Loading...
PC Minutes 1-2-07Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Ditto. Keefe: No problem. Dillon: I'm fine with it. McDonald: Okay, I'm fine with it too. I guess Kurt said it quite eloquently for all of us. Does anyone wish to make a motion? Larson: I'll make a motion. Is it this one? Okay, the Planning Commission, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial Outlot B for the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall subject to Metropolitan Council review. And the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve rezoning from Office and Industrial District, OI, to Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall. McDonald: Thank you. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall, subject to Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; VARIANCES AND VACATION OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7537 AND 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ST ZIMMERMAN FARM 1 ADDITION. APPLICANT, CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02. Public Present: 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Name Address Peter Olin U of M Arboretum, 3675 Arboretum Drive Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive th Donald Peterson 15272 15 Place No, Plymouth Darlene & Dick Hanson 7750 Crimson Bay Road Janet M. Quist 7331 Dogwood Road Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Road, Edina Gretchen Starks 3301 Tanadoona Drive Dan Getsch 1069 Dorland Road, So, Maplewood Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, would you want to start us out? Papke: Sure. I've got a couple here. What's the proposed time table on the city utilities? You know in the staff report here it states without the city utilities the project is premature. What's our time table on that? Fauske: Commissioner Papke, right now staff is still meeting with the Westwood Church in the area and Camp Tanadoona to try to pin down the design specifics. To answer your question, we're looking at holding a public hearing and authorizing the preparation, pardon me, to accept the feasibility study and order the public hearing probably in February. If everything keeps going smoothly. Papke; So from a process perspective we're okay with that? This is not considered premature then? Fauske: We're on a parallel track. Papke: Okay. As part of putting in those utilities, I assume that the two existing properties that are currently large lot will be converted from septic to sewer. Fauske: That's correct. The city code requires that any existing lot that is currently served by septic system connect within one year. As far as their well, they could keep using their well until there is an issue, until they decided to connect to city water. Papke: Are those the only two that would convert or are there any more along that would. Fauske: There certainly would be some more along Dogwood Road that are not part of this plat. But we would be addressing those separately. Papke: What do you mean by addressing them separately? How would that. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Fauske: Well they would still be required to connect to the sanitary sewer within the year, consistent with the two lots on this, within this development. Papke: Okay. The plans are a little unclear as to, will Dogwood connect with Crimson Bay Road to the south or what's the intention with that? You didn't discuss that particular connection. Generous: That's ultimately what the city would like to have done is connect it. At a minimum we would get this right-of-way and they would extend the road to their property line, as well as the sewer and water services which could be further extended. We need additional right-of-way south of this property. There's only 25 feet now so we'd have to pick up at least another 25 feet of right-of-way and get the Crimson Bay people involved. But this would facilitate that. Papke: Facilitate it but it doesn't get us there. Generous: Not all the way. Papke: Okay. The trees to be added for the difference in canopy coverage, there's a condition that says, condition 5(b) says there'll be a 2 to 1 diameter inch compensation as opposed to the 1.2 multiplier used on page 10 of the staff report. Is that all consistent? Generous: The original calculations only counted the difference but because they removed trees that could have been used to meet the target, they got penalized 1.2 times so that's why their initial number is different. And then once they say they're going to preserve a tree, if they later take it out, then that's when we tell them to do a 2 to 1 caliper inch replacement. Papke: Okay. Okay. Let's see I had one other question on the conditions that I can't find it now at the moment. With the Arboretum to the south there, perhaps this is best left until the representatives from the Arboretum can speak to this but, if I recall it's apple trees and so on to the south of there. Any issues with pesticide drift during spraying? Aanenson: That's one of their concerns. Papke: That is one of their concerns? Okay. That would be one of my concerns as well. Okay, that's all. Thanks. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: I'm going to, I have actually some questions for the Arboretum so I will wait. Larson: I had some questions kind of regarding the impact on the lake. Adding another development here, is runoff or anything going to be an issue? I know that when we were looking at some other changes to, just further up the road to that launch, there was some environmental issues on this end of the lake so is this near to where that spot was or, do you know what I'm talking about? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Generous: I remember when they were doing the launch and that but, when Lori reviewed this, our Water Resources Coordinator, that didn't come up as an issue. They are doing all the pre- treatment in their storm water ponds so we have that requirement is met and then it will discharge onto one of the lots, future lots west of Dogwood. And then sheet drain eventually into the lake and through the wetland but we will have the pretreatment. Larson: Okay. And then the other question I had is, the extension of whatever the road is called going through Westwood and then through there. Is that going to be the main road to this development most used? Generous: Yes. That will be because it will be to the 31 foot city design. The Dogwood upgrade I believe is 26 feet or 28. Fauske: The final width of Dogwood Road has not been determined. We're looking at two alternatives for that design. Larson: Is there any traffic issues with the church services and all that that goes on? I know that it gets pretty congested. Generous: This wouldn't create significant traffic for their peak hour. Larson: Well no but what I, okay. I just want to make sure there's no safety issues for the new people coming in because of all the traffic. th Generous: We believe that it would, ultimately that West 78 and 41 will be signalized. Larson: Okay. That's all I have. Keefe: A quick follow up on one of the questions Kurt brought up which is, when the utilities go in there, are we also going to be improving Dogwood Road at the same time? Do they go together or are they separate? Fauske: It's one project which includes sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and street. Keefe: Okay. Fauske: And there will also be a lift station upgrade and forcemain also with the project. Keefe: Okay, so it's one project and not a separate decision? Fauske: No. That's correct. One project. Keefe: Thanks. th Dillon: Right now is 78 Street west of 41, is that a private street now just for the church? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Generous: No, it's a public street. Dillon: So then, how about Tanadoona Road? Will that have access to Dogwood or is that going to go, I mean because it does now. Generous: Yes, they would maintain that. And actually I believe there's some improvements proposed as part of the overall project. Dillon: Right, because that's, that's not a very wide road. Generous: No. Dillon: Okay. And then also, so one of the conditions in here is that the people that have the septic systems have to quit using them, right? But if those are closed off, are there ever latent problems or anything like that if they're not used and they're not maintained and they're just kind of like sitting there? Generous: As a part of abandonment of those septic, they do have to pump them and fill them and there's Minnesota Health Code requirements for all that so they have to comply with that and they'll get a permit for all that. Dillon: Okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just for analysis. You made a point about the church and. Aanenson: The camp? Undestad: To the north of, as far as utilities going in or out there. Are there some issues yet on whether or not that's? Fauske: We've been, mostly it's the discussion with Westwood Church, as far as their long range plans adjacent to Dogwood Road and looking at, you know the accessible areas through there, so we're in discussion with them. With Camp Tanadoona we're looking at the discussion is more if we can get a storm water pond easement. McDonald: Okay. The only question I've got is, I believe it's Block 3 but Lots 1, 2, and 3. The ones that are right now on the lake. As I understand this, and those would have to come back before us for any future development. Generous: No, they'd go to City Council. They're not, the intention to plat them all as one lot is part of the first phase of development. But if they want to separate them into the 3 lots as shown on the preliminary plat, they would have to final plat them and extend the road and utilities to the south property line there. To Crimson Bay if you will. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Would that have to come back through the Planning Commission or, if we approve this, at that point it's just a final? Generous: Yeah, it would go to City Council for final plat approval. McDonald: Okay. That was the only clarification I really needed. Is the applicant here tonight? If you would like to address the commission. Donald Peterson: My name is Donald Peterson and I'll be the project manager for Carlson Custom Homes who is the developer of the new single family lot portion, and we're working with the Brandt's who own Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. They're going to retain ownership of those 3 lots. And then they will choose to come back at a future time to do the final plat on those 3 lots when they're ready to go. We have reviewed the staff report. We've been working with the staff for almost a year on this project. The engineering staff primarily trying to coordinate our development with the upgrading of Dogwood. Dogwood, as we had several meetings with the homeowners there and there are some of the people that you know want sewer because of the septic system situation. This will enable that to happen, and we will be participating in the assessment for the Dogwood Road portion, which will reduce the cost to the homeowners there. So we think they're a benefit for the existing homeowners. We originally, I came to you with 3 more lots but in reviewing the plat we decided to reduce the number of lots to make them larger because this is very desirable locations, sitting high on the hill with good views in all directions and so we made our lots larger. So we reduced the lots to 22, including the 3 that Brandt's would maintain would come in later on. The staff, they made some recommendations in the staff report which we received on Friday. We don't see any problem with complying with the recommendations that the staff, that they made. I have a drawing on the table here which shows how we would comply with those staff recommendations if you choose, if you want to see that. If not we will work with the staff to make the changes before the final plat is brought before the City Council. In fact we can probably have that done before this plat goes to the, or the preliminary plat goes to the City Council. So if you would like to see what we proposed to comply with those things I'd be happy to show it to you. Other than that we, I'd just be open for any questions you might have. McDonald: If you could show us then. Donald Peterson: There was one concern, there's a wetland right in this area and in dark green we're showing the actual wetland. And the buffer has to be determined yet but we show the 25 foot buffer around here which we anticipate being the right amount. We had on a previous platting when we had a long, narrow house in this area. It was quite deep but narrower. Because of the wetlands and the buffer required from the wetland, earlier drawings showed that it impacted the buffer area for the wetland. We're going to make a change in the lot area of that lot so we can use a wider…deep house in this area. We're moving the lot line over 20 feet to the south here and then we'll move this lot line 20 feet and move this lot line 20 feet. All of these are very large lots. This lot is over an acre so moving it over 20 feet's not really going to hurt anything. That way we'll angle the lot line here a little bit more. That will enable us to build a very you know sizeable…without impacting the wetland buffer. There was another recommendation in the staff report that said Lot 5 would need a walkout rather than a full lot. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 We talked that even before the staff report and that will be changed to a walkout. Another recommendation that the staff made was to increase the tree conservation area. We proposed, because this is a very natural, deep old woods, the original layouts for this area showed a creek running right through over to Dogwood. In order to accomplish that we would have to tear down the whole woods. There wouldn't be anything left so we modified our plans to bring the street over into this area. We have grading issues over here. We have another retaining wall to do that, but by doing that we can save all of this woods and we're going to use, we propose to put in a conservation, tree conservation easement in there. The City has now asked us to increase the size of this tree conservation area on Lots 7, 8 and 9 I believe. 5, 7, 8 and 9. No, 5, 8 and 9. And what we showed here is increasing this 40 feet along here. What we have in light green, and in 30 feet in this area, but we'll work with the staff on that to find out exactly what they want. We think that'd make a nice increase in the conservation area. It won't impact the lots really. Another change was, I believe that was Lot 12. The back yard. The grade was flatter than recommended so staff recommended, we increased the back yard grade in that. We're going to do that by taking the cul-de-sac up. We're going to have some excess dirt anyway. We're going to raise the cul-de-sac from 5, I think it was 5.2 center down to 6%. That will raise this all about a foot and that will give us the right kind of back yard for this lot. At that same time that will benefit the property but we'll be able to make this flat lot into a lookout, which is a very, a benefit. And this lot will become a front walkout. We'll raise that up and that will allow us then to get a better grade in these back yards. So that's all the changes that we have anticipated. Our original landscape plan just showed the bare minimum landscaping because we plan to do quite a bit of landscaping in this house out here. In the outlot, in the center of the cul-de-sac. Those plans are not done yet. The city staff came back and said to increase our tree count from 60 to 72 and we agree with that. And in fact we'll be planting more than that so that's all the changes that we anticipate and we'll work with the staff to, if there's anything else that they need but that is what we propose to do at this point in time. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. McDonald: Mark, why don't you start. Undestad: No. No questions at this time. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: What is going to be the price range for the lot and home? Donald Peterson: These are going to be fairly expensive homes. Our assessment on this project is horrendous. I mean improvements of Dogwood Road. Normally we would anticipate somewhere in the $20,000 range for sewer and water trunk assessment and maybe another $15,000 for, or another $5,000 for water, storm sewer. Our assessments are going to be well over $50,000 a lot here for doing Dogwood. On top of that we'll be having to do all of our own grading so our lot costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot. I can't tell you right now what our sale prices will be but our costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot so they're going to be expensive lots. That's one of the reasons we dropped 3 lots to make the lots larger than the lots in the surrounding areas so we have very good views. Roomy lots. Natural trees and some amenities that we think that a lot of other projects don't have. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Dillon: So that's for the lots. So then what would the homes be? Donald Peterson: They'll be over a million dollars. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Nothing. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: No, thank you. McDonald: Kurt. No? The only question I guess I have for you. You state that you've seen staff's new recommendations for the project and if I'm hearing you, you don't have any problems with these the way they're stated and most of what you've shown us I think addresses the issue that the city has recently brought up, is that correct? Donald Peterson: That's correct, yeah. What the staff, we received the staff report on Friday and reviewed it over the weekend and we don't see anything there we can't work out there so we're going to try to have that worked out by the time we go to City Council and to go through here nd tonight, we're on the City Council on the 22 of January. We will have something back to the staff before that time. And I don't anticipate any problems with that but who knows. McDonald: Okay. Well I have no further questions. I guess unless there's something else you want to add, I'll open it up for public comment. Donald Peterson: I have no other questions other than there's a representative of the Arboretum here and if he has any, that person has any questions I'd be happy to answer those. McDonald: Okay, we'll see what he has to say and we'll take it from there. At this point then I would open this up for public comment and again, I would ask you to come up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments of the commissioners. Everybody's waiting for the Arboretum so why don't you go ahead and go first. Peter Olin: Thank you. My name is, excuse me. I'm getting over a cold. Peter Olin…I've also brought with me Peter Moe…because if there's perhaps some technical questions here. We have some concern for the development and it started back with our concerns with putting the roadway in along our property line. Mainly that had to do with excess runoff, salt and so on running down into our research area, and as, even though there's retention ponds for the church, they overflow. It does flood the lower section of that, what was very good land for our Azalea research, so it's becoming unuseful at this point. And we don't know what the runoff situation will be with the additional roads but that goes out behind our apple research and is the best piece of land we have for the apple research. Our concerns with the lots backing up to the boundary, our boundary has to do with several things. One is, this is a farming operation and we use sprays. Nothing unusual. Nothing experimental. We use whatever the orchards use to control diseases 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 and pests. We do those, when we do spray, we spray on quiet mornings. Sometimes before everyone, the light is out and everyone is up to cut down on any kind of drift because it does happen. We also have an electric fence along the edge which we use to keep the deer out. So there's two problems that we see when we start getting families right up next to it, or when the spray, and we've seen this across the country where people come in and they say oh yes, we know it's a farm and then they say, well you're spraying with these chemicals and ruining our lives and killing our kids and it ends up we have to abandon the whole area. And the other of course is the electric fence. If you grew up in the country you know electric fences give you a little shock, but when you move into a subdivision and your kids go out and get a shock, they call the police and we've done, having to take that out. So those are the main concerns we have and again, the runoff. We're not quite sure. On this scan I think it's Outlot C. Is that the one that's going to have a retention pond here? Off here. And maybe that will take care of that but it's, and runoff also then as well as salt, which is not good for our… So those are the main concerns. I talked with Mr. Generous this afternoon and he suggested some of that be mitigated and perhaps…fencing and so on but we wanted to express that concern. So I guess that's my. Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Is there an alternative use for the land? You know should it not be tillable for apple orchard or. Peter Olin: Well you know again, that's part of our mission is part of the University of Minnesota Horticulture Department is the apple research. We've been doing that since 1908 so that's a long term project and those trees go in, they can be in there for up to 20 to 25 years before they decide whether that's a good apple or not, so some of that is in there right now. It's slated to be here for… Really we don't need a lot of extra land, you know a lot of land so there's no particular use for that. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about the deer fence, because that seems to be an issue. Is there an alternative there for keeping the deer out besides an electrified fence? Peter Olin: Taller fence, yes. We've got, I think it's an 8 foot fence around…with barbed wire on top. Yes, that's possible. McDonald: Okay. So it would appear that the issue really comes down to the sprays and the salt become the biggest concerns that you're not sure can be mitigated. Peter Olin: I don't know if they can. I'll let Peter… We do minimal spraying. We follow…test management so we do as little as. Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live on 7161 Minnewashta Parkway but also the Director of Operations at the Arboretum. In regards to the deer fence, that fence was built in the mid 1980's and that was the standard DNR design. It's high tencel steel. High voltage, electric fence. It's not, you won't injure a healthy person but if someone has a heart condition, it could be a problem. The DNR now is recommending a high tencel steel woven wire fence that Peter mentioned. It's 8 feet high and that could even be extended with additional wire on top. We'd like to do that but it's a significant capital expense. It's not in our budget right now so. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Does anyone have any particular questions about any of this or? Aanenson: I'm not sure if we can really answer all their questions today regarding mitigation strategies. Also there's probably some legal issues here so I would suggest that the staff make sure we understand exactly what the issues are with the Arboretum. Work through the attorney's office and then back to the developer to see what we can do to mitigate. Obviously there's disclosure issues. If you look at the plat, there appears to be 2 lots that directly abut the Arboretum. The forested area. There's other lots that abut the part of Crimson Bay subdivision. Then Outlot C, so 2 lots that would directly abut that. Certainly the city ordinance prohibits electrical fences too. Obviously we don't have jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota, for whether they do that or not but there's some other legal issues that we'd want to look at too so, I think what we'd like to do is if for a condition, that you would direct staff to, if before this goes to City Council, have some clear direction of mitigation. Working with the parties involved to see what's a reasonable compromise and disclosure so we would be concerned too, people concerned about spraying so. McDonald: Because you've got a couple things running in parallel with all of this, is this something that we should maybe table and come back until you've got a suggestion going forward and we'll work with the developer or can this go forward and you think be resolved by the time it gets to City Council? Aanenson: Mr. Chair, whatever you're comfortable with on that. I think there's a clear understanding that if we can do some fencing, we'd be willing to work that. Obviously they have an issue, who's going to pay for that fence. There may not be an agreement of how, the length of the fence. There's a lot of things that I think you know, someone's going to have to mediate, whether it's the Planning Commission or the, making a recommendation but ultimately it would be the City Council. Keefe: I've got a question for you on the pesticides that you spray there. How far away is the spraying from the existing homes over on Crimson Bay? I mean are we substantially closer? Or is there any sort of buffer, because those homes have been there you know for some time. Peter Moe: I know there are some Crimson Bay residents here today to address that thought, and I think they're about the same. I'm not sure exactly where the…on these new lots. Those are big lots too on Crimson Bay so it'd be somewhat similar. We never want spray to drift. It's actually against state law to allow pesticide drift so we do all kinds of different things using anti-foaming agents and adjusting the pressure and adjusting the sprayer nozzles, depending on the size of the trees and things but sometimes, as Peter mentioned, you're out there at 6:00 in the morning when you start. You get to the top of the hill, well it's the highest spot in the whole research center and a gust of wind comes up and it can carry a small amount of chemical. Also some of the chemicals have a carrier that has an odor. It's not actually the pesticide itself but it's a carrier as a part of the chemical formulation and that you know can be very disturbing to people when you smell that and it's not necessarily the toxic but it would definitely raise concerns with people. Keefe: Does the Arboretum experience any issues with some of the neighbors associated with chemical spraying in that area or? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Peter Moe: We haven't in that area. It's only 4 or 5 homes there now. As I said, we do everything we can to avoid that. We have had some problems though on the Farm 1 as we call it, on Rolling Acres Road. The main part of the research area in Victoria. We also use some of the, Peter did mention it and I had forgot until recently. We do some, deer are, we love, or excuse me. Well deer are a big problem but also birds. We love birds at the Arboretum except during apple season because they sit on top of our Honeycrisp and Zestar trees. In fact…occasionally we'll use things like recording machines with loud speakers that broadcast hawk calls and rabbit distress calls and all kinds of things that, they're supposed to scare blackbirds away. They're somewhat effective but it also can disturb neighbors. Keefe: All in the name of research. McDonald: I guess Kate, getting back to the whole thing. If we vote on this and it goes forward and it sounds as though there's a number of unresolved issues that could impact the project, what happens? At that point the developer has the option to just pull it or to say that. Aanenson: That's correct. Right, it's too onerous. It may be, and again the issues are a little bit more complex because of jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota as, we really don't have jurisdiction so, but there's also some safety, legal issues so we need to get a clear understanding of that. And then if, we recommend some mitigation. Whether that's acceptable to both parties. And clearly it seems right now that fencing is the greatest one, and then just assuring of disclosure of that there's use of chemicals on the property and that's typical in subdivisions that we put disclosure statements on the surrounding uses so that I think we can address pretty straight forward. Peter Olin: The fence, again should cover those outlots because I understand those will be… Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I understand the issue. That people just go around the area that's fenced, and the deer would also so. McDonald: I guess at that point I turn it back to the commissioners because one of the problems I guess I have with going forward is, we're going forward with something that deals with evidently some public safety issues that we don't have anything coming forward for us to recommend and we're going to recommend this go forward and then it can be worked by city staff before it gets to City Council, which is okay and I'm just wondering do the commissioners feel alright with doing that based upon we're going to have to do something with a trust me approach to this. Keefe: Well I think you put in you know, the issue, particularly the safety issue gets resolved you know and approved at City Council. Satisfactory to all parties. McDonald: Okay. Everybody okay then, let's go ahead and proceed then. Is that all you have to tell us about? That you need to say. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Peter Olin: We understand the connection to Crimson Bay is not going to come up at this point but we would be concerned about that connection as well. Mainly because when the church gets out, people who live to the west, they're not going to go through 2 stop lights. They're going to go down that road and come right out across from the Arboretum and that could be a pretty messy situation right now. We have the turn lane in there. They don't want to put a stop light in, which of course is what we've asked for. That can also create quite a traffic mess at that point so if, even though that's not happening now, that we'd be concerned. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward then and address? Dillon: What are we going to do now? I mean what. McDonald: We're going to go ahead and go forward on this, and this whole issue between the Arboretum, yeah. Aanenson: Well until you vote. McDonald: Yeah, I mean we're going to vote on it. We may vote it down. I'm just saying that whatever we do, it goes forward from here to City Council with part of a hole in it as far as this interface to the Arboretum and what's going to happen is that staff is going to have to talk to the Arboretum. Gain some control over what the issues are and then they're going to have to go back and approach City Council for a final decision. Plus at that point they're also going to talk to the developer because if they come up with things that may impact him, he may decide to pull this, and that would be his option at that point. Or we could table it. Dillon: And have some discussion between the various parties and then come back to us. McDonald: And then come back to us. Dillon: So what's wrong with doing that? McDonald: There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's why, what I'm asking. How comfortable everybody feels going forward saying okay, what staff, Arboretum and the developer will do is work out the unknown, which is basically the interface to the Arboretum. That they will approach City Council with that and they will make the final decision based upon what they come up with. Dillon: Well I don't feel as though I'm going to have enough information tonight to make a vote one way or another. And I would like to see, personally, would like to see a little more definition as to you know what might be solutions here. And then, at least til now, I'll have a better feel that I could you know defend my vote one way or another if we're asked to do so. McDonald: Okay. That's why I'm asking is how comfortable you guys feel about that. In a second, I'll get to you. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Undestad: Has anybody had discussions? I mean the developer and the Arboretum, did they have any discussions on any of this stuff yet? Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. This is the first we've heard of it. McDonald: I think this is a relatively new issue, isn't it? Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: Any other comments? How do the rest of the commissioners feel about this? Thomas: Well I kind of agree. That I don't know that I have enough information and I want to see it resolved with the Arboretum, especially with the fence because I do understand the fencing. It is electric and I mean, …concerns me but I understand the cost benefit. I mean if they're going to have to put a fence in, I just…something. McDonald: Okay. …before I call for a vote on this. Donald Peterson: I would just like to mention, we really haven't been aware of any real issues with the Arboretum until now. One thing I want to point out, we love having the Arboretum as a neighbor. We're sitting high on the hill looking down on an apple orchard and as far as our homeowners, I think it's going to be a very attractive thing for them. We've looked at this, we're locating an outlot right along our south property line as you enter into the project and we considered on the landscaping that would be done on this outlot, and we've already talked about the idea of possibly providing a wrought iron fence or something along the south property line in there just to keep them away from that electric fence. We could do that. We haven't talked about fencing the back yards on all except two of the yards, there's a big storm water pond so there's really not much danger of the kids walking over and touching the fence because it's across a big pond. Two of the lots would. As far as the spring goes, we're aware of the spring being down near, Bruce has owned this property for 8 years. He has no problems with it. We're sitting 30 or 40 feet above the Arboretum where the apple trees are so, for the spray to go uphill into our area, we don't think is much of an issue. So I don't know how this gets resolved. However we do have the one issue that we're working with the city on. We have about 20 homeowners involved in the Dogwood Road project and that has to proceed to be able to go to bids to get that done this year so we would like to have this move through as fast as possible because we're trying to keep the two projects running together. If Dogwood Road doesn't go, we don't go. And so there are a lot of issues that the City Council has to resolve or which might be this Arboretum thing but there's a lot of issues that the council has to address. And we have to address. We have to react to the council and that's a negotiating thing between the council and us as far as what these charges are going to be to us. We don't have any problem with any of the physical improvements that are going to be done. Just a matter of how is it going to be paid for. So I guess we would request that you consider moving it through and work on the, we'll be able to work these issues out with the, before the council takes action. McDonald: I guess, if I could interrupt. I understand, it looks as though we've got enough time because you tell me it's February. We meet again in 2 weeks and that would be enough time to 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 take care of everything so that you stay on track with Dogwood. One of our charters of this is to pass forward recommendations to the City Council and to do a lot of this type of work for the City Council. And that's where I feel a little uncomfortable is yeah, we're just passing the buck. It may not be a big deal but I have to tell you, you're making the case for me that we ought to look at this a little bit longer and give this thing. I'm going to ask everybody to vote. It's not just my choice but I feel that yes, we are somewhat passing the buck. This is kind of a late issue but it does have some importance and some impact upon the community and I think maybe it does need to be looked at a little bit more and kind of looked at because of the impact it has, both on the Arboretum, on you and on the community and on future homeowners. They probably will get upset with electrified fences and something needs to be looked at. I mean you brought up some issues about putting in some additional fencing to keep them out. I think that's a good idea but that needs to be looked at. Arboretum's got to say yeah, that will do it. I think staff needs to look and also look at these issues and then come back to us and say, this is what the plan is, and now I think we can vote and make a good recommendation to the council. But again that's just my feeling. What I would do is I would accept a motion from the commissioners, if someone wishes to table this? Papke: Mr. Chair. Dick Hanson: Can we have some more public statements? Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to say we didn't hold the public hearing yet. Papke: Before you move to the public, I have one question for city staff. Just a point of clarification of the last issue being debated here. If we, if this gets tabled or if whatever reason this, you know the developer does not get approval for this, because the developer is making a large financial contribution to this, to the water and sewer being brought through, would that on necessity delay that public works project? What are the consequences from a funding perspective and the progress of that engineering project? Fauske: Very good question. We would have to go back to the neighborhood and re-calculate what their assessment would be and find out their comfort level. If that would be an assessment. In the past they've been through this process 2 or 3 times before and the costs to do it, just with the neighborhood, mind you it was quite an aggressive plan, were cost prohibitive for the residents. nd Keefe: One more final question. This is scheduled for City Council on the 22, it says in our packet. Would this come back prior to that? Two weeks from. th Aanenson: Yes. It could come back on the 16. th Keefe: So it could come back on the 16 so it could still make the same City Council date that it's currently scheduled for. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Aanenson: Typically we like to break inbetween. Right now, as of today, the project was nd scheduled for the 22. The call for the hearing. There might be some, as Alyson indicated, they're working through some of those changes that are being requested, so it may move back. Keefe: But not necessarily because of this issue. It could be because of. Aanenson: The sewer and water design issue, but I think we'd still be on track. And if you're more comfortable tabling it to try to get those resolved, we can, that's fine. We have time I think. We won't throw the project off. Undestad: You still can get it on City Council? Aanenson: It depends on the length of the discussion. I'm not sure we're all going to agree. We're going to give you some recommendations but all parties might not agree and we haven't heard all the issues yet. McDonald: And that's fine. I think that's the problem. We don't know what the issues are. So again, I would accept a motion from the commissioners to table this to allow city staff, the developer and the Arboretum to talk. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd recommend we continue with the public hearing just because I'd hate to come back and then get the rest of the public input the next time around only to find out we've got another issue that we've got to go back around again on. McDonald: Okay. We'll put it off. Okay, at this point it is anyone from the public wishing to come forward and address this issue, please do so. Come up to the podium. State your name and address and address the commission. Darlene Hanson: I'm Darlene Hanson on Crimson Bay Road. Some things have been brought up this evening that I'd like to clarify. Someone talked about drying up the septic systems that we have on Crimson Bay. Is that, at who's expense does this happen? Fauske: We currently do not have any plans to extend the sewer and water down to Crimson Bay Road. What we are looking at doing is having the opportunity, by getting the right-of-way to the southern property line, then we have that corridor saved to get the sewer and water down through there. If the sewer and water project does go through at a later date, then it would be the homeowner's through a, would pay for it through assessments. Darlene Hanson: I see. And at that time is city water an option, since we already have our own well? Fauske: What we would do is, if there was an interest from the Crimson Bay residents to get sewer and water through the project, we would start to have a neighborhood meeting informally to see what comfort level. If we do sewer, we'd do water because to go ahead and dig up a street to just put in sewer is not cost effective. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Darlene Hanson: Right, okay. So again, just to be clear on this. There are no plans at this point in time, nothing definite anyway with regard to connecting Dogwood and Crimson Bay. Fauske: For street or utilities, we do not have any plans in place, no. Darlene Hanson: Okay. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that, just to be clear. The goal with this plat that's going forward tonight is provide the opportunity in the future, because we see as a planning objective that over time it's going to be more and more difficult to get out of Crimson Bay. Right now MnDot's looking at an upgrade of Highway 5, studying that corridor, and we believe it's in the interest of the city to make sure that access, continued safe access can be provided 5 years, 10 years, 15 years down the road for Crimson Bay. And so what we're doing now is giving an opportunity for another option to provide access or sewer and water for those 4 or 5 homes. So that's all we're doing right now is giving you an option, and when that happens it will be a discussion with the neighborhood of how that comes about. Darlene Hanson: Okay. And then in closing, I live in, we've live on Crimson Bay for about 8 years with the electric fence is right next to us. Just a stone's throw away and the apple trees and so forth. So these are things that the Arboretum, it just isn't a problem. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Dick Hanson: I'm Dick Hanson. I'm the better half of the lady who just spoke up here. We've been up in Crimson Bay Road now for 5 or 6 years. She said 8 years. Maybe it seems that long, but since we've been there of course the talk is it come through. Now if you've been on Crimson Bay Road, that road is wide enough to land a 747 and we expect that the addition, if you ever go into Dogwood, would be as wide as, and as spacious as our road. I mean that was a requirement… The other thing is the sewer and water conditions. I spent over $15,000 on that septic system and if it's a year away, somebody's going to pay for it. We'll go through all kinds of legal ramifications here. If it's 15-20 years from now, then I won't be up here talking to you. But if it's only a year or two away, then we've got some serious legal problems. The other thing is of course Highway 5 access. We have been told by MnDot, until it kills more people down there, that we'll never get stop lights. So just in concurrence, if they let that come all the way around the church traffic, we're going to have some real problems unless we've got an agreement with MnDot. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one else come forward, close the public meeting. Bring it back to the council and again I'll ask the question, do you want to go forward or do we want to put together a motion and table this and then discuss it again in 2 weeks? Papke: I recommend we table at this point. I think there's just, the problems with proceeding at this point with so many unanswered questions I think are too high and the consequences of not tabling are also too high. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay, I'm going to take that as a motion. Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 07-02 for The Arbors. All voted in favor, except Keefe, Undestad and Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for those in the audience. This will be on in 2 weeks from tonight. We don't re-notice on a table so if you want to check with the City but it's intended right now to be on 2 weeks from tonight and they'd be the first item on the agenda. McDonald: I stand corrected. It was 4 to 3. And what will happen, if I understand this correctly is when it comes back, we will again open it up public comment on those issues that we bring forward at that time. Aanenson: That's up to you Mr. Chair, if you want to re-open the public hearing. McDonald: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to clarify. Okay, then at this point where this is at is that city staff, the developer and the Arboretum I think need to talk and flush out the issues with the two properties and any possible solutions and then come back to us with that. PUBLIC HEARING: FOX HILL: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. APPLICANT, 10 SPRING HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-03. Public Present: Name Address Jeff & Ronda Seiler 6511 Gray Fox Curve Richard Herr 120 Fox Hollow Drive Debralynn Geary 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie Steve Brachman 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie Steven Petrie 6503 Gray Fox Curve Mary & Charles R. Klingelhutz 7146 Utica Lane Sheryl Deppa 4920 Sparrow Road, Minnetonka Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Fauske: Good evening Chairman McDonald and commissioners. We'll be real brief here. Couple questions, couple concerns that came up after the public notice was issued for this project. First was with respect to state aid, county state aid Highway 101. The question came up about securing right-of-way, additional right-of-way along 101. Currently plans show that, and I 19