and whatever. We're not there yet. I kind of want to keep it there unless that has an impact on the overall. Does that have an impact on higher density Dave? You might be able to create... e Brad Sworem: Can I make a comment? A couple of things, I understand your position but I'd like to at least address some of the concerns. First of all, some of the neighbors had some concerns about lousy renters. We're not exactly looking at the low end rental scale. Conrad: We're comfortable with that. e Brad Sworem: The second thing is, my involvement with cities and other people, the initial zoning is kind of a broad brush. Say this whole side of town is going to be single family. Planning Commissions are here and City Councils are here to take a look at the specific projects and say yes, I guess we didn't know how development was going to occur. We're going to take a look at a project here and there... It's my view that zoning as it becomes a broad, super compelling reasons for changing rarely ever exist. The idea is, does this zoning change make sense for this particular situation. The reason why we felt so was because a bunch of comments about TH 7, one of the things that people said about we took care of it with the bottom lots, that's true and it isn't. As soon as you put twin homes in there, you may affect the values of the other lots up there so the whole project is, the point is, it's isolated here. It's isolated by traffic patterns in part so that's a compelling reason. It may not be compelling to you but that's the point that I wanted to make with you. We've eliminated the traffic problems and some of those things that make it a good idea. A big issue, the Planning Commission ultimately and City Council gets to decide, do you want this type of rental market in Chanhassen. You will not have it if you require in your high density zoning areas, 20,000 square foot lots for twin homes. Your rents are going to be $850.00. It's going to be high end. Are you going to put everybody into apartments? I just don't think a young family with a couple of kids happens to fit ther, you exclude them from the City of Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 42 e Chanhassen. That's one of the things that, at least so far as... I understand where you're coming from. I appreciate your time on considering this issue and recognize that everybody seems to be unanimously opposed to the project. We'd also like some input from you on what you would think would be the best way to do it. We've presented a proposal. The biggest opposition appears to be because it's R-8. The reason why we went R-8 is because these lots on the north end are 15,000 square feet and that's in order to put a twin home on 15,000 square feet we had to be an R-8. Staff has indicated we could rezone to 20,000 square foot and still put it in there. We felt we addressed some of those other concerns. The same reasons for development concentrations for planned unit developments, to put those twin homes on the south side of TH 7 all enter into play here. We would like some input from you in addition to your probable rejection of our proposal. Is a Planned Unit Development something that you would look on this type of proposal? Because we want to be bound by a limited number of units and we don't want to put up apartment buildings. ...square peg round hole problem where if we get up to this project size, the City's fearful that we can't contract zone or can't enter into a development agreement and the Attorney says we can't do it, should we back track and go into a planned unit development to address those concerns or just don't you like this kind of concentration in this area? e Gary Carlson: This is the original proposal. These homes are 24 x 42. Single family will be bigger. Not too many single families build a 24 x 42 home. These over/under fourplexes will have the exact same square footage as twin homes so basically you're looking at a single family development. We're not changing. We're not saying at what point we've got to have these. These neighbors would then be looking at, if we went with R-4, these neighbors would be looking at the typical twin home which is double garages. Double utility outlets. Double driveways. Double entrances. If you like a twin home next to you, double driveways, double garages and double front doors, this doesn't have any of that. This is a single double garage. The entrance is, if you looked on the plan carefully, everyone comes in the same entrance and they have a two bedroom apartment. Everyone of these single family homes, if I sell single family, will have at least three bedrooms, maybe four bedrooms. I'm building a home with four bedrooms. Four bedrooms. Four bedrooms. This guy could build 3 bedrooms. This guy could build 5 bedrooms. This guy could build whatever he wants. This is going to take this plot of land under R-4 allows 28 units. High density. I'm asking for 36. Still high density. No. No way. I am very low density. This home right here is the same as this home right here. This is already built. This is a development...over/under duplex. This fellow who had a concern about his property value, the fellow before him on the Golf Course Estates, ...the guy that lived there all the time he did, he offered it to me for 92 and sold it for 97. Every penny he wanted. He's next to this rental. Conrad: Let me interrupt. I think generally... e Gary Carlson: ...1 just want to tell you that if you see it working because of the TH 7 noise, your City has these zoning things. All these people that have voiced recommendations, if I were to tell them, yes Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 43 e I want to have 64 units, they would go...so fast. They don't want to see 64 units. I don't want to see 64 units. I want this development, low density. Residential... e Conrad: It's not true. Come on. Chanhassen really is a residential community. We're here every two weeks and we listen to the neighbors, what they want and we kind of echo some of what the neighborhoods say. There are very few neighbors that come into this chamber and say we want higher density. What we had granted to you last time, we gave you higher density because we understand where you are and you're sensitive to TH 7. We granted that. You are not bringing in a low density. You are not bringing in a low density development here. I'm looking at the numbers, you're not bringing in a low density so don't give me that argument. You're putting in more units on the property than what we originally were looking at but we felt comfortable with that. Now you're putting in a few more units. You're asking for zoning that gives you the capacity to put a lot more units than this plan. We're not reacting to your plan tonight. We're reacting to a Comprehensive Plan and a Zoning Ordinance amendment which you requested. We have to react to that. I don't want to react to what you're really doing here. You're asking for zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendments that give you that ability. You're asking for that and that's what we have to react to and we did. You're asking us, what the community wants and we'll kind of, and I'm speaking for myself and the Commissioners you can jump in any time. I don't speak for the balance of the group but we have not considered this area as a higher density area and you can see that on our Comprehensive Plan. You could see it in what we're proposing to the community within months. There just hasn't been expressed a need. There hasn't been expressed a need that we need more units, rental units like this in this economic category in that area. We haven't heard it yet. You're coming in and telling us that you want to do it. You haven't told us that there's a need for it yet. Gary Carlson: We rented this one on a Sunday. I had 25 calls and I have 5 couples. Beautiful people. I thought to myself Gary, how can you decide which one to rent to so I said, I just rented it and I picked one of those 5. How many families can afford $600.00 in rent and not... Conrad: Then you're going to have to present a need to us and you haven't dont that at all tonight. Gary Carlson: If you want to... e Conrad: I don't want to interview them either. We don't have that time. That's not our job but you have to present that need and I think you have an opportunity next week or in two weeks when you go to City Council and you can present that need there and if they feel comfortable with it, I think they can make that decision but you haven't done that to me at least tonight. I understand economics and I understand what it takes to put people in a particular deal at a certain price but I haven't seen the need and I haven't heard the community say to me that we need more of those units. I didn't hear the neighbors say that tonight either. They're not violently objecting to this yet on the other hand they're not L Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 44 . saying, that's the greatest thing. I want it in my neighborhood. I didn't hear one person come in and say I want that here. If it's a little bit higher density, and most residents don't want a little bit higher density. Then you put in renters in their neighborhood and that's why we tend to cluster units like this in different places than we have designated here. But what I said is I think you have opportunities to persuade us and I think we also said that maybe a little bit higher, I think in the past we granted a little bit higher densities and I'll open it up for other comments here in terms of what other commissioners feel is appropriate for this land. Steve? e Emmings: There are a whole bunch of other kind of comments that could be made on this project I think and I tried to stay kind of broad and general because I opposed it on a conceptual idea. That it should go to R-8 just seems preposterous to me and I thought the original plan was a good one but if we were going to look at this plan, and this is a much finer point, you've got all these twin homes and you're talking about families moving in there. The reality of talking about young families that can't yet afford to buy homes so they're living in housing of this kind, you've got a two car garage on each one of these twin homes and each one of the families that live in there are going to have two cars. They're not going to have one car because that's also a modern reality so we've got two cars in garages and where do the other two cars park? There are a lot of other, I'm not asking for any answers but there are a whole lot of fine points of that nature. We're looking at this on a finer level that I think you want to have addressed but I don't think we have to spend the time looking at the project at that level because there's no reason to change the zoning. Conrad: Tim anything? Annette, any additions that you can see? Brian? Batzli: Just my earlier comment that if there was a creative need for this area, I think you'd be looking at a more acceptable way to go about it. Conrad: If there was a creative need, and you feel 8 acres could support. What's our minimum for a PUD Barbara acreage wise? Do we have a minimum acreage? Is our new ordinance going to have? Dacy: No. Conrad: It's hard to be creative in a small area like this and designate it a PUD unless you've got some unique phsical characteristic, right? Dacy: The major advantage the PUD gives you is the ability to base approval on a specific development. That's what the applicant is saying. I don't want to build 64 units. I want to build 36 units and his request is that we consider the PUD as an option to build that plan. e Gary Carlson: I'll drop these fours and make them... I read that State highway report and they said they want, see these fours come pretty close to TH 7. I'd be willing to, that's why if you see a how, I'll come back with a PUD. I'll make these fours into twos. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 45 . Dacy: Again, if the Commission really prefers the original plan that was proposed, that type of direction is to be given to the applicant. If you do not consider the entire piece as twin homes, then that should be said now. Ellson: You did a good sell job on the last one and you were behind it just as much as you are now. All of a sudden you don't like your last one because all loved it and we still do. Gary Carlson: This is the layout. ElIson: with extra people. Extra cars. Conrad: Would anybody on the Planning Commission accept this corning back as a PUD? Emmings: Not if there is a development this intense. I think that's the message. Maybe we'd look at it as a PUD but I think the message is that the level of intensity of the development as we originally saw it we thought was appropriate and we think this is too high. That's what I think. I don't care if you call it a PUD or a zinger. I'm going to be against it if the intensity is this high. ~ Gary Carlson: I would drop the units... Ellson: Maybe that's an idea with the City Council. Conrad: Yes, and I think you should be talking to City Council too. Anything else? Is there a motion? Erhart: I move that we recommend denial of Land Use Plan Amendment Request #88-6 and Rezoning Request #88-1 based on the findings that the density permitted in the medium density residential category and the R-8 zoning district would permit a land use pattern which is more intense in scale and character than the existing land use pattern. Ellson: I'll second it. Erhart moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to deny Land Use Plan Amendment #88-6 and Rezoning Request #88-1 based on the following findings: 1. The density permitted in the medium density residential category and the R-8 zoning district would permit a land use pattern which is more is more intense in scale and character than the existing land use pattern. e All voted in favor and the motion carried. - ' - .~~.- .-..- J Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 46 e PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 46,700 SQUARE FEET INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 24,300 AND 22,400 ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED ON LONE CEDAR CIRCLE BETWEEN LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND HWY. 5, RALPH KANT. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Ralph Kant: I'm Ralph Kant at the residence, 3820 Lone Cedar. I guess the only comment I have is that I have been taking care of this land, this 60 foot piece, cutting the grass and so on, for 14 years so now I'm just asking the City to consider vacating the land. I don't, in my conversations with staff and so on, there would be no plan to put a road in there. In talking with the neighbor to the east, he would like to have an easement so he can get onto Lone Cedar across that property and I have no argument with that. That's the way it would be developed. There is the driveway from that property onto Lone Cedar and any easement, roadway would utilize that same access onto Lone Cedar. That's already in existence. e Emmings moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Headla: I think the whole use is appropriate and I agree with the staff's recommendation. Batzli: I don't have any questions. Ellson: Looks clean. Emmings: Just a key point. Number 2, you want to plan for installation of dock and removal of lakeshore vegetation to City Staff for approval. I want that just to say that that plan comes in before there's any installation or removal because otherwise it's going to be done in the other order. That's all I've got. Erhart: I don't have any comments. Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #88-3 as shown on the plat stamped "Received August 15, 1988" subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed street vacation must be approved by the City Council with each lot maintaining at least 20,000 square feet and 90 feet of street frontage. e 2. A plan for the installation of a dock and removal of any lakeshore vegetation must be submitted to city staff for approval prior to any installation or removal. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 47 e 3. The applicant shall submit plans for the construction of the driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 to the City Engineer for approval prior to final plat review. 4. The applicant shall obtain written approval by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of the driveway onto Lone Cedar Road prior to final plat review. 5. The proposed driveway for Lot 1, Block 1 shall maintain a minimum separation of 100 feet from State Highway 5. 6. A 15 foot utility and drainage easement shall be centered over the 12 inch diameter watermain for the entire length of the right-of-way to be vacated. All voted in favor and the motion carried. DERAND CORPORATION, LOCATED ON COUNTY ROAD 17, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE NORTH OF HWY. 5, OAK VIEW APARTMENTS: A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 18.9 ACRES INTO FOUR R-12 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R-12, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. e B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DIRECT STORM WATER INTO A CLASS B WETLAND. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 136 APARTMENT UNITS. Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report. Ellson: What did you say on Powers Blvd., there's going to be a right-in right-out or you won't be able to take a left in? Brown: Correct. Ellson: What's going to prevent you from doing that is what I'm wondering? Brown: They would have to create some sort of triangular island out here that would prevent that type of movement. The problem with those, we have a Q-Superette that's out there. It has a right-in/right-out island and they do get abused and the County's not real favorable on that type of situation. I know that the applicants are here tonight and wish to get any suggestions or comments from the Planning Commission so they can proceed through the process again at a later date. They've indicated to me that they'd like to see this done. e Conrad: In terms of traffic analysis right now though Larry, there's nothing that we can react to. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 48 e Brown: I'm afraid not. BRW is still looking at this scenario. There's one option of trying to shorten this island up but right now it's just not looking favorable because we need the stacking distance for left hand turning movements onto West 78th Street. Pushing the island further north, in talking with the County, they're not real sure that that's going to eliminate the U turn situation so those people have a choice up here as to going into Excelsior in a straight line or doubling back to go through downtown. Conrad: The island's purpose again is what? Brown: It's going into a four lane road between TH 5 and West 78th Street and then creating the guidance and the channelization is to taper that down into two lane again. Emmings: The project that they're proposing to build fits on this thing where? Brown: It's in this area right here. Erhart: And where's the wetland? e Brown: Right through here. The right-of-way that they have proposed lines up, it will be exact to the West village Townhome center line and their intent is, with the tax increment district, hopefully the City can do the feasibility to get that road pushed through. Ellson: Does it have to go all the way to Powers? Could it just be ending? Brown: With this type of density, if we were to get intersection out here, maybe we could consider that. type of density, it seems reasonable with our plans, and push this road through. It fits our Comp Plan. it. Let's get it...can support the density. a full movement However, with this in the past to try They're proposing Dacy: If we can't get the access onto Powers, it makes the access to the property to the north much more important. That was a condition of approval on the original plat that there be connection. The City wants two full movement intersections accessing that area. Brown: You've all seen my note regarding the tabling. I relayed that to the applicant. He still wishes to be heard by the Commission. Conrad: I think what we'll do is, I don't think we need to hold a public hearing at this juncture but I think we would certainly let the applicant speak to us and if we can provide any kind of comments that we may have on the project in general. Is that acceptable? That we not hold a public hearing? e Ed Flanner: I'm Ed Flanner. I live and work in Savannah, Georgia. I am the principle with DeRand, which is next door to Arlington, virginia. There are several comments that have been made by...in Minneapolis that Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 49 e have been working with the staff here and I feel like everything is progressing rather effectively. I do have a specific suggestion relating to the situation with the road which seems to be difficult to resolve at this time. It was mentioned, the entrance is here. There's an existing apartment complex here and one under construction here. If we could just build this part, which is approximately one-quarter of the land, we could get the people in and out. This is 56 units. It's not a dramatic increase in the traffic and that would give time to resolve the issue of getting this here. Would that be acceptable to you? Dacy: Again, it really depends on our review of that access to the parcel on the north. We asked for that 50 foot easement. Ed Flanner: You asked for a 50 foot easement. That area is in here and that would not be part of what's to be approved at this time. Dacy: If it came down to that we couldn't get that access onto Powers, we would have to be assured that we could get a second way out knowing that the rest of the parcel would develop. We want to make sure that the plan that you had submitted for a 50 foot easement works. I don't know if we can really react and say yes or no. A phased plan could be an option if we can get another way out. e Conrad: From our standpoint, we want you to be working with our staff. If there is a phased approach to this, we would certainly entertain that but again, they have to be comfortable that accesses are there. Ed Flanner: That's fine and I could include that, my question to see what, the issue she had raised was, it has been proposed to be provide access from this piece of property onto this road. I would prefer to use a reservation of an easement because I think if a person's using that road... That's a semantic point but I feel like we could then reserve this piece and connect it to his which would also be reserved. We obviously have got to do some molding of the entrance down here but at this point it seems like it's a very difficult situation. Obviously something with more long term, we can resolve either by improving this intersection or by improving changing this. The point is this is extremely low through here and would take a lot of fill. It may be worth doing that in order to not have the right-injright-out intersection. My request is that you consider phasing. My further request is that we deal with the specific points since I'm here, relating to the recommendations of the...and I might ask that you do that. Conrad: We can do that. Dave, in terms of what you see, do you understand what we're going to do? We're just going to go through what we would have gone through if this had been a public hearing. I think they would like to know what concerns we have. Do we agree with the staff comments? Do we disagree so they can go back and while we're resolving the sequence of phased in approach or highway access, they can also be working on other issues at the same time. What do you see? e Headla: Just the phasing bothers me when you design on the spot. Can we do it here? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - page 50 e Conrad: We canlt do it, no. Their job, staffls job and the developerls job is to go back and the developer has got to show how it would be phased. Staff would have to agree with the traffic patterns during those development stages and access and would have to be comfortable that the future is taken care of but welre not going to do that tonight. We canlt do that. Anything else though in the entire report? Headla: I didnlt go through this one in that much detail. I didnlt get this until sometime Monday. I got through the other stuff in detail. pleasant Acres took a tremendous amount of time so, to be fair, I did not go through this one. Brown: The developer, and I apologize for not bringing this up in my presentation, the developer has a concern as was laid out in their report, that they are not meeting the green space requirements. The impervious area versus the green space. To meet that, theylre proposing that the public roadway be reduced to a 22 foot width roadway. Staff is recommending that although they are private roadways, they retain a 28 foot width. That that standard has been set aside for this type of density and that it not be reduced. That will mean that if we stick to that standard, even though itls a private roadway, that they go back and adjust their lot lines to meet that green space area. e Ed Flanner: We would like to withdraw that problem. Conrad: Let us just give you some direction. 1111 give you a chance to jump back in here. Brian, again going through this. Anything? Batzli: Do we just want to talk about the site plan or do we want to talk about all three or what? Conrad: lId talk about anything because welre not, any inkling that we can give them at this point in time is going to be beneficial. Theylre going to know where welre coming from when it comes back to us and all these traffic patterns are resolved. Batzli: The first thing that really caught my eye, because I usually look at it first, is the wetland alteration permit. It indicates that the applicant isnlt going to make any physical alterations to the wetland. Then we put all these conditions on it that welre going to provide a detailed plan and free form and shall embankments. Does it meet these right now? Whatls going on here? Dacy: The reason for the alteration permit is that the wetland will be receiving the storm water run-off from the area. Although they are not proposing to physically alter it, there will be additional water coming into the wetland. What theylre saying is that if itls going to be acting as a storm water pond, then it should conform to our typical conditions for Fish and Wildlife pond. e Batzli: Do we know that it conforms or doesnlt conform? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 51 e Dacy: At this point, no. That's why we're asking for the calculations and so on and verification to determine exactly how much water would be held within that area. Batzli: What about all the slopes and things like that? Do we have a grading plan on this? Brown: The slopes within the wetland? Batzli: They're not going to grade it. Does that area already meet our wetland requirements or the DNR's or whoever it is? Dacy: It's a lot steeper than the slopes identified in those standard 6 conditions. Nonetheless, it still provides good area for habitat. Batzli: Are we going to be requiring that the applicant make adjustments to the existing wetland in order to make it conform to a wetland? Is that what we're doing? That was my real question but I wanted to see if we had an answer. Dacy: To be honest, I can't answer that at this time unless Larry's got a good answer. e Brown: One of the things that's pending. Normally you see on-site ponding to maintain the predevelopment run-off rate. U.S. Fish and Wildlife carne back and stated that this wetland could use additional flow. We went back to the Watershed District. The Watershed District says, as long as they address water quality issues, that the flow going in there is clean, fine. As long as it meets our Wetland Alteration Permit, let it go to the wetland on the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. These volumes of flow to determine whether it's going to have too great an impact or not enough impact to help the wetland out, are analyzed through the plans and specs. The actual number crunching volumes. That's why the issues is kind of held up right now. Batzli: Two questions still remain though. One is, it's an existing Class B wetland. Is the holding pond something different than the wetland? Brown: No, it is not. Batzli: Okay, so the basin shall have shallow embankments with slopes of xyz. The basin will have uneven rolling bottom contours. Is it the current wetland? Does it meet these so they're not going to go in there and dredge this thing? That's what I'm asking because I don't want them to do that. They're going to be wrecking a wetland to build a wetland. Brown: The plan that they have now, no. There's no proposed changes. e Batzli: Would we require them under these conditions to change it? Dacy: We'll take a closer look at that. That's a good point because we can change that the slopes are steeper and we're going to have to take a Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 52 e closer look. Conrad: Weren't we concerned about the quality of the water entering the wetland on this? Brown: Correct. Conrad: And therefore you were recommending creating a pond? Dacy: upstream. Conrad: Upstream and you just said... Batzli: That's a filtration area. Conrad: You just said that the pond was in the wetland but I thought it was upstream which would mean that it wasn't in the wetland. e Brown: They will be using the wetland, they will be directing their storm water run-off to the wetland. Period. Exclamation point. There may be either a structure or a mini-pond, not like what you're used to seeing, as far as to address the water quality. That does not address the storm water retention because they are actually adding water to the wetland. They are not going in and creating at this time a separate pond within the wetland area. They're just directing that flow to the wetland. Conrad: I liked it before you gave me the answer Larry. I think it's real important, and being from out of town and maybe not totally familiar with our ordinance, we're real concerned about wetlands here. It's real important that the quality be maintained. I'm trusting staff is telling you what our standards are and we have a lot of other agencies jumping into the thing but as long as we're getting agreement. I read this as we're trying to make sure that the increased run-off is as clean going into that wetland as possible. Now all of a sudden you're telling me everything is being dumped in there and we haven't done it so I'm going to end my comment by saying we're real concerned about the quality of water going in there. I trust you can work with staff and resolve the issue. e John Duffy: I think there's been a little bit lost in here. What we are putting in, we are not affecting the wetlands at all. We're not doing any work there. We're dumping only clean rain water in there which will already be treated before it goes in at a minimal flow rate. There's nothing going into this wetlands except slow moving, treated water that goes in there. The plan shows a disipation structure on our property which the design will be approved from the Watershed, which controls the flow rate, sedimentation and all that. From there it goes into the wetlands. There's no need for a pond at all. If you read through your report there, they question who's going to maintain this disipation structure. Therefore, the staff is recommending putting a pond on our property that would control the sedimentation and then flow into the wetlands. We still feel the disipation structure is the right way to go. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - page 53 e We're going to have somebody on-site, living there full time that will maintain that and we'll put that in the development agreement. Batzli: There's an indication on the site plan that there's going to be a storm sewer layout. I assume that when we resolve this whole thing about how much water we're dumping in there, that's going to be controlled and the storm sewer takes off additional? That was my major question. Conrad: Annette, what guiding words do you have? Ellson: Pass. Conrad: Steve. Anything that the developer should be working on for you while they're solving the traffic. Emmings: I see there's one garage space for each unit and I wonder what people do when they have more than one car and I wonder if parking is adequate for any people who have parties and have people over. I didn't look very hard at this plan, in fact I didn't read it to be perfectly honest because it looked like it was being tabled. Dacy: They're already exceeding parking requirements. tit Emmings: That's a different issue. We get into that all the time. Dacy: And additional guest parking. Emmings: When a plan comes in, that's something that I'm going to be looking very closely at because I think most people, a lot of people have two cars. A lot of people have people over and I want to be sure that there's some reasonable parking for everyone. Erhart: What's a disipation structure? How does that work? John Duffy: It does two things. Because of the topography, the velocity of water corning down exceeds what can go into a wetlands area so we built a disipation structure which is really a series of concrete baffles that slows the water down. Then when you slow it down, any particulates in the water will drop out and they fall into this basin that we're building. From there, the clean water flows into the wetlands. Erhart: When does it fill up? The sedimentation. John Duffy: Actually that's the series of calculations that will go to the Watershed and they won't review it until the Planning Commission says okay, go ahead. Erhart: When it does fill up, you have some way to clean it? tit John Duffy: Yes, it eventually fills up and somebody has to clean it and that's why the staff was saying, they're not sure if somebody's going to clean it so in lieu of that, they would like a pond built with certain Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 54 e slopes like you were discussing there. We're saying that in the development agreement, we'll agree to clean it. It can be inspected any time of the day or night. Erhart: Do you think it's less expensive to put this structure in? John Duffy: No, actually the structure is more expensive but it's going to be required anyway because of the high velocity of water. You're dropping about 30 feet there so we're going to have to build that anyway. We might as well use it for sedimentation collection also. Batzli: Is there going to be oil run-off off of impervious surface? John Duffy: There's undoubtedly going to be some oil run-off so there are weirs built into this structure that will skim the oils. Again, that design has to be approved by the Watershed. Erhart: stuff? Have you gotten far enough here that you've got trails and Are these sidewalks to downtown and so forth in the plan? John Duffy: We asked that this go to the Park plans and they say, no that's something that's handled separately. We've got the space for it and we'll certainly agree to anything the park plan wants. e Erhart: This is just a preliminary review isn't it? Dacy: Yes, and the Park and Rec Commission recommended constructing a trail along West village Road and a 20 foot trail easement along the east side of Powers Blvd. and to accept park dedication fees in lieu of park land. Erhart: Remind me again here, what are these three squares here. What does this designate? Dacy: Potential building space. Erhart: For single family houses or apartments? Dacy: Apartments. Erhart: It would just seem to me that using this area as somewhat of a park and a wetlands area and providing trail around that would make sense as well. John Duffy: I'm going to speak for Ed, some of that land could be donated in lieu of the park dedication fee. I think that'd be okay. e Emmings: I just want to ask. On that street problem. It comes from 4 lanes from TH 5 to West 78th Street and then you've got the problem with the island. Why couldn't you just put the island up on the other side of the road? They want to put it out and continue the 4 lanes up to your street. Do you understand what I'm saying? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 55 e Brown: There's quite a list of reasons. Some of them are still corning in, as a matter of fact, as to why that island has ended exactly where it was. If you're real familiar with the area... Emming: That's something, when I look at it, it looks to me like that would be way to get two full intersections in there and still reduce it but just a little further north back to two lanes. If that's ridiculous, fine. If it hasn't been considered, then take a look at it. Conrad: My only comments are really consistent with staff report. Maximum 35% lot coverage. That's got to be. I don't care how you do it and I wasn't going to let you off by reducing road sizes either. I think you've got to come up with the 35% someway and if you do, it will sail through. We talked about the wetlands. You hear our point on the wetlands. Don't need to belabor that point. The 25 foot front yard setback, you've got to meet that. Those are just some absolutes that we just don't slack off of at all. Anything else? Ed Flanner: May I interject one other issue? That is the handicap. We have this symmetrical building...8 units. If I expand this area, particularly with the handicap having a 12 foot space, what I'd like to do is put 2 handicap units per building so that I would have a balance in the way the building is built. The report asks that we mix them and spread them throughout the project. I feel...for the maximum 2 handicap units in the building. e ElIson: What was your reason for that? Ed Flanner: It's a design use. ElIson: I understand that but what was her reasoning for the opposite? Dacy: I'm not sure and I'll work with the applicant on it. Headla moved, Batzli seconded to table action on the preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit and site plan review for the DeRand Corporation. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS IN A FREE STANDING BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. Public Present: Name Address e Roman Roos Jerome Carlson Applicant Barbara Dacy waived the staff report due to the hour of the meeting. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 56 e Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Batzli moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Ellson: The only thing I wondered is, by doing this, do they have a rule that whoever's using this building is the only one who can use that day care or then does it fall into, like any other day care, whether I work there or not, I can use that day care? Does it make that any more strict that whoever's in the industrial office park is limited to it? Are there any restrictions on it to people from the outside? Dacy: I asked the City Attorney that question and the City would not be able to go that far in how exactly who's children the day care center could... As a free standing use, it's up to them. Batzli: I move that the Planning Commission approves Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: (13) State Licensed Day Care Centers. And additionally to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers as provided in the Staff Report, conditions 1, 2, 3 or whatever those are. Erhart: Second. e Bill Boyt: It would seem to me that you're going to pass this onto Council with no comment virtually. This is going to be a difficult issue. I would like you to think about, because many of you are parents, what we think the issues are so you could at least layout what the Council people should be thinking about. One that jumps immediately to my mind is that we have intentionally kept them out of the Office Park previously. There are some good reasons for why it would be nice to have child care very close to where a person is working. There are some definite drawbacks I think to having child care in an industrial office park. I'd just like you to, if you've thought about any of the issues, if you could just identify what you think the issues are, it might help the level of the discussion when this gets to City Council. Erhart: What do you think the drawbacks are Bill? Bill Boyt: I think it depends on what they're next to I suppose but let's suppose that we've got, as it turns out, they're next to the mini- storage area. Now we're going to have traffic potentially all day long. Basically unsupervised. Do we run any safety risks by putting one in an industrial office park? Do we have any considerations for should it be any different if it's in an industrial office park than if it's downtown or if it's somewhere else? I don't know. I haven't really thought about this issues other than just I know it's not going to be a simple yes or no kind of discussion when it gets voted on. e Batzli: I think all the concerns that you raise are ones that would be addressed. It's being added as a conditional use, as I understand it. That's going to have to be reviewed on a site by site basis. If you want us to adopt standards, further standards than what we just added, we Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 57 e could consider that. I don't know. That's a good point. Bill Boyt: I don't know either Brian but I wasn't hearing anything that was going to be real helpful. ElIson: As long as it's a conditional use, it means we get to say, now this is by a mini-storage, therefore we're adding some stuff. Emmings: I think what you're hearing is we all think it's a good idea. Conrad: We all thought it was a good idea when it was in a building and the building that would service the employees of that building. We're lumping these two together but the point that Bill brings up is probably pretty valid. All of a sudden there's a free standing building. We no longer have the same rules. It is now not necessarily functioning for that one company which we were all really comfortable with with Instant Webb before because again, it wasn't a profit motive. It was a service motive to the employees. Now we've got a different situation. Emmings: I don't think so. The reason I don't think so is that I think people need day care and I think it's important. I think it's nice to have it by where they work. e Conrad: But you wouldn't necessarily put it in an industrial? Ernrnings: I would put it there and frankly, unless I worked there, I wouldn't want to take my kid down into that probably either. I think it's going to primarily be used by those people down there and if other people want to bring there children there, I don't care. It seems to me the important thing is that day care is available for people who need it and where it is, if people don't like it down there, then they can take their kid someplace else. That's almost a market factor. Conrad: Your industrial parks are typically, they're maybe not designed for pedestrians and whatever so you don't feel any sensitivity to kids going out and playing? Emmings: But they're going to have to provide a place for the kids to go out and play and that may be a little difficult for them in the industrial park than some other setting. That's why I think as a matter of fact, the people who are going to want to use this thing in the industrial park are people who are going to be working there and are going to be handy to it. I don't think anyone's going to chose that location. Conrad: Are we comfortable we've thought about this first item enough? Thought about the situation? Steve has. e Erhart: There is requirements for outdoor play area and that's in the overall requirements. ElIson: The drop off point, that usually means a separate driveway so you're dropping off your kid on a road that's got traffic going back and Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 58 e forth. Dacy: As a free standing facility, there can be more flexibility to address those separation issues and safety issues. I think it's going to be more of a problem on the next item as part of the a multi-tenant office building where you have to go back and review parking areas and reconfigure existing situations. Conrad: Everybody comfortable we've done our homework on this first one? e Jerome Carlson: I'm Jerome Carlson, the CEO of the three companies. We'd like to proceed with this project. ...my comments as far as it relates to traffic, is that in our plan will be reviewed whether we want to put it into the Instant Webb building or not, I can assure that one of the two primary factors...had to do with this very same issue. The corner of that building where we were going to put this day care was where all of our heavy trucks entered the premises to go around to the back to unload and then when they exit, they corne right back around the same corner and this caused a lot of concern on my part and on the part of... We didn't feel it was something we couldn't manage. We planned to put up the appropriate security fence... The other reason that we chose not to use the Instant Webb site is because the space requirements that we found ourselves having as we do continue to grow. We then chose to a site close by, off-site. with all due respect, I think you will find that the safety standards of that particular site is very isolated. As far as the monitoring of traffic, there is no traffic. It's a dead end and it is, I think appropriate from a traffic standpoint... Relative to the question of whether we are private or public as far as the personnel that would be using this location. Our intent remains to provide a service for our employee group. The surveys that we took clearly indicate that what we are intending to do is in line with the survey needs. For some reason that facility does not attract from the employee base, we would certainly then in order to operate it on a break even basis, which is really all we want, we would then want to reach out to the...public. But that is not the objective here. The objective is to provide quality, cost...day care for our employees. That's not changing. Roman Roos: ...permitted use, free standing or otherwise. The conditional use process lets you look at each item... I think in terms of a free standing day care center, such as the one we're presenting to you, or a day care center in an existing complex, both really serve the same needs... We're just finishing up one in Chaska right now...for two companies. One is for a manufacturing company... I think the thing that we're looking for tonight is to get a recommendation to the Council that day care, free standing or otherwise, is a desirous thing. The issues... the traffic, all of those can be handled on the site plan review... e Conrad: Bill, are you seeing something? I think we were going through the first item here because we've obviously talked about this before and we're pretty much rubber stamping it, until you made us stay later. What other issues, do you see other issues or are you just really saying, hey any other thoughts that we have? Are you uncomfortable? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 59 e Bill Boyt: I'm not opposed to this. I simply want to be comfortable that when we put into the office park, because we are now moving it out of a building. The first one, I think the Council was, one of the conditions of approval was that this would apply only to people who worked in that facility, as I recall. So we're changing the parameters. We're making it, as Mr. Carlson said, basically a free standing day care. When we do that, I just want to make sure we do it right. There's certainly a need. We've had some more discussion about it. It gives me a little bit of a feel where they're coming from. I think it's very important that we know exactly what the standards are. I'd like to see in the staff report Barbara, that those be more spelled out...to go with the existing State standards. Maybe the State standards aren't good enough. Batzli: I think that these guys are going to do a fine job and we're amending the ordinance and we don't know what will come in through the door the next time around. Conrad: Any more thoughts along this line? Tim, are you comfortable that we're reacting with enough information? e Erhart: I don't know much about day care centers because I haven't used it. I guess I would basically make the assumption that there are some pretty good rules in effect in regulating them. We're using the, it would be okay here, from a safety standpoint I guess. The overall feeling was that this probably would be safer, I'm comparing it with a private home, safer than a private home. Better fire protection. It's more of a disciplined environment in the industrial park. Private homes tend to be private. Things happen in private homes that... Conrad: And you feel comfortable that we can put this type of operation into a free standing unit? Erhart: Overall, I'm very comfortable with it. I think yes, maybe we should spend a little more time reviewing the Code and learning more about day care centers but then again... Conrad: And you don't care who goes to that day care center? Erhart: No, I don't think it makes a difference. business. I think it's a great Emmings: Let me tell you how I feel about day care. I can remember the panic in my own breast when both my wife and I had to go to work and something had to be done with our child. It's a great need out in this area in particular. I think we should do everything we can to make that type of service available. Especially for people who work out in Chanhassen. Having your kids close by to where you work, for those times when they need you and you have to be there, is really an important thing. e Conrad: Brian, do you want to amend your motion? Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 60 e Batzli: I'd be happy to accept the suggestion that if staff would like to look at additional safety points for inclusion for the Council's consideration, that's fine. Conrad: Was your motion ever seconded? Batzli: I don't recall. Dacy: Tim did. Conrad: Tim, would you amend your second? Erhart: Sure. Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-15 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: (13) State Licensed Day Care Centers. Additionally, to add Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers: e 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements. 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas. 3. Each center shall obtain applicable state, county and city licenses. Also, that staff will look into additional safety points for Council's consideration. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-814 TO PERMIT DAY CARE CENTERS AS PART OF A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON PROPERTY ZONED lOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. public Present: Name Address Scott Anderson Sue Applicant Building Block Day Care Barbara Dacy presented the staff report. e Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - page 61 e e Scott Anderson: My name is Scott Anderson and I'm with Anderson and Associates. We're corporate adminstrative consultants working with New Horizon Day Care. New Horizon Day Care has about 30+ locations currently in the 7 county market and this particular location, working with Heitman will be the, there are three that we're currently working with with Heitman Properties. The property of course was developed by Opus and Heitman is the current owner. Heitman being a pension fund that owns properties such as IDS Tower and the City Center and First Bank East and West and little things like that around the Twin Cities market. Just to respond to a few of the quick issues that were brought up earlier, in general I think day care is just an extremely rapidly growing industry and initially when the concept of day care was to put them closer to residential uses. Now I think a vast majority of expansion in day care that we're seeing on behalf of New Horizons and other day care clients as well, is to be closer to the place of work than closer to home. That's one of the biggest single reasons that in Chanhassen you're seeing this. We're in front of Minnetonka. We're in front of the City of Minneapolis, Burnsville. There are already current locations within industrial parks in multi-tenant buildings. As an example, Eden prairie on West 70th Street, ...is probably the closest one. In Minneapolis, we get a multi- tenant building. In Minnetonka, a multi-tenant building. We're looking for facilities in downtown Minneapolis and in the last couple weeks a multi-tenant office building was suggested in Minneapolis showing a day care. In fact, day care on the skyway system in downtown St. Paul with access to rooftop for playground. Day Care is just in tremendous demand and what we have is a very good operator, New Horizon Day Care. When you look at some of the information in there, it's considered one of the best in the united States and they come very highly recommended. They've always been high in the State of Minnesota standards, which by the way, the State of Minnesota has some of the strictest safety standards in the united States, if not the strictest so I think when you consider day care, as far as safety issues, the State of Minnesota really does a real strong look at every single one of these facilities. In addition, New Horizon has been in business since 1971. This is non-profit corporation that will be running this particular facility called Building Blocks. If there is additional space available, and it's only if, there's a very small percentage chance another one of the elements that may be incorporated into this facility is something called Chicken Soup. It's for sick kids. It's another thing we're working with to expand throughout the Twin Cities market. Again, the present demand to work with the companies, close to the companies for care of the sick children as well as an entity that would provide, subsidize through the corporation, day care. With that, if you have any questions. Sue from Building Block: ...One of the things that I wanted to point out is the real benefit we have being close to work is when you already have a provider in another location, a neighbor or another center, if something happens and you can't get there,... we have all the...call in sick. I can't come today, my provider is sick. I don't know what I'm going to do... e Scott Anderson: ...we already have a waiting list in excess of 30 students without any advertising. without any marketing so the demand... Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 62 e We are close to 50% tuition filled and we've done nothing but word of mouth so there's another side of the demand. Emmings moved, Headla seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Emmings: I don't like this one. I shouldn't say I don't like it. My reservations about it being in multi-tenant buildings as opposed to a fre standing facility is simply access. One of my concerns, I'm not using day care anymore. One of my major concerns when I did use day care is who has access to that building? How do we know, if you've got a multi-tenant building, you've got a lot more people coming and going. Both the people who have offices there and any clients they might be seeing and deliveries being made. It seems to me that security in a multi-tenant building is totally different than in a free standing building. They probably know a lot more about that than I do but I think maybe we want standards for a multi-tenant building that says that the entrance and the exit to the day care facility is separate and distinct from the access to the building itself. Scott Anderson: It definitely is. e Conrad: We're not reviewing your application. Emmings: I'm glad you thought about it. I guess what I'm saying is, maybe we ought to have that built in here. ElIson: In case the next guy doesn't. Conrad: Why? Emmings: I suppose you can let the parents worry about it but you know, my feeling is, when you need day care, sometimes you go out and you get what's available because when you need it, you need it bad. If that facility, why don't we impose that on people that are going to build in here rather than forcing parents of kids... Conrad: What's going to happen between the car door and the front of the day care center? ElIson: unless it's a high rise or something and you don't even know where it is and all these people are coming in and out. We don't know. Sue from Building Block: They all have to be ground level. Conrad: You're kicking your kid out the car and saying, well hopefully you get there? e Sue from Building Block: sign their child in. Also, all of our parents have to come in and Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 63 e Conrad: We're really not looking at your particular application. conceptualizing here. Do we need more requirements is what we're I'm trying to force us to think about this. I'm not showing any sensitivity but others are I guess. I guess I'm not sure, what's to happen? Tell me what's happening? We're saying? going Batzli: It may be after you drop the child off. Conrad: Because between the time that you drop the child off, didn't you walk them to the door? Emmings: Of course. Ladd, I always did but you know, using day care is a real emotional thing from the standpoint of there's a lot of anxiety. First of all of leaving your most valuable possession with somebody else, anybody else to start with. I know that the one that we used was in a free standing facility but it was in an apartment complex and that's something that we talked about a lot. It was who has access? How easy will it be for the people who are running this facility to recognize people who should be on the premises and people who should not be on the premises. As a comfort factor, maybe like I say, maybe it's purely an emotional kind of issue and maybe I over reacted, I don't know. I don't think so. Maybe the stuff is all designed in already. e ElIson: Doesn't the State say all these things right now? Sue from Building Block: regulations. I think they're all covered through the State Scott Anderson: The facility is designed for security... Sue from Building Block: That's a State requirement, signing in and signing out and asking for IO's. On your State forms, you have to have who can pick up the child. Anybody different has to have a signed authorized slip from the parent and you have to be identified with a Minnesota drivers license or picture 10. State requirement. Roman Roos: ...the ones that forth corning also, I think you will find that day care is one of the most state regulated businesses that you can possibly get into. I can't begin to tell you what we're going through with State inspections... Batzli: I have safety concerns again. The same ones that I had the first one and I don't know what the State says they have to do or don't have to do so I'm counting on the staff that they did their homework and she carne up with the 2 or 3 items that the State didn't cover. Headla: Did you look at the State regulations? e oacy: Yes. They are, in general, included in your packet. The standards that we are adopting as a part of this application is currently in the Ordinance also. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 64 e Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of zoning Ordinance Amendment Request #88-14 to amend Section 20-814 as follows: (14) State licensed day care centers as part of a multi-tenant building. Additionally, to add to Section 20-292, State Licensed Day Care Centers: 1. The site shall have loading and drop-off points designed to avoid interferring with traffic and pedestrian movements. 2. Outdoor play areas shall be located and designed in a manner which mitigates visual and noise impacts of adjoining residential areas. 3. Each center shall obtain applicable State, County and City licenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 17, 1988 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ~ TREE PROTECTION POLICIES. Erhart: If this is easy to do, I'm all for it. I still have a little hard time understanding why, we basically handle Class 2 wetlands. If someone smells a Class 2 wetland out there, somehow we can't let him, can you prohibit him from wrecking it and I think we do it effectively. I can't understand why we have been effective in preserving trees. If we have to do a whole great big overlay and make a drawing of all the trees in the City, that's fine. It's just a lot of work. I just have a hard time understanding why we have to do that. But if that's what we have to do, that's fine. Batzli: easily. It seems to me you could do aerial photos and do it really Dacy: There's more implications in wetland areas as far as buildability and poorer soils and so forth. Trees add value to the lot and so on. Conrad: So our direction to staff is to proceed? Dacy: Yes, we're going to take this onto the Council. Emmings: Along with the issue of blending. ~ Batzli: And blending and without appearing to be trite on this tree protection policy, I think it is something that we definitely need to do as well as the blending. I think we're kind of giving it a little bit of short trip since it's so late but I think it is very important. Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 65 . Headla: On tree protection, on the land next door to me. I see this great big shovel going down to the lake. This is great big steel tracks and I don't know how many tons. They just barely fit between two oaks. They're hauling rock down there for the storm drainage. He comes back up and gets another load of rock and goes down again. I don't know if you're familiar with those. You disturb those roots by driving a tractor past it a few times and disturb those roots, 3 to 4 years they're gone. Now these two oaks are old oaks. I thought we were going to protect those trees. They're going to be dead. I'd bet a paycheck with anybody. Conrad: How would you stop that Dave? Headla: You don't drive stuff down there. Conrad: But how do you want to do that? Larry can't be out there telling them. Do we need an ordinance that says don't drive within 10 feet of an oak? What do you want? Headla: They had a tree plan. That should be in that tree plan. Erhart: I think what we should do, we should pay special attention to oak. It's not just that but I mean, trimming oak trees in the spring is an absolute no no and if we're going to go through this, we ought to incorporate some words in there. e Conrad: Are we looking for guidelines? Headla: Yes. Conrad: Which means enforcement but at least the guidelines should be there. So we should be chartering staff to be looking for guidelines that talk about construction in areas. That talk about simply operational procedures to preserve what's there. That makes sense. I don't know that we can moniter it. There's no way. Headla: If we can improve the situation 30%, we're way ahead. Batzli: And you're going to go after the people that are flagrantly violating it. If one person drives over an oak tree root once, you're not going to catch them anyway. Erhart: A lot of people just don't know about oak trees. They go into a development and they go beat up the trees. If you scratch or break an oak tree in the spring. Conrad: A lot of people don't know about the whole root system of some of those plants and they start planting dirt around it. The last item Barbara is you. I think for myself, as I told you on the phone, I'm really sorry to lose you. Chanhassen is losing an outstanding planner. I've just been so impressed with what has been done in the last year by so few people. I wish you the best. . Planning Commission Meeting September 7, 1988 - Page 66 . Dacy: I think it's a fair statement to say that I've really grown here at Chanhassen the last four years. I'm definitely not the same person I was four years ago, both personally and professionally. I really appreciate the Commission's patience Ladd. Some of you older members. If I can work with the same type of people up in Fridley, I'll just be ecstatic. Erhart moved, Ernmings seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.. Submitted by Barbara Dacy City planner prepared by Nann Opheim e . I l