Loading...
PC Minutes 5-2-06 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 McDonald: Does anyone on the council have any comments they wish to feed in? Okay. There are none. Then I would accept a motion from the council at this point to possibly table this issue until June the 19th. Haak: It would be the June 20th meeting. McDonald: June 20th, okay. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for the surface water management plan until such time that all comments are reviewed, which was June 19th? McDonald: 20th. Papke: 20th. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the Surface Water Management Plan update until the June 20,2006 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: GALPIN CROSSING TWINHOMES: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICUL TURAL ESTATE DISTRICT A2. TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. RESIDENTIAL. PUD-R: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL CREATING 13 LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND MORE THAN FOUR HOMES ACCESSING A PRIVATE STREET: AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET AND WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT EPIC DEVELOPMENT XVI. LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 06-13. Public Present: Name Address Gerald P. Wolfe T om Ernst Charles & Gail Gelino Larry Martin Bonnie Anderson Mark Magnuson 7755 Vasserman Trail 7749 Vasserman Trail 7729 Vasserman Trail 7725 Vasserman Trail 7732 Vasserman Place 7715 Vasserman Trail 3 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone on the council want to start with questions? Papke: I've got a couple. Page 2 of the staff report describes, there's a paragraph in there, under a perfect scenario the use for open space and storm water ponding in conjunction with the southern parcel allowing us to get an intensification of the use on the parcel adjacent to Highway 5. Could you provide a little more color and background to that? I mean it sounds like we're settling for something other than the optimal. Generous: Right. Unfortunately the developer has chosen to split these two projects. While the site is developable, they're not taking any of the density credit that they could have or impervious surface credit out of this thing so right now we propose only to look at this one so we have to look at first, what's the appropriate zoning on the property and whether the subdivision that's proposed complies with that zoning. Papke: Okay, so to kind of sum it up in my own brain here, the developer has a choice of either developing the plat on the south side of the frontage road very high density and then leaving this open, or kind of spreading out the density between the two and he has chosen to do the later. Generous: To do the residential along on the north side and then, they have a concept plan for an office park on the south side... impervious cover on density of development. Papke: Okay. It was kind of in the staff report about the narrowness of the, the area between the private street and the public street and issues with snow removal and not banking up. Are we well within all of our design standards for the width of that strip of land between the private street and the public street? Are there any issues or concerns with that or any precedent on something of that size? I mean it looks pretty darn close to the public street. Fauske: Commissioner Papke. The ordinance doesn't specifically stipulate that back from right- of-way to public, pardon me, to a private street. Staff s intent was just to bring this to the developer's mind that this is an issue in staff s mind and that they need to accommodate snow removal within their development. Typically in a development like this they will be trucking the snow off the site just because there's the constraints of the site that they have right now. We just wanted to make sure that that was just a concern staff had and to have a plan in place for snow removal. Papke: Okay. On page 4 of the staff report, under the rezoning it mentions an exchange for the enhanced flexibility. Your expectation will result in a higher, significantly higher quality standard. Where, can you comment on where do you feel we are gaining this equality on this particular development? Where are we getting the up side? Generous: Well the up side we believe is the providing of the design standards that the individual units would have to comply with of stone, brick and access material on the front... they have windows in the garages. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Papke: Okay, and are all those things stipulated in what we're reviewing tonight or are any of these just things we're going to hopefully. Generous: Well under the development design standards which begin on page 5 and 6 and they're under building materials. Papke: Okay. We don't have any examples of what they're doing or anything at this point? Generous: Not at this point because they've not given a site plan so we were trying to develop what we'd like to see as a part of this as opposed to, to the subdivision... Papke: Okay. Page 6. Streets and access. First paragraph. We have this interesting little cul- de-sac right off the, you know that makes up part of the private street off the main street. Is it the intent that there will be an access into the office industrial area directly across from that when that is developed and what's in place to make sure that that happens? Generous: That's being hampered by what's in place that as part of our review will require that. Papke: Okay. Question on page 8 of the buffer yards. I didn't quite understand where you state in the report that the applicant has submitted less boulevards but the spacing is preferable to 30 feet. Can you explain why 50 foot spacing is better than 30 foot spacing? It seems counter intuitive. Generous: What I got from Jill as to why the, in the median areas to be filled with understory type growth as part of this development proposal rather than just having. . . tree every 30 feet versus our standard boulevard design. It was more natural feeling and worked through the whole development. Especially what's required that they provide additional native plantings in the rear of the site. Papke: I'm not quite following that because in the proposed column of the table, all of the understory numbers are well below the required numbers, so I'm not computing how that adds up. How you're saying, you know you're saying that we're getting more understory stuffbut all the numbers don't add up to looking like that. Generous: And I knew they'd have to, they're going to have to bring up those understory numbers to meet the minimum for that. Papke: Is there, I don't recall, is there a condition in here to stipulate that? Generous: Only that they provide the revised landscaping plan. Papke: Okay. So only another. Keefe: Well the 30, which was the applicant shall increase understory plantings with the buffer yard areas to meet the minimum number. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Papke: Okay, okay. So that's it. Keefe: Condition 38. Papke: Okay. But I still, even if they bring it up to the required amount, I don't see how just making the required amount offsets the increased depth between the trees. I'm still not. Generous: I believe Jill's thought is, you know move space between the overstory trees you'll get a healthier and larger tree as it grows because they won't be crowding each other. Our buffer yard requirements can be pretty stringent, especially if you confine it to a narrow area. Papke: I'm just not used to having less trees being better. Okay. We're going to have to come back to that one at some point. I think this is my last one, hopefully. Page 9 of the staff report. The last sentence here says that storm water ponding must be constructed for the additional post development runoff when the property south is developed. Who does that? How do we guarantee that? How does that happen? Generous: Well the developer would be required to provide ponding on the south side of the road when that develops that would not allow, increase the impervious runoff to the north. Papke: So the storm water ponding would be on the south side. It kind of reads like you're expecting more ponds to go in on the north side when that's developed on the south side. It's just kind of, am I just confused how I read it? Fauske: I apologize Commissioner Papke, you're correct. That should have read that the storm water ponding must be constructed on the south parcel for the additional runoff under post development conditions. Thank you. Papke: Okay, got it. That's all I've got. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kevin. Dillon: Yep, under the recommendations number 2, a cross access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street. What are the usual, what are the terms of that? Or what would. Generous: Specifically that the benefiting properties are responsible for snow plowing and maintenance of the path and they share the costs over the... property. Or over the entire development. Dillon: So that means that the city would require that, the developer with the owners of the property? Generous: Well the only way they would as part of their agreement, as part of purchasing their property they'd enter into the association and they be responsible for all the maintenance with that. But then it also gives them the rights to use it... across the common open space. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Dillon: Okay. And there's going to be 12 homes accessing the private road. What's the usual number that you get from just like one per driveway? Is that the? Generous: Well under single low density you get single family homes, we have 4 and that's part of the application... because we treat twin homes like single family. So they have 12 total coming into this. Ifwe go to townhouse development, then there's no such prohibition and you can have as many. . . the development has proposed in there within reason to get. . . under, even though we consider a lot... Dillon: So on the private road, and they've got an agreement in place. How does the, you know years from now, when the road might be needing repairs and stuff like that, how do we ensure, how does the ensure that it's properly taken care of even though the city residents wouldn't necessarily be driving on it every day. It could be an eye sore or something like that if it wasn't. Generous: Primarily it will be the association responsibility but the city does have a property maintenance ordinance that requires that if things are left in disrepair. . . and the city will be able to go tell them that there's too many potholes there. But primarily the association would give them, when you're in an association you pay a fee into your association for maintenance and upkeep. Part of that is for capital replacement costs. Dillon: That's all. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: I just had a couple. The PUD-R, there's a trade-off of setback. Relaxation of setbacks for increased design. What will that allow us to do on that? I'm not sure. Generous: Well yes, because under the PUD they don't have to make the lot meet a specific rectangular area so they're just platting around the unit and creating more common open space. Under a typical zoning and subdivision like for R-4 you need 10,000 square feet per unit or 20,000 square feet so you create a rectangle that's 20,000 square feet of that and yes, what they did is they... Right now we have a 50 foot setback from West 78th Street to the structure and under that you would be able to do. . . Keefe: Okay. And then what we get back is a better design. Generous: And we believe that will give a higher quality structure. Keefe: Okay. The condition 44 and 45 address the grading, you know and raising the lowest floor elevations. I think 45 it says, the developer must modify the 100 year elevation for Bluff Creek. What is the 100 year elevation for Bluff Creek, do we know what the number is? Generous: No. They need to verify it. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Keefe: I'm just a little concerned that we don't know what that elevation is and that what if it comes back at 965 now? I don't know what the number is. I mean does it need to be at 30 feet above the high, 100 year? Generous: When that's... final plat they have to verify that. Keefe: So I'm just wondering if these zoning, instead of stating the actual number in there, does it need to be 3 feet above the 100 year elevation? Generous: Well we believe the 100 year elevation is lower from that. We're going from the wetlands.. . Keefe: Yeah. I'm just wondering what this site, and it's a fairly, you know all the way across it's kind oflow. You don't have a lot of and so, you know I presume they're based against the lowest elevation, you know 957 it looks like. Are we going to have a water issues particularly in light of what we saw last summer? And even here the last couple of days. I don't know if we got just as much in the last couple of days as we did in September, but I guess, so... it has to be above the 100 year. Generous: Well our ordinance already states that. They need to meet a 3 foot separation. That is based on our current information. I believe 958.5 will satisfy the... Keefe: Okay. I think, isn't there a sidewalk going across the north side of this? Is there a requirement to replace that or how does that? Generous: Yes if they destroy it... Keefe: Is there room to do that give you know where we're at here? I mean it looks like the private street goes, it looks like a bituminous path is there already. I just want to make sure that we've got. It just seems like there's a lot going in but it does look like... Ifwe state in the conditions... that they need to replace the pad. I'll look for it while we... find it. McDonald: Okay, Debbie. Larson: Well I just have one, because I think pretty much everything else has been covered. Regarding the, oh are you done? Keefe: Yes. Larson: Oh I'm sorry. Wetland buffer listed on page 9, towards the bottom. Talking about the 16 1Iz to 20 feet must be maintained around Wetland 3, and then I'm looking and I'm not clear on, it looks as though, now is Wetland 3, is that the one that's the most north? Generous: Yes... Outlot A. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Larson: Okay. Then there's a pond that's just adjacent to Lots 3 and 4. Does that not apply to that, because it looks so close to those two units. And I can't see. Generous: There's no buffer requirement from storm water ponds. We did push for. . . as part of their revisions... was our concern that the unit was getting too close to the storm water pond. Larson; Okay. Generous: Yeah, then ponding next to the wetland, we do that all the time because that's the recharge for that too so. . . overflow and this would go right into. . . Larson: Okay. That was the only concern I had. Undestad: I've just got one question for you Bob. The southern parcel on there, how many accesses onto 78th in that? Generous: They only have one onto West 78th, and I believe one onto Galpin. Undestad: And will that line up with the one? Generous: Yeah, we created... McDonald: Thanks Mark. Dan, do you want, what you wanted to ask? Keefe: He answered it. McDonald: Okay. I've got a couple of questions for you. When this originally came before us and we were shown some preliminary drawings there and everything. There were fewer units. We've increased the density on this particular site, and I know that was one of the concerns we had before was even with the numbers that were presented before, we thought that may be, it'd been crowding it but again because it wasn't any kind of final drawings we withheld judgment until we could see some detailed plan. Now it comes back and there's more units and you begin to look at this and it does look as though you're trying to fit 5 pounds in, or 10 pounds into a 5 pound box and what's the trade-off for us? Why, I mean is it the design standards? Are they allowed to do this per the ordinance or what's the thought process here of allowing this to increase in density? Generous: Under the concept plan you are correct, they did show 10 units. 5 twin homes. However there was no approval on the number of units there. The conditions were show that . . . appropriate but show that you can comply with all the ordinance requirements. ... and it looks like it complies with the ordinance except for some changes to the elevations. McDonald: Okay, because I guess I'm really concerned about, you get to Buildings 3 and 4, the way that they're in there next to you know Buildings 1 and 2, and that got me starting to the thing about setbacks and everything. How does this begin to meet those? What are the requirements there for spacing between homes? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Generous: There's nothing specific in the ordinance on that. It's more a building code issue from, if you're within 3 feet of a property line and you have. . . If this is platted, this individual lots under R-4, you'd have a 10 foot side setback.. .10 foot separation. Basically we responded to the applicant's proposal, given that the criteria we had.. . Bluff Creek Overlay District and the West 78th Street, and meeting the 50 foot setback from West 78th Street. And this is what.. McDonald: Okay. Okay, you may have kind of answered my next question because you said something about the impervious surface area and that if we looked at the entire lot, I think you said they were only at 27%. Is all of this kind of one lot? I mean we're not looking at putting a percentage of hard surface on a particular area? Are there lots here for these twin homes or are they really kind of shared one lot? Generous: Each of the units would have it's own lot around it, but then they have Lot 13 which we're proposing they designate as Outlot B would be a common lot. And that's where the majority of the driveway is. So it's averaged over the entire project. Like I stated currently, they're under I believe 23% right now. As they're proposing it with all the house pads and all the driveways that they have, including the minimum 25 foot deep driveway, and my analysis was, if they were to fill each of these lots fully, 100%, they wouldn't meet the 30%. They wouldn't reach the 30%. McDonald: Okay. And then you said one of the things that we were doing as far as going along with this is that we get a say in design standards. Then you mentioned about windows in garages. We had a discussion last week with a builder that was in here where we tried to get windows in garages put in there and we couldn't do it. Why now can we do it with this development? Generous: Because that's the design standards we're proposing. He can accept it or not. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: Part of the zoning. Generous: Yeah, this could become the design standards for the zoning for this property. . . McDonald: Okay. Thank you for your answers. I have no more questions. Does anyone else back on the commission have anything before? Then at this point I guess we'd like to hear from the applicant. If you'd come forward and state your name and present your case. Mark Scholle: Good evening commissioners. My name is Mark Scholle. I am the engineer on the project and I'm here representing Epic Development tonight and basically I took some notes on some of the questions that were brought up and I can kind of clarify some of that stuff from my standpoint, and then from there if there's any other questions, I'd be willing to take them after that. One of the concerns that was brought up was the grading and the adjustment in the low floor elevations on the units. We have taken a look at the grading plan scenario and we are planning on making those adjustments. The high water level elevation on the Vasserman Ridge 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 project is known, and we actually tried to find out what the high water level was for the Bluff Creek corridor and we were actually told it was the 955 elevation, so that's why the low floor elevations on those units are up at the 958.5, so that's where that came in. The question on snow storage. We did layout, even though the way the site is platted doesn't really clearly show the different setback from, or the minimum widths for the private street or setback from that. We incorporated the setbacks that were in the concept staff report, or the standards that were set with that staff report with a concept approval, so we incorporated all the conditions that were in that to do this layout. There was a question about you know why did the developer choose to bring the north side versus the south side. Really I'm kind of speaking for the developer here so I hope I'm correct but I know that the developer wanted to bring in both at the same time. However, due to the city wanted to undergo a market study, city wide market study so we were asked to hold off on making further submittals on that to see what the results of the market study would be. So we proceeded with the north side since it was residential. Since we were proposing residential and it met the zoning. Other than that, I think if there are any other questions I'd be happy to answer. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Papke, do you want to start? No questions? Dillon: What is the target price range for the homes that will be put in here? Mark Scholle: I personally can't really answer to the target price range on the homes but I do know what is planned to be put in. The type of unit that would be put in there would be similar to what's over on, to the west on Vasserman Ridge, but I can't, I guess I can't speak to the pricing of the units. Dillon: Okay. McDonald: Dan? Debbie? Mark? Undestad: I've just got one for you. Raising all those units, you know some of those 5 feet or 4 feet down there. Do you have material on site to balance that out or is that, you going to bring in a lot of fill on that thing to raise those up? Mark Scholle: Well I anticipate that we'll be bringing in some material to not only bring up the units a little bit but also there's going to be some correction involved with that site anyways. There's some, there is going to be possibly some excess material on the east side of the site that we can bring now into that area, but I would anticipate that we're going to be importing material to bring that in. Undestad: Okay. McDonald: I've just got maybe a questions for you. One of the concerns about the private street, and the way the driveways and everything come off of that is, what do we do for guest parking? Has any of that been accommodated in the plan? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Mark Scholle: Well I know that the, we have laid the plan out in regards to the standards that were set. The width, I think what the plan would be for that is a guest could park in the driveway. McDonald: Could guests also park across the street then? Would that be part of, and then walk across? Mark Scholle: Yes. McDonald: Okay. That's going to be all the questions I have at this time then too. At this point, with no further questions we would now throw this open for public comment. We would invite members of the audience to come forward. State your name and please address the commission. Larry Martin: Chairman Keefe, commissioners. My name is Larry Martin. I live at 7725 Vasserman Trail. On your diagrams there I am Lot number 8 in Vasserman Ridge. I want to speak to four items tonight. They are the density, the issue surrounding the private street, the landscaping and tree situations, and also the power line issue that I think is severe. In my comments I will be referring to the finding of fact items and I will be relating each of my items to a finding of fact item where you can interpret the situation to the finding of fact. First let's talk to density. As Bob talked earlier, this area is guided for low density. R-4 would be 10,000 square feet. RLM 7,200. These are numbers that are in your report there. And the proposed is 3,750 square feet per unit. So you can see each unit is substantially below what the zoning things would be and I agree that PUD-R is probably the right classification for this and in order to go forward with it, but the density is very high. This is a 6 acre site, but if we look at some of the spaces, if! can have this put up here. The peak units there, actually occupy about 1 acre of the 6 acres. The outlot, area outlined in yellow is another what, 2-2 1Iz acres or so, and the green area is another 2 1Iz acres or so. So I don't know how you do the math and things like this. There's probably standards for doing that in the industry and in development and stuff like this, but it looks like you're putting 12 units on 1 acre. That is a substantial density. We think that the spacing on those units is not consistent with adjacent units, and I'd refer you to finding of fact items 70) and 5(b) to refer to that. On Vasserman Ridge I'm blessed to have a larger unit. I have 17,500 square feet in my townhome unit. I don't think there are any under 10,000 in Vasserman Ridge, so when we're looking here at 3,750, it's also the way these units are placed. When you place the air conditioning units and other mechanical units outside of them, you're really going to be putting things together. Some of the drawings that you have show you what the blacktop pavement into the garages are. If you look at that, you'll see that substantially all of that area in front is blacktop. There isn't much room for grass or plantings or other things. So it would give a very what? City feel to it. A downtown Minneapolis feel to it or downtown some city. We think that the density on those is overly crowded. As Chairman McDonald brought up, the original was for 10 units. We're now at 12 units. Another item I'd like to address is the private street. As you know the guideline for that has been stated is no more than 4 homes. There are 12 units put on this private street. We hope that there will be a homeowners association there, and I'd like to suggest that as part of the developers agreement, the covenants for that homeowners association be included so that this snow removal doesn't get to be a problem. It was brought up by, I think it was Commissioner Dillon there that the distance between the street and the homes is minimal. Keep in mind what we're going to have here is 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 we're going to have a boulevard. We're going to have a trail system. We're going to have another separating item. We're going to have a street, and then driveways and the homes. The driveways will be substantially smaller than driveways in adjacent places so, there might be, well there will be an opportunity to park one car in there, but you're right. There is no opportunity for guest parking. The private street here that they're putting in is 1 1Iz football fields long. About 450 feet. That's a long street. For snow removal you can imagine that overnight if we had a 10 inch snowfall, the person who's living down there in Unit 12 is going to have quite a difficult time getting from their townhome unit out onto the street. The way they have designed this little cul-de-sac going into the unit, looks like a round bubble going into there. Ifwe did put a development across the street, and I think that is proposed, that's probably going to have medians and turn lanes in it. Across the street here you're going to have another unit that's this bubble that's going onto there that people can go, so the traffic isn't channeled very well as it goes into there. Also I can foresee that when that office complex goes in, some type of traffic control might have to go in there. Be it a 4 way stop or whatever. I think those considerations should be looked at and should be taken care of as part of the initial plan here. The amount of blacktop I think on the driveways and on the private street would have very little aesthetic appeal. Let's see. We have up at Galpin Boulevard and 78th now a U turn problem, and I know when we talked about the office complex, your right-in/right-out, left-out's and everything, they're going to all get confused and so there's going to be a substantial U-turn situation that's created there and that would be opposite this street into the townhouse. The landscaping, presently there are 4 to 5 large willow trees on the west hand side of the park property. My understanding is, and I could be corrected, the object is to come into the site and clear cut the site of every tree. That's going to have to be done because of the filling and things that they're going to have to do. We're happy that as part of the agreement they are looking at landscaping on the west hand side there, but the other thing which concerns me is the whole landscape maintenance in what's now Lot 13 and also Outlot A there. On the west side of the property is a power line. If you look at Unit 3 here, I believe that power line, the roof of that would be about 20 feet from the power line. Somebody could reach up with a long pole and touch the power line. Don't know what Xce1 Energy's requirements are for that. They have the easement under the lines there but I think that this is being crowded into that power line. The private street, I would refer you to items 6(d) in finding of fact. We talked about that. Also item 4(f) and item 7(h). In conclusion, I feel that granting a private street here of this length is problematic and in the years to come it will, we would look back and see that that is not probably the best way to go. As far as the density is concerned, I feel these units are right on top of each other. They talked about the raising of the units up 3 to 5 feet or whatever works out. If you look at your plans you'll notice that the pad heights on the first floor of the home are now about 4 feet above the street, so in 50 feet or so we're going to be raising up 4 feet or so. It was talked about for some of the units, I think 1, 2, 3 and 4, that they might have a different architectural design on there. Well there goes the benefits of our PUD out the window if they're going to have different architecture there and different architecture for the other units. I think that goes out the window so. In conclusion, I think the density is too high for the site. It's not consistent with the area. It's not consistent I don't think with Chanhassen's neighborhood communities. There is no neighborhood of these townhouses. They're just units that are put there. I don't know where children would play. I don't know how families would get together. There'd just be blacktop in front. A private street is problematic. I'm not happy that they want to clear cut those existing 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 willow trees that are there. And I think the power line issue needs to be looked at further before any approval is granted. Thank you for your time. McDonald: Thank you for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and address the commission? Okay, seeing no one else. Gerald Wolfe: I'm Gerald Wolfe. I'm on 7755 Vasserman Trail. Lot number 2 that's even with the property. I think I'd just like to reiterate what Larry said for the most part. I do, I'm concerned about those willow trees. If you've been out to the site at all you'll realize they're probably 30 feet tall, if not taller than that. Whatever they replace them with, it will be 25 to 30 years before we've got trees that size again and I probably won't be around to see them. There's a statement here under grading and drainage on page 8 that says the soil bore reports says there's approximately 2 feet of peat that exists south of the wetland and that that's all going to be taken care of. We had the benefit of snow on the ground, what little bit of snow we had this past winter, when they did these soil bores so we saw where the truck drove around the area when they did the soil bores. All the soil bores were done on the south side of West 78th. There were no soil bores done on this property. That I was aware of. If they did them, they did them very lightly on their feet, because there were no marks from trucks. I question where the high water mark was in the 1987 super storm. Did we go above the level that they're planning to build these basements? Let's see, what else did I write down here? Oh, the setback, the 5 foot between the private street and I suppose the trail. I find it hard to believe that you can plow snow and only have it be in a 5 foot width. And hauling out of there is going to be extremely costly to an association of only 12 units, and I am also upset about the 12 units since we had a 10 unit proposal in November. I work with a person who lives in a oh gosh, is it 12 or 14, no 10 unit. She lives in a 10 unit townhouse complex over on Mitchell Road in Eden Prairie just, or Baker Road actually. Just north of Valley View Road on the east side. And they're very nice townhouses. They sell in the $450,000 bracket right now. And I asked her today about their association. And she has lived in it since it was brand new. They did not until this year, and that's like 15 years now. This is the first year that they are now starting with their association to build up a reserve. In the past they have not done it at all, and even without that, their association dues are $230 some dollars a month. And for the most part they individually take care of all the sealcoating of their driveways. They take care of all of their own personal landscaping. Pay for anything they want done to that, so none of that is included in their association dues. They just do that all above and beyond so this could become a pretty costly association for these people in my opinion, so that's my piece. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you very much for your comments. Does anyone else wish to get up and address the commission on this item? Okay, at that point then I will close the public meeting and I will bring the issue back before the commission for a discussion and a vote. Mark, would you like to start the discussion? Undestad: I think the densities seems to be an issue all the way around. Although with a PUD you know they're allowed to, we get the clustering of the homes in order to spare the green area elsewhere on there, and it sounds like even if they did hard surface on everything out there, they're at what, 21, 27 percent. They do look like they're jammed in there a little bit though. I mean I don't know if things were looked at with the applicant going back to a 10 unit 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 development back there, but it might be something to take a peak at. There are some issues in there. The snowplowing and the maintenance issues. The minor green area between the walking trail. I mean you can kind of get an idea of how that might take place and it's going to go off the driveway, off the green area and the next road over is the walking, the bike path trails in the winter time on there. On the other hand I have to go back to, it's being created as a PUD so the standards that have been set in the negotiations with the city and the developer as the PUD then, I'm okay with those. I think the only issue I'd have maybe is possibly looking at that density yet. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Debbie. Larson: Okay, I've got a couple things. Who was the first gentleman that stood up? Mr., thank you. I was also somewhat concerned about taking out all these willow trees, especially if they're as large as they are and I don't know if there's any way getting around that. But that would be something that I would like a little bit of looking into. He also pointed out that there was no green on the front but the way I'm looking at the picture, it looks like there's green inbetween, unless I'm looking at this wrong. Are the driveways in the middle or are they on the sides? And I was under the impression that the driveways are on the sides of the units, with the exception of 1, 2, 3 and 4, but the other ones tend to look like they're on the side so that would look like a green area inbetween, to me. Let's see. And the other thing is, are there any things put in place, ordinances or whatever or would it be just at the discretion of the owner to put trees in the front yards of any of these because it doesn't look like any of those trees, other than the ones inbetween units 6 and 7 are out front. So I can understand how it would, we're going with not much in the way of planting in front of the buildings and is that something that can be considered or? Generous: There is a condition that each unit have a tree in their front yard. Larson: Okay, because I'm not seeing it on here. Generous: No it's not on the plan. It's a condition of approval. Larson: Oh I see, okay, okay. Generous: So they'll revise it. They're supposed to revise it... Larson: Alright. Generous: To incorporate any conditions in the final plat documents, construction plans. Larson: Okay, but is there any way that we can save any of these willows? I'm sure if they're. Generous: That would be grading. Fauske: Yeah. In that area it's really area it's really a challenge. I believe, and I apologize. I just have the small plan set but I believe the willow trees are on the west side there on the 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 property line. And that's really a challenge when you look at the grading operations. They also have a storm sewer proposed through there, and in order to build that site up for the 5 foot match in at the property line, get your storm sewer and that, tree preservation is certainly one of the most difficult things along those areas so that was the challenge I believe. Larson: Okay. I mean because willow trees, I mean I have some that grew from, I think I sprinkled some pussy willow seeds probably 7-8 years ago and it's quite large in my back yard now. I didn't realize that's what it was. But I think they grow a little faster than 30 years to get up to the height you're talking but. Anyway, that was all I had. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dan. Keefe: Bob again, just a couple questions for you. One of the questions that was brought up was the length of the private street and the number of houses that can be on a private street. Is there any limitation associated with that? Generous: The length of streets are generally the fire marshal's concern. He didn't have an issue on this. Especially that they're going to be sprinklering these. Keefe: And it's right along 78th so. Generous: Yeah, accessibility wasn't an issue as far as the fire marshal was concerned. It was more aesthetic. We were concerned with. . . and that's also one of the reasons we made them redo the landscaping plan to show that buffer yard in there. Keefe: Yeah, but there's no, nothing zoning about the number of houses which can be on a private street? Generous: Our ordinance was recently revised to allow a maximum length to 800 feet. For cul- de-sacs. Keefe: Right. It looks between building 3,2 and 3, there's like, I don't know what the distance is between those two buildings. It looks like you've got, I think it's a zero setback between buildings or something in there. Generous: Two property lines, it's, the way it's... we're saying is there's zero setback on the individual lot. There is separation requirements though for the lot to the house like you get in the fire codes and stuff. Keefe: That's what I was wondering in regards to those. Do those meet, do they meet by the fire marshal? Generous: Yeah, as far as he could at this level. Keefe: I don't know how you navigate in there. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Generous: Also the lot lines look a lot different than the actual structure because they're actually separating their structures from the lot lines because remember they're building from the common line out. Keefe: Right. Okay. And other requirements for an association that we could add as part of the PUD, is that typical? Generous: Well it would have to. . . directed towards the association. Because the development contract conditions go with the property. Keefe: Just in terms of comments. I just feel like this is, I think it probably meets, well from our perspective it probably meets what we have to approve but I'm uncomfortable with just how tight the site is and all the various issues. Private street. Easement associated with electric. The low condition of the site. Access to the site. Willow trees coming down. I'm just generally uncomfortable with it but I don't know that we can, if it meets the conditions I guess we're in a position we have to approve. Generous: It's a planned development so you do, your interpretation could be that. What our expectation is different than this... What I drafted in here is a starting point and I wanted everyone, including the developer, is acceptable. Keefe: Right. Generous: Do we need to be more stringent? Less. I thought they were pretty good with developments over time, but they're... changing technologies have evolved. Market conditions. Things change. Keefe: Right. Okay. Dillon: My only comments are, I'm still just curious as to what the target price is going to be and who the target market is going to be and just you know someone to answer the question why would they buy a home in this development versus some other one. I just, maybe that's not the role of the commission so much but just a bit of curiosity that I have is, and it just helps to go into the decision making process so, the next time around if someone could answer those questions, that would be great. And also just to comment on a couple of comments on, you know it does seem like a pretty long street. Not that many houses. You know I think the owners will just have to have their expectations set properly. They probably won't be inexpensive in terms of a local fee to keep that thing, but that's again probably not necessarily the concern of, as a commission member but we, I am concerned about the overall, if we do this, the overall marketability of the project. That people will be able to, you know won't, they'll go buy it and just won't sit there and sell. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I'm really struggling with the density of this one. In a lot of cases the Planning Commission is kind of getting to what Commissioner Keefe was alluding to before, our hands 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 are tied when we don't have much discretion when the developer meets all the setbacks and so on. I want to make sure I understand what our discretion is. What discretion the Planning Commission has in this case to accept your recommendation of the PUD-R. I'm concerned we're giving this developer a diesel power shoe horn to fit a dozen tiny little lots on this very small, wet site that's bellied right up to 78th Street in perfect vision as you come down that street. What discretion do we have in rejecting your recommendation for this zoning? Generous: You can, the recommendation that this comply, it should be limited to 10 units. It should be limited to 8 units. It should not be.. .PUD but straight zoning. Those are all options that the Planning Commission has. Papke: Okay. I'm tending, I'm feeling like in this case that we've settled for the lowest common denominator here. When we saw this concept proposal before there were 10 units. We had concerns with the density. We come back with 12. I don't get it and we went the wrong way. And like I said, we're giving the developer a shoe horn with the PUD-R to put in anything they want to, and it's not, at the 3,300 or whatever the average density is, boy that's, that's pretty darn tiny. So I'd, you know I'm an advocate of rejecting the PUD-R. I mean if we were, if our hands were tied behind our backs, I'd say sure, you know. I think the developer's done a good job of meeting the constraints that we put down here, but you know we don't have to accept this. McDonald: Okay. Well I guess with my comments I'll echo some of what you all have said. It's, I don't see where we have a lot of discretion based upon this. It's, we take this as it is or we have to go the other way, which we can do and we've done before. I think based upon this plan, I don't see how you can do it without a private street. I don't care for the private street in this particular case because I think parking's a problem. And again, City ofChanhassen has to enforce parking problems when people start to call in. Yeah, you can park across the street but I don't think residents are going to do that so I do believe that there needs to be some fore thought for the fact that people will have guests on the site, but again within the PUD-R it meets the requirements so I would go along with it. The density, yeah I'm a little kind of concerned about that too because it was, it was 10 and I thought it was a little bit packed at that point but again it wasn't a detailed drawing and we were going to work some things out because there were some issues with the Bluff Creek Overlay area but everybody knew where that was at and we'd come up with something. Looks as though we have again, I don't know. You get into marketability. I think to answer one of Commissioner Dillon's comments about that. That kind of begins to put us into a little bit of a design mode which we're really not, but yeah it's a good question to ask but we really shouldn't be setting price points. It's up to the developer to take the risk of putting something on a street such as this, and you're right. I don't think families are going to buy into it because West 78th Street's just going to become worst. I raised concerns before about the U- turns down in the other outlot, but that's not part of this development so I won't bring it up, but traffic is an issue and I think that we had given staff a directive, you need to look at Galpin Boulevard as part of this whole development area. Yeah, if we're going to have an access directly across from this, what do you do? Is that going to be a traffic signal? Stop lights? I don't know but you know traffic becomes an issue. And it's just, if! sum it up, the problem I have with this is density. That's it in a nutshell. I guess it's up to the commission to decide what they want to do about it but if we're going to go along with staffs recommendations. I do not see where we have a lot of leeway because again they've met the requirements for this type of 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 development so it would be up to us to look at something else. With that I will now take motions from the commission on this project. Keefe: What do we have 3 motions? Take them individually or together? I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes project from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. McDonald: Okay, do you want to take this one at a time and vote on it one at a time? Generous: It's up to you. Well depending on what happens with the rezoning with the rest of it. McDonald: Okay. Let's take them one at a time then. Okay, you've heard the proposal that's before us. It's a recommendation A. All in favor signify. Keefe: It needs a second. McDonald: Oh, I'm sorry. Got ahead of myself. I need a second. Dillon: Second. McDonald: Okay. It is so seconded. We have before us recommendation A. Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development Rezoning the property within the Galpin Crossing Twinhomes project from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Commissioners Larson, Papke and Undestad who voted in opposition. The motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. McDonald: Okay, I think that's 3 nay's and 3 aye's. So tie 3-3. Okay. Keefe: Move on, I take it probably a tie. Well, we'll just take one at a time. Letter B. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 62, correct? Since you added one. Generous: We added one. McDonald: We have 62? Okay. Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat creating 12 lots and 2 outlots with a variance for the use of a private street and for more than four homes accessed via a private street, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated March 16, 2006, revised April 19, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. Designate Lot 13 as Outlot B. 2. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over the private street. 3. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 4. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 5. Yellow curbing and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3 and 503A. 6. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn around designs to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.5. (Exception: the code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system installed in accordance with Minnesota State Fire Code Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3). 7. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protections shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 501A. 8. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 9. The new proposed street will be required to have a street name. Submit proposed to street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.3. 10. An additional fire hydrant will be required. Maximum spacing is 300 feet. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of required additional fire hydrant. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 11. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 12. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 sq. ft. in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 13. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 14. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before building permits can be issued. 15. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-resistive construction. 16. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 17. The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 18. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. 19. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets the required 40- foot primary corridor setback. 20. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Outlot A. 21. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. 22. All area disturbed within 200 feet of Bluff Creek shall be stabilized within 3 days. 23. The plans shall be revised to show all areas with 3: 1 slopes or steeper that will be blanketed. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 24. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the ponds shall be provided. The EOF could consist of rip rap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 25. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 26. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. 27. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls should include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 28. The proposed storm water ponds shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show how the water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. 29. An adequate easement for pond access for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be shown on the plan. 30. The proposed silt fence along Wetland 3 shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site, including the 20-foot grading setback from the primary corridor. The perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 31. The grading plan shall be revised to show the location of the proposed rock construction entrance. 32. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 33. The estimated total SWMP fee based on 2006 fees, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $28,670. 34. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 35. At least one tree is required in each front yard. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 36. A landscape plan denoting areas of sod shall be submitted to the city. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. 37. Native plantings will be required along the northern edge of the development parallel to the wetland and Bluff Creek. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to final plat approval to the city for approval. 38. Applicant shall increase understory plantings with the bufferyard areas to meet the minimum number ofplantings required." 39. The developer must obtain permission from MNDOT before performing any work within the MNDOT easement. 40. The developer must obtain permission from Metropolitan Council to perform the proposed grading within the sanitary sewer interceptor easement. 41. Prior to final plat consideration, the developer must show the overhead utility easement on the plans. 42. The building footprint must not lie within the overhead utility easement. 43. The developer must comply with any setback requirements the overhead utility company Imposes. 44. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 1 through 4 must be raised to a minimum elevation of 963.1'. This condition may require a different housing type (SE, LO, R). 45. The lowest floor elevations for Lots 5 through 12 must be raised to a minimum elevation of 958.5' . Developer must modify 100-year elevation for Bluff Creek. 46. The final grading plan must identify an emergency overflow location and elevation for the proposed pond. 47. The grading plan must be adjusted so that soil grades are minimum 2%. 48. The proposed grading north and west of Lot 12 must be adjusted so that the drainage swale will not direct runoff toward the backs of Lots 11 and 12. 49. The six foot high berm on the east side of the private drive must be shifted to the east to provide minimum five feet of boulevard space. 50. The developer must ensure that the final grading plan does not include driveways sloping towards the homes on Lots 11 and 12. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 51. Driveway grades must be between 1.5% and 10% at any point within the driveway. 52. The developer must submit existing and proposed drainage maps. 53. Hydraulic calculations must be submitted with the final plat submittals and must include storm sewer inlet capacity analysis to verify that 100% of the runoff from a 10-year event can be captured. 54. Prior to utility installation the developer must obtain a permit from Metropolitan Council to connect to the interceptor sewer. 55. The storm sewer installed with this project shall be privately owned and maintained since it does not serve public property. 56. Advanced warning and traffic control measures required during the watermain connection must comply with the latest addition of the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 57. The developer must submit a financial security with the final plat to ensure the restoration of West 78th Street and the bituminous trail. 58. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. These fees are collected with the building permit and are based on the rates in effect at the time of building permit application. The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of these fees. 59. The lowest floor elevation of each unit must be shown on the utility plan. 60. Snow removal from the private drive must not encroach into the public right of way. 61. Storm sewer manhole at west driveway entrance should include a 3' sump. 62. The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat recording." Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5. McDonald: Okay, recommendation B fails 5 to 1. Next. Keefe: For item C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1 and 2. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Larson: Second. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to the following conditions: 1. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate grading within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40-foot setback from the primary corridor. The plans shall be revised to show that the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 meets the required 40- foot primary corridor setback. 2. Outlot A shall be protected in perpetuity through the dedication of the outlot to the City of Chanhassen or by the recording of a conservation easement, to be approved by the City, over the entire Outlot A." Dillon voted in favor, the rest voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5. McDonald: Now, we've been here before and I want to ask before I move on, what do we do next? Do we need to make counter proposals to this or does it go back as far as we look at things, or it goes to City Council? Generous: ... do you have a recommendation on how they should go forward? McDonald: Well I thought A failed. We were in favor of the Planned Unit Development, or it was a tie so you're right. 3-3 so it in effect fails. Well the options are we can propose something that we would like to see, and that can go forward along with our recommendations here to the City Council. Or we can send strictly our recommendations forward at this point that we turned this proposal down. I would look at from the commissioners, do we have any counter proposals that we would like to put on the table? So we would substitute on A, instead ofPUD, vote for an R-4 is our recommendation for going forward. Okay. Does one wish to make a proposal? Or do we wish to have discussion on this? Keefe: Well I don't think we necessarily have to propose anything. I think we can summarize... so that they can go back and re-create... or they can take it to the City Council and over turn. McDonald: I would ask you, because of what happened before, what we, we tried to send what was a message in our proposals going forward. Ifwe go with, we rejected this, as I see the options, our options are to go to the City Council and do a review there. The City Council can vote on it as a final say. Or we can propose what we would think would be a better use for this, and then you and the developer, or the developer can then make up their mind which way they want to go. Keefe: It's in their court. McDonald: It's in their court at that point. Keefe: Yeah, we can just guide in terms of what we think and it's in their court to re-propose. We aren't necessarily proposing... 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Undestad: I think the PUD is still a good issue. I think it's.. .as an issue of the. .. Papke: R-4 or. . . more or less dense. Undestad: But they still do a PUD and come back with a less dense development. PUD can control the design standards. Larson: In the PUD. Generous: Other zoning R-4 would control lot area only. So yes, they meet the 10,000 square foot per unit, and it's possible they could come in with and show 12 units if they do that. I don't know, it'd be up to them. It gives them an idea how the Planning Commission feels. Also the commISSIon. . . McDonald: I think the direction that we're going ahead is lower density. Papke: Less than 10. Larson: But I like the PUD idea if we can have a little control as to what they put in it. How it looks.. . McDonald: I'm not sure that we can do that. That's where I'm having trouble. Yeah, you can control design, which is where we're at now but we can't control density, which is where we are with the other, and then you lose the designs so. Papke: What are you really getting, and that was my very first question. What were we getting for the PUD? We're getting a couple windows on the garages. Larson: Okay. Papke: I'm not dancing in the streets over that one. Keefe: I think our issues are, is the density is an issue. We want to see fewer units on the site. We'd like to see some consideration for the willow trees on the west end of the site. What were some of the other items. The private street is a concern. Rear yard, well I don't know... McDonald: On this particular lot, that's the only way that's going to work. Unless you're going to create a real traffic problem with West 78th. I guess the only thing we would do, is we need to look at giving guidance so that we would prefer lower density and then allow the developer to come back at that point and show us a design based upon that. So I think what I'm hearing is, we would need to go with an R-4 is our recommendation for this lot. And I think we would need a motion for that. Keefe: You could do PUD if they came in with fewer houses on it. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 2, 2006 Undestad: Aren't we just providing guidance with what we want to see? McDonald: Strictly as a guidance. Do we want to give guidance that we want to see lower density? Ifwe do, the only way I think we send a message, R-4. If you're saying that okay, we want to see lower density and we trust you. At this point, it doesn't look as though we have a good feeling with this developer because of what happened before. We're shown 10 and we get 12. Keefe: What ifhe came back with PUD and 8? With 8. With townhomes on it. McDonald: Yeah, I mean it's just something with lower density on this with the constraints you've got would probably be more preferable than what's there now. Larson: Okay, can I make a comment? McDonald: Yes. Larson: As opposed to that. Bob had made the comment in his opening statement about it, there is a bit of a transition going from Vasserman to this unit to Galpin. And getting closer to a busier intersection, if you will, and I don't see a problem with this being a little tighter as you get closer to a major, an arterial road. And so I don't know if that's as big of an issue as if it were further in where it's not as close to things and so maybe I don't have so much of a problem with the density. I do somewhat because it looks like they're touching each other but you know, I don't know if they really are. But I don't know if that's something to stop it from moving forward. Papke: But the closest one.. . have you seen the one up on.. . and 41. We approved a year ago? That's no where near this kind of density. .. It's right on 78th. Right at the intersection. Larson: Except that this is two major streets versus one. Papke: It's right on 41 and 78th. McDonald: I guess the thing is. Larson: Oh, oh. I think, yeah. McDonald: I guess the thing is... sufficient for the record that we have stated what our feelings are. That the issue is density. How it is solved, it is at this point it's up to the developer. He's got a choice to make as to which way he wants to go with this. Either go back, work with staff. Address the issue of density and then resubmit something or he has the option of going forward with the City Council as an appeal process for our decision at this point. So I guess with that, I would close this case as far as the Planning Commission is concerned and it is now up to the applicant to make a decision as to which way he wants to go. Our concerns are in the record. The City Council will have those. They can make the decision at that point, or the developer can make the decision to redo this. At that point we've met our requirements I believe. Okay. 27