Loading...
1978 04 03 I I I REGULAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL lmETING APRIL 3, 1978 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. Councilman Waritz came late. Les Bridger, Russell Larson, Craig Mertz, Don Ashworth, Bruce Pankonin, Bill Brezinsky, and Bob Waibel were present. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Waritz came at this point. NORTH LAKE SUSAN SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STREET, AND STORM SEWER IMPROVE}lliNT PROJECT 78-3: The city received a letter from the Lutheran Church of the Living Christ dated April 2, 1978, requésting the Council include the access easement agreement to the church be a part of the plan for the land surrounding the church. A request has been received from Martin Ward and joined by Ed Dunn asking the Council to consider tabling action until April 17, 1978. Staff also recommended this be tabled as the security agreement has not been finalized. Councilman Neveaux moved to table action on Project 78-3 until the April 17, 1978, Council meeting. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. MINUTES: Amend the March 20, 1978, Council minutes under PRELUHNARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MTS as follows: Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the preliminary development plan Phase 1 as presented this evening and instruct the developer to proceed with final plans incorporating the utility plan consistent with the city engineer's standards, a transportation plan consistent with the provisions outlined in the BRW report, a drainage plan consistent with the standards of the Ri1ey- Purgatory Creek Watershed District, a conservation plan consistent with soil conservation practices that is required by the Carver County Soil Conservation Service and an open space plan which will dedicate the east and west slope of the drainage swa1e located in the southwest corner of the subject property to the City of Chanhassen. Approval of the preliminary development plan in no way implies approval of industrial revenue bonds. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to approve the March 20, 1978, Council minutes as amended. Motion seconded by CouncilmanWaritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Geving, and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Neveaux moved to note the March 22, 1978, Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux,Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. The Council invited Planning Commission members to the April 17 Council meeting to discuss communication problems. Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -2- Councilman Geving moved to note the January 26, 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No I negative votes. Motion carried. 0 Councilman Pearson moved to note the February 2, 1978, HRA minutes. r . Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the February 22, 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to note the March 1, 1978, HRA minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Geving moved to note the March 9, 1978, Community Facilities Study Committee minutes. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - APPLE VALLEY RED-E-MIX: Math Fischer and John Ericson were present requesting reconsideration for a building permit to construct a fly ash silo at their plant along I Highway 5 and West 78th Street. The Council felt that no new . information was presented this evening to necessitate reconsiderati01 at this time. EAST LOTUS LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 75-10 - CONSIDER DELETING IMPROVEMENTS ON TRACT D, RLS 18 (THOMPSON/OSGOOD/NEMITZ PROPERTIES: Michael Thompson, Orner Nemitz, Mr. and Mrs. Sewall Osgood were present. Councilman Neveaux moved to align the street (Tract D, RLS 18) off Lots A and B, RLS 23 and use the present alignment across Lot B, RLS 18 provided easements are donated for sewer and water and defer one assessment on Lot B, RLS 18. Leave three assessments on the Sewall Osgood property to the north but defer one assessment until such time as the property is divided. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Councilmen Pearson, Neveaux, Waritz, and Geving. Mayor Hobbs voted no. Motion carried. WATER RUN OFF: Frank Kurvers was present to complain about water running over his driveway. The engineer will have a report for the April 10 Council meeting. REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT - CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK: Ed Dunn, Rod Hardy, Stelios Aslanidis, and several residents from I Lake Susan were present. I.·.... Bruce Pankonin - The criteria for evaluating this rezoning and subdivision is the adopted City Plan. The land use plan, as amended by the City of Chanhassen, indicates the subject property should assume an industrial identity. There should be an open 1 I J Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -3- space linear corridor on the Lake Ann Interceptor trunk sewer alignment and our city plan also indicates a system of roads. The Metropolitan Council, in October 1976, pursuant to the recommendation of the Chanhassen Planning Commission looked with favor on delineating. this area as industrial. Subsequent to Metropolitan Council action, the Chanhassen City Council duly amended the city plan to indicate the subject property to be industrial. We have reviewed the specifics of this plan with the Riley-Purgatory Creek Board of Managers. We have reviewed. this specific proposal in the context of the environmental quality act. The Carver County Director of Public Works has reviewed this plan as well as the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission. and Planning Commission. I feel it is extremely important for the city to implement a well thought out industrial plan such as being proposed. I feel this industrial development will have many positive affects on the city's economy and environment. Specifical1y,the emphasis will be placed on increased purchasing power of the residents, employment opportunities of the community and expansion of the city's tax base. To this end I strongly suggest the City Council look with favor on Dunn and Curry's planned industrial development provided: (1) The city orders construction for sanitary sewer, water and public roads to the subject property~ (2) The city engineer determines the final alignment and construction standards for all roads. (3) The developer be bound to the time phasing plan as submitted for consideration. In addition, the developer: agrees to. establish a no build line on Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 10 at an elevation of 935 feet or 200 feet of horizontal distance from the lake, whichever is greater. (4) That it is understood that the uses permitted within the planned industrial development shall be governed by sections 17.02, Ordinance 47. (5) Building design and construction standards shall be governed by provisions of section 9.06,· Ordinance 47. (6) Height, yard, area and lot width and development regulations be governed by the planned industrial standards as setforth in section 12 .05,.Ordinance 47. (7) Parking and loading areas shall be governed by section 9.07, Ordinance 47:: (8) Landscaping standards for future developments shall be governed by section 12.09, Ordinance 47. (9). Industrial performance standards shall be governed by appropriate state, local and federal rules and regulations. (10) It shall be understood that the outlots as shown in the preliminary development plan are to be used for public linear trail purposes. (11) The developer dedicate sufficient right~of-way as shown in the county engineer's report (12) It should be mutually agreed that a development contract outlining the above conditions shall be entered into between the City of Chanhassen and Dunn and Curry Real Estate Management, Inc. Upon the consummation of said development contract, the developer Council Minutes April 3, 1978 -4- should proceed to final development plans as specified in Ordinance 47. Jim Murphy - I live at 8500 Great Plains Blvd. and I was selected to make the comments tonight. I also would like to thank the developer, he made it possible for us, for most of these exhibits. Mr. Murphy presented a petition which states as follows: "We the undersigned, members of the Lake Susan Homeowners Association are in complete agreement with the statements made by our spokesman James O. Murphy at the Chanhassen City Council Meeting, April 3, 1978." The petition was signed by 26 individual residents. Jim Murphy - What we are interested in, obviously, is we would like to keep the rural character and quality of life. We feel that the recent referendum on the public works facility was really a mandate in this direction in that the residents that are here now do want to maintain this rural quality of life. We think at best that possibly this development that is proposed is probably premature. It possibly shouldn't happen until Highway 212 is constructed. We have also submitted two letters, one was more or less from the neighborhood altogether and the other one was from the Robinsons. First, I would like to talk about the slope. That's probably our prime interest. Right now the Planning Commission is proposing a 935 contour as a no buildable, no grading line. We have some pictures that were taken and I am sure you have all seen this slope. It's very difficult to see from 101 but very easy from our back yard. I would like to pass these around to the Council and anybody else that wants to see them. They display what we are talking about. They show the slope. They show the wooded areas and they show how close it is to the lake. I think in most planning textbooks this is obviously a choice of something you preserve. This is a classic example of something that should remain. What we are saying is we would like to preserve the slope to the 945 elevation. The 935 is detrimental for several reasons. It would remove the trees in this area. We would see two levels of buildings. If we could get the slope preserved to the 945 elevation we think this would be very desirable. This particular exhibit, I am sure those out in front are not going to be able to see it, I will pass it around, we are showing the 945 contour, we are showing where this contour possibly shouldn't apply and then we are showing also where the contour applies we are showing by a straight line where the outlot boundary really, we believe should be. We are showing the 945 contour dotted where we don't think it should apply and then we are showing in brown the 935 contour and then we are showing this 200 foot minimum proposed Planning Commission no build line and then we are showing the 935 contour where it doesn't apply. We see this as our proposal what's in solid red as what should be maintained and preserved. This we would like to say applies to more than what the developer is proposing. We are saying it should apply from Lots 2 to 9 and we show that here. I" I 1.,',,' ,:-: I I I Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -5- Next I would like to mention this particular exhibit. This is proposed as an outlot. This on the comprehensive plan is shown as park and then over here near Rice Marsh Lake it's also shown as·park. Bruce Pankonin - The sketch plan map does, not have any stél.tus; one day I graphically jottªd doW!l some ideas that came to mind. Neither the Planning Commission. or Counçil adopted that map. Further,' the park you spoke o:Lhas not been discussed.bythe city, it is just -my idea. ,The greenway-system, however, showinKa linear corridor ªlon~ _ the·' north s l.ope~0-f ',Lá.k!~&us,a1i , ahcl the ,tributary of Riley Cree.kis' part of· ourexist-ingcomprehensive plan Jim Murphy - Let's just presume that this is park ,which is a natural place for it. It is very wooded and hilly, a natural place for a park. What we propose then with our particular corridor is not only a linear bike and trails way but actually ,a wildlife corridor and this is also what this slope can be used for. There is not any of the neighbors that haven't seen deer or other wildlife cross right here at 101. This is actually a path that is now used by wildlife 'and this is something that we would like to have preserved. It is very important whatever this line is, where, ever-this no build or no grading line is, we would like to see it as an outlot. We feel then that we, would be more protected. Anything less than that, I don't know what your track record is on variancesbÛt.with most Council's it's not to good, so we would have the same problem as with Apple Valley here tonight. The particular developer or the owner would come in and say if I can't expand I am moving. We would not like this to happen. We would like to see it be an outlot and then there probably wouldn't bea problem with variances so we would like, if at all possible;to have something very definite in terms of ownership and that that ownership be the city's. One thing the developer has mentioned in his meetings to us that there is considerable land now here that's outlot. I think he indicated something, like 14%. I would like to say this one thing, , in the storm sewer plans that we haven't seen yet but from the correspondence it is my understanding that many of these areas will be used as retention ponds. These retention ponds then will really be a benefit to the developer so when we come down to just the net acreage that'.s going to be allowed for park or open space or whatever, it's considerably reduced. This is actually these retention ponds is a benefit to the owner Or developer so we don't really feel it's unreasonable to consider that this slope for an outlot. Bruce Pankonin - Chanhassen Ordinance l4A which governs park land dedication only applies to residential PUDs and does not encompass· the industrial or commercial lands in the '.~ity. Jim Murphy - I gues's I don't personally see that' s a conflict. There was a much confusion on this 200 feet. Initially when Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -6- we had one week to reply to the Planning Commission's public hearing we had to get something together, it was mentioned by one of the neighbors that they I thought the depth was 200 feet I think anyone of us if we went out to judge that particular slope, how long it is right now, would have difficulty. We would all get different answers. We had to determine where these contours were and how long this slope is or how far back we are talking about horizontally. I use the aerial here which I believe is an aerial mosaic and it hasn't been rectified so it is not really to scale but it's pretty close to one inch equal 500. We scaled what you see here as the wooded area and our particular scale and then looking at the contours matches up pretty well with the 945 or the heavy lines as we show them. It's further back than 200 feet there's no doubt about it and it's probably more like 300 and over by the Wand, property maybe 350'or 400 feet back. Next I would like to talk about, lot size if I may. We dislike the small lots just for general reasons, energy conservation. It means a lot of small buildings. They are not going to be energy efficient. What's wrong with several tennants in one larger building? They are very intensive in terms of roadways and utilities. This is an excess roadway., excess utilities. It's really not necessary. This is also backed up by the watershed district. They say that the roads, you have I excessive roads crossing the creek. ,I agree. I have never seen anything like it as far as industrialc in terms of the size lots. In terms of this being a new creation as something good I really can't understand this, you have got excessive utilities, excessive services. To me, it's not really a good development in terms of the use of resources. We think it's going to be a problem for us in cooperating with the owners of that area in making improvements for the lake whether it be stocking the lake with fish, we think it's going to be a problem. You are showing us a possibility of 100 - 200 tennants that we would have to deal with. ' Right now it's very easy the association of course is small, we realize that there will be changes but we would like to see one tennant I am sure then it would be very easy for him to be our benefactor so to speak. One thing also that was mentioned in the minutes is that because the lots are small we are actually going to have less coverage. I feel this is a fallacy. I haven't worked it out but because the lots are small we have more streets so if we -are talking. about gross I area we don't have less coverage. 'We have got more coverage in terms of paved streets. One thing else that we feel is beneficial for, larger size lots would be that a larger size operation would more than likely purchase excess property for future expansion. Many ,times when they do do this they never expand so that land really remains open spaces in effect. I I I Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -7- The next general topic that I have that I would like to m.ention woúld be land use. We find in terms of zoning ordinances that they are very general. This is a concern of ours. We understand that just 17.02 applies to this and not 17.03 the accessory uses permitted, is that correct? Bruce Pankonin - Accéssory uses would be permitted with the principal use. Jim Murphy - Then either 17.02 or 17.03 we find extremely broad and vague and it could lend itself to a problem expecia11y when it comes time for the assessments down the road and the developer needs to sell some of these particular improvements' and then what quality of development are we going to get. We feel that'Chanhassen can do better as a quality development, if it's industrial whatever we feel that a better preliminary plat here could be done. Once this particular area was shown as a golf course of course that's something for sure we all agree on that we would rather have here. In discussions with Eden Prairie we, they also mentioned' to us that there minimum lot size,was two acres. I am not saying that Eden Prairie does things better but at least that's their criteria. Another thing in terms of Eden Prairie and I think this is the reason that many communities have gotten themselves into problems and the reason that we have got the Metropolitan Council; Eden Prairie is proposing at their borders a more rural development. Chanhassen takes off immediately with industrial and high-intensity uses. It doesn't seem like there is good coordination to us. We would' like to see Chanhassen more rural. This is also a reason we feel that you do now have sanctions such Metropolitan Council. They 'are taking authority from you that you formerly had. I had one comment about the environment but it sounded like that's been taken care of. There has been an environmental worksheet prepared. We would like to see that at some particular time. Weare not sure what the impacts are., '. Bruce Pankonin - I think the basic key is the size of the industrial facility. The mandatory ,EAWstarts at things larger than 320 acres. This is 276~ acres. The triggers on sites specific industrial uses in terms of traffic, .energÝc:~uses are that, . .~~ site. specific. Jim Murphy - This: is < 276' acres but you are also showing the Ward property and the Schmieg property which will put it over the 320 So T am sure if we are talking ahout an environmental worksheet the city has the obligation to prepare one. I think the Environmental Quality Council would look on it in that vain because we are talking about 80 more acres of Wards and I am not sure how many more acres with the Schmieg property. ' The next comments' I have deal with design. We see that and this applies to the city's' improvement, that for Animal Fair you are running out a dead end watermain. This is somewhat undesirable. ' You can have freezing problems it has to be flushed: We want to make sure and I am sure Council Meeting April 3, 1978 ~8~ you do but that you require good design. Operation and maintenance is much more of a problem these days and much mork costly. I. would llke to see for example, full depth asphalt in the roads, storm sewers that are I in concrete in lieu of corrigated metal. We would like to see no storm sewer outfall to the lake just for the offensiveness, it would be a navigation problem. We were told by the èngineer that .this would be the case. Sanitary sewer, you are proposing to construct the sanitary sewer line, my undèrstanding is to Lake Ann. I see this ,to be a problem for several reasons. First, it's 48 inch sewer .into some"p1aces. I am sure that thè reason that it is is becau~e it has a very gentle grade in it at that particular spot but you are not hooking much into it and prObably not for a long time so you are not going to have minimum two feet per second velocity so that sewer will not clean itself and what we will have then is a maintenance problem and because the waste control commission is not building that interceptor Ghanhassen has the responsibility for the maintenance. If the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission did build the interceptOr then they would maintain it. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission now is undertaking a 201 facilities plan for this area. They may change the location for this interceptor. It could possibly end up that way.. This 201 facilities plan, to ccnsider regionalization or no regionalization or transmission. The result of this study could change I the location. The Metropolitan W~ste Control Commission may never reimburse you for this. I understand the developer is going to pay for it but you do have to maintain it. If you do build it there will be no possibility for .federa1 reimbursement by the Metropolitan Control Commission. They have to have approval prior to construction. If you do approve it, one other concern that we have is to make sure that the concrete manholes are not above thegrourid. I think many of us have seen this. It can really detract from the area. We would like to make sure even though they may be below the 100 year flood plain elevation that they be to grade and then make sure the risers of the manholes Are water tight and I arnsure this can be accommodated. We would like to pr()pose an alternative. We understand that Animal Fair has a problem. We also understand that do nothing is not practical something has to happen. We would like it to be do nothing. I am sure you can obtain that reasoning from my comments but we would like to see you go with Animal Fair, if they have to go with on site systems, a well and a soil absorption field possibly and if the ordinance has to have a variance for this to be a temporary use, that's the way we I would like to see it go. There is a lot of reason for doing now. The Environmental Protection Agency is saying in 1985 that we are supposed to have zero discharge of pollutants. There is only really one way to technically do that and that's land application. For land application they will allow a 20% for I I I Council Mèeting April 3, 1978 -9- technical and innovativeness in the cost effective treatment or analysis. EPA is now taking a turn around and they are saying on site systems aren't so bad especially in the rural areas and anytime there is more than one family, more than one business that may go together on a system they may fund possibly on site systems. This is something we would like you to consider. My next general item is financial. I think I will probably get more attention here. It's been mentioned many times that this is a good tax base. That's hog wash, it's not. You know it. There are some people that don't know it but I am sure the Council is aware of it. What happens is the met council says 40% of this tax base, has to go back to the general fund or the general kitty and it's redistributed based on population so in terms of tax base or that our taxes are going to be lowered it's not going to happen and operation and maintenance costs are going up so it's going to be really a question here it you don't do it right whether you can even afford the operation and maintenance with the amount of revenue that we collect. In 1980, it has been talked that right now Chanhassen would have $2 million in indebtedness. Eden Prairie has or will have $12 million. They are in worse shape. If we go ahead with something like this when it's premature we are going to be in that same situation and I am sure that is of concern to the Council. One other thing and it may have been brought up by the engineer, I am not sure, is fire flow. Normally you want fire protection for industrial/commercial. Fire protection you are talking about 4,000 to 6,000 gallons per minute for a certain duration like a six or eight hour duration. That means a lot of storage, large booster pumps, large oversize mains. What we are saying is we hope there is a pr08ram for these capital improvements that does not include the residential people. This should go directly to the industrial and commercial because they are the ones that have the requirement for the fire demand, not the domestic user. We feel there will be a future direct impact to us. It's a selfish motive. Once this watermain gets down 101 it's going to be much easier for it to come further down 101 to the south and I don't believe there is any of us right now that feel that we need water or need water in the near future. We are concerned about that future assessment. Another item I have is this cooperation or communications which you mentioned you had a problem earlier. We really had a problem. We missed a couple of meetings. I don't know whose fault it was. The only meeting that any of the residents received direct notification was for the public hearing. For the special assessment hearing regarding the city improvements, I don't believe there was any personal notification to anyone although it was in the Herald. Many of us don't get the Herald. It isn't . Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -10- really the local newspaper. When we were at the Planning Commission meeting there was no mention of the next meeting, at least no one can recall this. I All that was mentioned is, in one week we had to have in our written comments because of this we all missed the Planning Commission meeting and we are very regretful of that. We found it somewhat difficult to obtain maps and copies of minutes so it was very difficult say for us to get out a written reply to certain items in a week. It was very difficult to obtain these materials. We want to make sure that when you consider this on. the 17th that you consider the long term affects of your decisions. We are looking at something in the Southda1e area that took 20 - 25 years to come about. We know that Animal Fair has impacting upon you. They want immediate decisions. Make sure, if you would, to consider the long term impact here. You are going to open up an area that shows phasing up there but that phasing won't work. That's a sham. You are running utilities all the way out to Animal Fair, sewer and water. County Road 17 is coming through. There is no phasing. That will open up everything. Right off with Animal Fair we are out of the phasing. There is really no phasing in our estimation. We want you to protect our quality of life. The letter from Harley and Shirley Robinson will be included in the April 17 agenda packet. I Mayor Hobbs - I don't think we can respond to each and everyone of your points tonight. The Carver County Herald is the official newspaper. While we may not all get it I think the $6.00 or $8.00 a year, you will know what's going on. In terms of the assessment type hearinfo, you weren't notified because you weren't being assessed. Bruce Pankonin - In addition to that, for a zoning issue we have to notify people within 350 feet. We went beyond the 350 feet and made an attempt to notify the people on the south shore of the lake. Mayor Hobbs - I guess just a question since you are here, I think we hear from allover the city that most people that have moved here would like to see it stay as it was when they moved. I moved ten years ago. I have got a lot of neighbors now that I didn't have ten years ago and they all want to be the last ones. If you didn't have something like this proposed on that property, what would you propose as an alternative other than leaving it vacantcif you owned it and I you were paying taxes on it? Jim Murphy - I think most of us aren't that opposed to the industrial use. It's the quality and then some are. Some would rather see residential. I personally would not. What they are really concerned about is the transition from industrial to what. Normally the Planner sees that a .. I I I Council Meeting April 3, 1978 -11- transition from industrial to high density residential to medium residential to low density and that's what we are concerned about. This is a point that everybody has spoken to me that I should have made. That's what we are very concerned over, what should'be the west side of the lake. What's going to happen. The industrial wouldn't be so bad if you control it and then if we are looking at single family over on the west side of the lake, not high density and it's a natural to have the industrial and then the high density. This is a problem. As we see immediately, there is going to be surface restrictions on the lake. With the industrial, I don1t see it that way personally. Industrial won't affect the lake whatsoever in terms of surface use. It will certainly affect it in terms of water quality and quantity but I am told that that won't change because we do have some members here too that are on the low end of the lake and are in the flood plain and they certainly don't want to change in the flood plain especially in the positive end of it. We have been told and anything I read as far as from the minutes and so on, it says the quality and the quantity will remain the same. Mayor Hobbs - I was just curious, if you had residential you would be looking at a 75 foot'setback from the flood plain level on possibly 100 foot lots. Bruce Pankonin - Those municipal shore1and management standards and also the Chanhassen shoreland management standards indicate the setback from the high water mark should be 75 feet. We, at the Planning Commission, recommended this no build line taking off where the plowed fiéld was and we thought it was about 200 feet, and then going to that 935 elevation whichever is greater which is considerably greater than our shore1and management standards of 75 feet. Jim Murphy - If you do grade into the slope it certainly is going to look inconsistent. There is no doubt about it. If you could stay away from the slope and the trees to the tillable area it would certainly blend in with the existing environment. Personally, I don't see that as such a big problem except yes, it puts that looped road in jeopardy. I guess I would like to put all those looped roads in jeopardy,and I think the size of the acreages should be larger and I understand from the notes from the Planning Commission that yes, the lots can be combined and you can go larger but if you commit yourself to building that looped road and putting those utilities in there you are commiting yourse1f·to a lot size. It's going to be very difficult for someone to combine on the north-south therefa.:cetlwith these utility assessments or the price of the utilities in its parcel. This is sort of, an issue in terms of whether it should be residential or industrial, I personally felt it should be industrial but you have got a lot of competition here too. You have got Jonathan. You have got Eden Prairie. Why can't we be somewhat of a bedroom community in a sense although I mentioned earlier I am not really for the residential.